The dialectical logic of couples making friends

I remember chatting with a close colleague several years ago about couples engaging in casual relationships. She was born in 1983, unmarried at the time, and a very individualistic and insightful woman—essentially a close friend. Regarding this, she supported Li Yinhe's viewpoint: that couples engaging in casual relationships fulfills human needs, is legal and reasonable, and is entirely a personal choice, or rather, a choice made by a small, marginalized group, causing no harm to others. Based on these reasons, she argued that there is no moral issue involved in couples engaging in casual relationships. So, what would I say in response to her viewpoint?
Therefore, I would like to raise a question: the fundamental principle of marriage is fidelity, and couples having friends violates the legal provisions of mutual fidelity and mutual respect. One-night stands and extramarital affairs are a desecration and harm to marriage.
As it turned out, my colleague said that couples engaging in casual sex doesn't violate fidelity, and it's different from one-night stands and extramarital affairs. One-night stands and extramarital affairs are based on deception and concealment. For example, while "extramarital affairs" literally means a romantic relationship, in reality it's just a process of cheating on someone and having sex (in extramarital relationships, men often prioritize sex, while women tend to prioritize feelings; this is an inevitable difference arising from gender and physiological/psychological differences). Couples engaging in casual sex, on the other hand, is a fair, transparent, and mutually voluntary adult activity. We must face human desires squarely; they exist, they are not mysterious at all, and couples engaging in casual sex is the most direct and effective way to avoid one-night stands and extramarital affairs.
Furthermore, a colleague raised an interesting point of view. She said that the development of social morality sometimes lags significantly behind, and the existence of casual relationships between spouses does indeed demonstrate a certain foresight. Just like homosexuality, which has always been rejected, more and more countries recognize it as legal, reasonable, and justifiable, and grant it rights through law. Rather than pretending to turn a blind eye, it's better to regulate and accept it normally.
A colleague expressed doubts about social morality, believing that social moral norms are a vague concept, and no one can clearly define what social morality is. Furthermore, she argued that no one can represent social morality, only themselves. What they don't understand at the moment isn't necessarily wrong or immoral. Everything arises from the existence of reasons, and reasons generate desires. Faced with a multitude of obvious social facts, we sincerely lament that truth often lies in the hands of a minority.
Being pragmatic does not mean avoiding factual issues to talk about an imaginary world, nor does it mean abandoning real-world problems to blindly rebuild society. Rather, it requires a practical spirit to discover problems in reality and do everything possible to improve it.
I must admit, her thinking is very rigorous, without any logical flaws. I really can't define what social moral norms are; it's a very vague concept. You might say respecting the elderly and caring for the young is a universally accepted social moral norm, but to what extent does it qualify as conforming to social moral standards? Moreover, there are so many special circumstances brought about by the new era that we simply cannot determine what social moral standards truly are.
Law is derived from established moral standards and then quantified into written provisions. I've always felt that in social development, morality comes first, then law. As society develops under the rule of law, those established moral standards are all codified into law, leaving behind only uncertain gray areas. The things in people's hearts cannot be entirely constrained by law, and moral standards are often so vague that there's truly no way to control them.
Therefore, I can only vaguely tentatively say that social morality is the understanding and perception of morality held by the majority of people in society, which is essentially a comprehensive indicator of the conscience of the majority of people in society. Undoubtedly, marital friendships violate this indicator, so it is perfectly normal for them to be rejected by the public. Furthermore, even if marital friendships do not violate fidelity, they still harm the love, or rather, the feelings, between the two people in the marriage. This is because it is very difficult for two people who love each other to accept that their partner has sexual relations with one or more other people.
Guess what my colleague said?
She said, "You're so unrealistic! Do you think modern marriage is based on love, or what you call affection? In today's society, how many marriages are based on perfect love and rich emotions? Most are just impulsive acts driven by initial passion, or even worse, treating passion as love and affection as a game. The reason most marriages last is because of the responsibilities, habits, property, children... that come with it. A little bit of shared values and intimacy already makes for a pretty good couple. As for passion, it's probably long gone."
Even if you're right that couples engaging in casual relationships can cause emotional harm, most marriages already lack love or the initial passion has simply vanished, so what harm could it possibly cause? On the contrary, casual relationships can actually resolve many inherent conflicts between couples, satisfy undeniable normal physiological needs, and fill the void of passion within the marriage. This can better maintain the marital relationship and help both partners fulfill their responsibilities—it's as simple as sightseeing in an unfamiliar city and experiencing something new. If there were no extramarital affairs or one-night stands, but instead open and honest casual relationships between couples, many couples could grow old together happily. Because those dull marriages destroyed by fleeting desires will gradually become impenetrable and rejuvenated under the protection and nourishment of casual relationships…
Hearing this, all I can say is, sigh...
My colleague continued, "Morality is a code of conduct, and also a standard for measuring good and evil, beauty and ugliness. When there are too many uncertainties in this standard, it's difficult to use it to measure people's behavior and hearts. You said earlier that morality is a comprehensive indicator of the conscience of most people in society, but when the conscience of most people in society has been eaten by dogs, then the question of morality becomes irrelevant..."
Conversely, if most people could clearly recognize that the foundation of marriage is genuine love characterized by mutual trust, stability, reliability, and acceptance (otherwise it would be a marriage in name only), then couples engaging in casual relationships would be perfectly acceptable, reasonable, legal, and necessary. Imagine if we happily and openly engaged in casual relationships—there would be no third-party interference, no checking phone records, no catching someone cheating, no suspicion, no secretive behavior; no heartbreak or compromise due to one-night stands or extramarital affairs, no divorce proceedings, no division of assets; couples could enjoy casual relationships like a vacation, and when not engaging in casual relationships, they could cherish each other and love their children—how wonderful, how natural, beautiful, and alluring…?
In conclusion, I would like to say that couples engaging in casual sex is actually based on the integrity of "being rooted in family and facing passion" to implement an open married life of "unique love within marriage and freedom of sex outside marriage". For this, we who are "loyal to love and honest in sex" can obviously make bold assumptions, carefully verify them, and personally practice and enjoy the wonderful experience. Why not?
My colleague nodded repeatedly after hearing this, saying, "Yes! That makes sense."
What do you all think?

URL 1:http://localhost:909/htmlBlog/1418.html

URL 2:/Blog.aspx?id=1418&aspx=1

Previous Page : Shanghai quality single men

Next Page : Successfully had a threesome with my brother's wife (2)

增加

comment Open a new window to view comments

Contact Information

The dialectical logic of couples making friends

comment Open a new window to view comments