Topic: psychological aspect of human behaviour related to sex (Read 207 times)

Culture and environmental influences can be the main causes of such mindsets specially on childhood years to adulthood. This due to some cultures being so engrossed on biblical morals and all while others are not which lead to a wide variety of views from different perspectives. What's funny about this though is that if the situations between the ex girlfriend and the friend that was supposedly the traitor were reversed, the traitor would actually be labelling the ex girlfriend a traitor as well since they are in the same environment and have the same culture for years which may also affect the judgement of the friend who betrayed her friend if their situations were reversed. Either way, poor Frank. 🤣

I understand what do you mean. The problem is that reality is not so simple as you wrote: Alice is bad because she was cheating Frank, Mary is bad because she betrayed Alice and Frank is bad because... Because of what?

We were discussing this with Cnut237. There is nothing like objective good and bad. It is just subjective point of view. Thing that can be considered as cheating or betrayal by someone is totally fine for someone else. Who should tell what is and what is not OK?

Everyone has boundaries for their various relationships. Ideally, you should communicate these boundaries with those you are in various relationship types with, so the other person knows what is and is not acceptable to you. If you set boundaries and your relationship partner violates these boundaries, you should not be surprised when they are upset.

if your boundaries are not something your relationship partner finds reasonable, or are what your relationship partner finds illogical and/or unfair, your relationship partner can discuss these concerns with you, and you can decide if you want the boundaries adjusted.  

This scenario is a good example of many people violating boundaries. Unfortunately, IRL, it is very common for people to disrespect boundaries. I am not sure why this is so common. I guess some people are just assholes.

This won't happen to all but I do agree that some might experience this. Even if this story is true or not it is still a lesson learned for everyone. Alice shouldn't have destroyed the relationship with her best friend since alice and frank are no more and Alice didn't even support marry as marry supported her of her cheating.

Remember 'What goes around, comes around' it's not just a phrase but a harsh reality of life. A betrayal relationship doesn't ever last long.
We can't expect happiness by cheating someone. You cannot ever reach a level of mental satisfaction by cheating someone.
Remember if you ever do something bad or betray someone you would have to face the same in the future.

It's partly the rules of the society as defined by the people in charge. A good example of this might be right and wrong as defined by a religion (religions simply being mechanisms of social control). Something might be 'right' simply because it is more conducive to harmony in a society comprising many individuals, or it might be deliberate behaviour-modification with the establishment of negative consequences for those who transgress.

Really it's a complex subject with no single clear answer. You can go back much further, and consider a default right and wrong as being partly something innate, distilled over millions of years... we might consider evolutionary selection pressures in favour of reciprocal altruism as an example in this case.

And on top of this, there is undirected drift, through changes in culture, homosexuality as an example again here, which in many societies is considered very differently by younger people today than it was even 20 or 30 years ago.

The word 'partly' is key here. There's no single answer.

This thread might benefit from input from some other people, too.

We are getting very close to basic question I am thinking about: Where did that default right and wrong come from? What do you think is the basic of this crowd view?


Nice. I understand. But Mary is not obligated to do psychology stuff for Alice, so it is not a reason to be angry to Mary if Alice started to thing that she cannot have opened conversations about Frank.

Merited purely for the vivid descriptions.  

psychology is simple
its the thought of if the friend is banging her ex now. then her friend might/must have wanted to before the divorce and so thoughts of betrayal that the friend might/must have cheated with him whilst first marriage was going on. or that the female friend may have been less loyal to alice in the first place and just wanted some frank meat between her legs all along. pretending to be friend with alice just to get reasons to be near frank

yes it might not be the case. but thats not the point its what alice might be thinking could have happened

the other aspect is things like. alice the now ex wife cant have open conversations with mary about the divorce and complications of the first marriage because mary is now getting pounded by the very guy alice has negative thoughts about. so from a therapy stand point. alice cant openly vent her frustrations about frank to the woman now yearning for franks genitals. so its a loss of trust and companionship

its just basic psychology. no one wants to talk to a person knowing what they may say might get back to the other party they are talking about. no one likes to open up about someone where the person you are talking to might be biased towards the person your talking about.

its a trust and loyalty thing.

It's not entirely individual, no. I think I started by saying there is a 'default' right and wrong which is whatever is defined that way by the conventions of the society. A personal right and wrong may differ from the default. There is huge pressure to conform, so in many instances the personal ideas of right and wrong may be suppressed in favour of going along with the crowd view in order to fit in.
We could consider homosexuality as an example. Over the course of the last fifty years, in many societies, the default (and legal) definition has migrated from being 'wrong' to 'right'. And obviously many people have suppressed their homosexuality, which they believe to be 'right', because society in general, or their peer group specifically, believed (or still believe) it to be 'wrong'.

Funny you started to talk about this. Two different opinions, but I hope that respect or at least tolerance for other's action are on both sides... But it is off topic here.


Of course. But here I would like to go back to my original questions - I am observing some level of dogmatic view to matters related to sex across whole society. So maybe it is not so individual as it can be seemed?

People do it all the time; you only have to look at some of the anti-vaxxer threads on here to see people starting from an emotion-derived conclusion and then attempting to prop it up with logic. But it's not just them, of course, I'm sure we all do this sometimes, to some extent.



There's no single answer, because the root cause will differ from person to person. You'd have to unpack someone's whole identity to understand why they feel a certain way about something.

Yes, I understand and agree with principle that good and bad are terms we use to describe our subjective point of view. And this point of view may be based on our actual emotions only. What I consider as pathological is the human need to force own opinion to others. It may looks OK, because it is totally natural to assert yourself at the detriment of others, but I am not sure if it is OK to do it by force without using rational arguments.

You were talking about Alices's pre-established conclusion coming from emotional position that Mary's actions are wrong. Where does this specific conclusion come from? What is the origin of such a judgement?

I think the underlying cause is that wherever you have a group of people interacting with each other (even when this is only two people), you have a situation where each participant in the interaction wants different things. The outcomes that you as an individual want are 'right', and those you don't want are 'wrong'. Your own 'right' and 'wrong' will differ from other people's 'right' and 'wrong'.

In this situation, for Alice, the idea of Frank being with Marry is 'wrong'. It doesn't really matter what in her mind the 'right' outcome is, whether she would like to be with Peter but also stay with Frank at the same time, or whether she doesn't want anyone to be with Frank, or whether she just doesn't want her friend to be with him. It's enough for Alice that Frank being with Marry is 'wrong'. She has not reached this definition of 'wrong' through any logical reasoning, it's simply an emotional position. What she then does is to try to seek any reason she can find that might support this conclusion. She then decides that Marry's action is not compatible with the rules of friendship... because this is a reason that supports her desired conclusion, that Marry+Frank=wrong. Alice's reasoning is superficial and inauthentic. Her 'reason' for Marry's action being bad is not a reason at all, it's simply a mental prop to support a pre-established conclusion. It happens all the time. Consider for example the painful logical contortions that creationists will go through in order to deny the truth of evolution through natural selection.

Very nice said. Alice's behaviour is selfish and she is trying to force others to accept her subjective point of view (in whatever cost). Why does humans behave like this? I am sure that this kind of behaviour is quite common as you said, but I am consider it as a little bit... pathological. Alice definitelly would not like if others will behave the same to her, so in the end, this behaviour cannot bring her anything positive. What do you think?

There's no objective right or wrong here (at least initially), there is just social convention, which we might call the 'default' right and wrong, and then the personal right and wrong as defined by each individual, and the conventions of each relationship Alice/Frank, Alice/Marry, Frank/Marry etc, as agreed (whether implicitly or not) by the two participants in each individual relationship.
Social convention generally is that Alice is wrong, but Marry's actions are fine. Individual right and wrong vary by individual, but it is often the case that people are selfish and want everything their own way... and they then use this feeling to attempt to redefine right and wrong. Stupid and insincere, but happens all the time... and most of us are susceptible to this to at least some extent.

Simply in this situation I would suspect that Alice just doesn't like Marry being with Frank, and is attempting to redefine what right and wrong mean in order to justify her position... in which case Alice is objectively wrong, because she is changing the terms to suit her preference. Everything else is subjective.

Maybe because she feels now like the bad guy in this story. When she cheated on Frank, Mary positioned in his favour, but now the relationship has turned around and she is in minority. But this is just theory. Just my two cents.

That is really good idea. But why should Alice care? It is few years since she divorced with Frank.

I suppose that Alice doesn't like the current situation because, when she cheated on Frank, Mary was her "accomplice" somehow; and now that Mary is having sex with the "victim", Alice is taking it as a betrayal.

Because being friends with Frank is one think, but the fact of Mary having having sex with him leads them to a new level of intimacy that surpasses the initial relation's between the two women.

In this life, there are many twists. for situations that seem as complicated as these, i believe that we can meet our soulmates through another person. In your story as you highlighted, Alice has moved on with Peter, if they are divorced, i believe he can have sex with whomever without remorse.