They mean biznes, bish!
O nome do sáite é AskPhilosophers.org, e é isso mesmo que tu tá pensando.
É a coisa mais engraçada que eu vi em semanas. Tá, tem perguntas sérias. Grande parte é séria. O sáite se leva à sério. Mas, é muito engraçado.
Oi, tu tem um problema? Quem não tem! Pergunte prum filósofo e torne tua vida quinze vezes pior!
Um exemplo, é claro que eu tenho um exemplo!
Hello, I hope you bear with my question despite its Jerry Springer-like context. My boyfriend tells me he has occasional sex with other women in a way that “doesn’t change anything between us.” We’re in a long-distance relationship that is also new, and so far he has demonstrated his loyalty to me whenever another woman advances a claim on him in my presence. I find it impossible to find a rational objection to his having sex with others in such a situation because in substance, if not form, fidelity seems to be present. Yet I am bothered tremendously by his having sex with others. Though promiscuity while being in a relationship is an old and frequently arising issue, in my experience people increasingly seek to deal with it through “full disclosure” that is supposed to enable us to grant or withdraw consent to such an arrangement. The merits of such an approach are realism and honesty, and my particular situation seems to be the scenario in which consent cannot be rationally denied. So how can I make sense of my unwillingness nevertheless?
December 6, 2007
Response from Louise Antony on December 6, 2007
Human sexuality is complex and unpredictable. In particular, it’s hard to know what effect the initiation of a sexual relationship is going to have on a person’s emotional connections — to the new sexual partner, or to others. Some people seem capable of having casual sexual relationships without forming any lasting romantic attachments, while other people seem incapable of forming a sexual relationship unless they have some antecedent emotional connection with the prospective partner. Some people feel that the physical intimacy inherent in sexual congress is necessarily self-revelatory and thus intimate in non-physical ways as well; others feel that the physical intimacy of sex need be no more personally “meaningful” than that inherent in a good massage. I don’t see that any of these reactions or attitudes is more “ethical” than any other — they are matters on which reasonable people are probably always going to differ.
Given all that, I think it’s up to individuals to reach agreement with their partners or prospective partners about things like fidelity. I don’t see that the expectation of sexual fidelity is any less “rational” than is license to total promiscuity, so I see no standing for one partner to insist that another is being unreasonable for taking one or the other view. The only ethical issue here is whether it’s OK for one person in a relationship to summarily dismiss concerns that the other (or, for that matter, others) present as serious. It’s just as bad to issue ultimatums: “Let me sleep around or I’ll leave you”. Someone who actually cares for another person will want to take their feelings into account, even if they think those feelings are inappropriate. And, as I said at the beginning, sex is just too complicated for human beings for anyone to think that there’s no legitimate reason for someone to want or expect fidelity in a sexual relationship.
And let’s get another thing straight: being truthful about doing X does not automatically make it OK to do X. Granted that deceiving a partner about having a sexual affair might be very bad; that doesn’t mean that telling your partner about it makes it all right.
Ganhei meu dia!
Por sinal, tem gente do esquadrão “A” da filosofia norte-americana participando, verifiquem lá!