Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 10:21:13
In reply to Re: deep breaths everybody..., posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 1:24:10
It's pretty much a philosophical discussion for me, Alex. Which is one reason I moved it away from the other thread. I don't think philosophical discussions should start out as a personal post. But I suppose I should have moved it to relationships. Even I get confused. :)
It's based on two premises. One is that a marriage (or any other committed relationship) is based on a covenant between two people (or three, or seven, or whatever). And that it is reasonable for both (or all) parties of that covenant to believe that, as a minimum, it includes an implied promise to quit dating others. And that if that covenant is to be altered to include having sex with others, it should be amended fairly explicitly so that a new covenant is made (or the original covenant is understood if it was that way from the beginning).
The second premise is that a committed relationship usually comes along with an agreement that it is no longer necessary to have "safe sex". And so it is only fair to both parties to know where the penis that is entering them, or the vagina they are entering, has been. So that both parties can affirmatively assent to the level of risk they have the opportunity to relatively accurately assess.
And I suppose there is a third premise in there as well. That although the main responsibility for a covenant is between the covenantal parties, it is in the best interests of society as a whole if people outside the covenantal relationship have some respect for it and both parties concerned. Which is true in business law too.
Can't get much more cerebral than that.