But, if two people love one another, however they might express that love and organize their lives together, disapproval from you based on a generalization about what you think love is, or even more particularly, based on what you think love is for you, in other words what you call love or think about love will be irrelevant to them. — John

It's not about what I think love is, it's about what idea of love stands to scrutiny. Loving someone and doing whatever makes them feel comfortable doesn't stand to scrutiny. For example, if they should get a surgery, but they are so afraid of surgeries that they prefer to die rather than get the surgery, then it is not love to agree with them and let them go the way which makes them feel most comfortable.

I disagree entirely about jealousy. It is a negative emotion that everyone would be better off not experiencing, if that were possible. The issue has nothing to do with whether it is justified or not; jealousy has no need of justification, to speak of justification is a category error, the point is whether or not jealousy is felt and what one does with the feelings; whether one submits to them or not. — John

Like all other human emotions, every emotion has a purpose. It's like claiming fear is bad. No - not all fear is bad. Some fear is bad, when it arises in circumstances in which it shouldn't, or when it impedes one from acting in a beneficial way. Likewise for jealousy. Now - I haven't said that if jealousy arises in an objectively valid situation - one in which you should feel jealous - then you should keep yourself glued to that jealousy. Absolutely not - in fact you should do things which will remove that feeling of jealousy. In the example with the mansion I gave - something I could do that would remove that feeling of jealousy is turn you in to the police for stealing my money. Then I would have done all that I could have done to render justice. If for whatever reason the police fails afterwards to bring you to justice, then obviously there's no point in me feeling jealous. It doesn't help me or motivate me to do anything useful or good. All that it would do is make me feel angry. So in that case one should eliminate the emotion - by understanding that it doesn't play a useful role anymore.

You keep speaking of adultery as "intentional harm". This is wrong because it ignores a distinction between deliberate malicious harm, and harm which may be able to be anticipated, but which one would certainly not wish to inflict, but which one may in any case inflict due to failure to avoid the action that causes the harm. — John

This is a distinction without practical ramifications - and thus a false one. If one doesn't wish to inflict that harm, then one would not do the action, regardless of other benefits. Very simple. The truth is if one does the action, then one wishes to inflict that pain provided that X Y Z rewards to the action exist. People's desires cannot be separated from the way they act. This post-fact rationalisation that people engage in - oh I didn't really want to do that, etc. - that's just self-deception because they want to maintain a good image of themselves, in their own eyes.

I think we are going to have to rest content with mutual disagreement. — John

Very well.

The legal trend, as I understand it, is to provide less alimony to divorcing spouses. This trend is the result of women being largely equals in the workforce and just as capable of men for self support. While it's always been the case that either spouse could get alimony, it has most often been for the woman. This traditional rule wasn't a bad one, considering a woman would be basically trapped in a marriage if she weren't working, had stayed home to raise the kids, and would basically be broke if she left.

Georgia's rule (where I live), which eliminates the right to alimony where a spouse has committed adultery, is not based upon progressive principles of egalitarianism, but the rule is instead rooted in strict morality. It's largely punitive, stating that if the woman wants to cheat, she's on her own to figure out her own finances. I'm not saying it's necessarily unfair, but it is punitive because it looks neither to her financial needs nor the husband's ability to pay.

My own view is that I can't really see generally where the division of marital property should be affected by adultery, nor do I think that child custody should necessarily be affected by it. Only if some nexus can be shown between the adultery and the reason for the court's decision should it matter. For example, if you could should that your wife spent large sums of money traveling with her lover, then you should get more of the marital assets because she has already used some of them inappropriately. I don't think though that you should just be able to get her car just because she's a cheater. I also think that if you can show her parenting skills are suspect based upon something that arose out of the adultery (like she left the kids unattended to screw the pool boy), then custody issues could be affected, but there needs to be that sort of evidence. The question of custody is always what's in the best interests of the child, as opposed to using the child as a means to punish one of the parties for misconduct.

In the final analysis, there's no legislation that can be passed to make people honest, to love their significant others, or to be better people. Legislating goodness never works.

In the final analysis, there's no legislation that can be passed to make people honest, to love their significant others, or to be better people. Legislating goodness never works. — Hanover

Indeed. Legislation is just for discouraging actions which harm others. Not in order to ensure goodness - goodness isn't the absence of harm, but something positive in its own right.

The legal trend, as I understand it, is to provide less alimony to divorcing spouses. — Hanover

This seems like a very good law in most cases.

Georgia's rule (where I live), which eliminates the right to alimony where a spouse has committed adultery, is not based upon progressive principles of egalitarianism, but the rule is instead rooted in strict morality. It's largely punitive, stating that if the woman wants to cheat, she's on her own to figure out her own finances. I'm not saying it's necessarily unfair, but it is punitive because it looks neither to her financial needs nor the husband's ability to pay. — Hanover

Why just a woman? Why doesn't it apply to a man committing adultery as well? Or does it, but it most often ends up being women who would be accorded? The law should apply uniformly.

My own view is that I can't really see generally where the division of marital property should be affected by adultery, nor do I think that child custody should necessarily be affected by it. — Hanover

Well clearly adultery is a very important criteria which must be taken into consideration especially for child custody. The child should not remain with an immoral parent. Are you telling me you think that shouldn't play a role in deciding who the child remains with - the moral capacity of the parent to provide a good, moral education to the child? That is of foremost importance. But I agree that adultery is not the only factor included there, but it certainly is one of them. Second the property should be so divided such that the parent who has custody is given a larger share of the martial property or alimony in order to be able to care for the child. Obviously this should not be exaggerated. Say the husband owns 50 million USD, and his wife is a stay at home mother, and he cheats on her. Obviously in such a case the wife should be provided with sufficient to take care of the children - say 5 million USD with no future payments as this is more than enough. But if the husband is a poor guy, then he would still need to support the wife throughout.

Furthermore the point of the law is precisely to punish as well as to repair damage which can be repaired. If you steal my car and you get caught, you don't just give it back to me, you go to jail - or in some places you can agree to settle it with me for sufficient sum of money (and my car on top). So same in the case of adultery - perhaps the punishment should be financially harsh on the adulterer. This is not about legislating goodness - because again, just because the husband or wife in question don't commit adultery doesn't mean they are good to each other. They could very well be very mean and nasty to each other. But there's a lawful way to exist such a partnership - divorce - which does not involve harming each other through adultery. So the punishment would be precisely to discourage existing a partnership through adultery (which can be very harmful), and instead encouraging divorce.

It's not clear to me, unless by 'less people' you set the bar as low as 'at least one person will not do it that otherwise would' — andrewk

I have provided a few studies which seemed to conclude so.

As has already been pointed out, punishments exist already in the form of social disapproval and guilt. — andrewk

As I have said before I disagree - this isn't true. We live in a culture which is highly tolerant - even encouraging of adultery. They call it open-mindedness, sexual liberation, and so forth. If we had lived in a culture in which there was strong social disapproval and guilt over adultery, then I would agree no law would even be in the question. But fact of the matter is adultery rates are growing - we have to do something about them. It seems our culture isn't capable to deal with it anymore.

The onus is on you to show that a legal punishment would significantly increase the number of people managing to overcome their temptations — andrewk

The purpose of punishment is not for people to overcome their temptations. Punishment does not seek to make people moral - and this is very important. It seeks to discourage an activity which is harmful to others and to the rest of society. There's always divorce if partners want to separate in order to be with someone else. That's the lawful way to do it. If X divorced Y in order to have sex with, marry, or live with Z there would be no problem from a legal point of view.

- the costs to society of detecting, arresting, trying, convicting and punishing those convicted under the law
- the inevitable occurrence of erroneous convictions — andrewk

I agree.

- displacement effects, whereby a reduction in the proscribed activity causes an increase in another, more harmful activity. An easily foreseeable one here is an increase in spousal rape in the case of partners with highly mismatched sexual appetites. — andrewk

I don't think this would be a problem. If it is a problem, then we already have it, since our society is failing to minimise cases of mismatched sexual appetites.

- providing a breeding ground for organised crime. We only need consider the Prohibition era and the impact of the US's puritanical 'war on drugs' to see how criminalisation of activities generates a boom in organised crime that has a much bigger harmful impact than the problem they were intended to solve. — andrewk

Maybe - but it's different than in the case of objects. Drugs, alcohol, etc. are objects. Adultery is an action requiring two.

- forcing those that do the proscribed activity to take risks they otherwise would not take, at risk to themselves and others. A good example of this is how the criminalisation of drugs makes taking small recreational amounts of drugs much more risky because one cannot know whence they came or have a reliable way of knowing they are unadulterated and of a known concentration. — andrewk

Well this is precisely the point - making it difficult for someone to do what is against the law.

I agree with you, as would many on here I imagine, that adultery is often harmful and immoral, and best discouraged.

So is calling somebody an idiot. — andrewk

Very different degrees of harm here.

But most harmful and immoral things are not illegal, because making something the subject of criminal law has huge costs and consequences. These things need to be weighed up with enormous care and diligence. To just say 'This law will discourage that harmful activity and clearly there are no downsides' is naive and dangerous in the extreme. It reveals a complete failure to understand the complexity and importance of the development of public policy — andrewk

Yes you are correct here, and this is perhaps the stronger point you raise.

It seems to me that the arguments you have made in favour of criminalising adultery, or analogs thereof, can be applied just as easily to the harm of calling someone an idiot. Would you then also support the criminalisation of that activity? — andrewk

The harm of calling someone an idiot is small. It's not breaking a life-long agreement or deal. It's not exciting as many dangerous passions as adultery is. It's not likely to affect other parties except the two people involved. Adultery is something that affects marriage - which is a long-term agreement, which entails its own expectations, and involves other third parties - the families and the children. The two are not comparable. As I said, adultery is quite possibly worse than theft - depending of course how you steal, who you steal from, what you steal, etc. (I could see situations where theft is worse than adultery - but I'm talking generally)

Why just a woman? Why doesn't it apply to a man committing adultery as well? Or does it, but it most often ends up being women who would be accorded? The law should apply uniformly. — Agustino

It applies equally to men and women.

But I agree that adultery is not the only factor included there, but it certainly is one of them. — Agustino

The question is what is in the best interests of the child period. To the extent the cheating parent's ability to best provide for the child's welfare is truly impeded by his adultery, I'd agree it should be considered. I would be opposed, however, to moralizing for its own sake, as if we think we've accomplished something to re-declare adultery bad. That is, if cheating mom is the better parent all things considered, I wouldn't concern myself too terribly with her infidelity to dad.

Second the property should be so divided such that the parent who has custody is given a larger share of the martial property or alimony in order to be able to care for the child. — Agustino

Georgia law, and I suspect most, simply state that the assets and liabilities be divided equitably, which means fairly, not equally. All that means is that we must trust our judges to have the wisdom to figure out what is fair and not. I'm not objecting to your considerations, and think that every case would have its own peculiarities to be considered.

Furthermore the point of the law is precisely to punish as well as to repair damage which can be repaired. If you steal my car and you get caught, you don't just give it back to me, you go to jail - or in some places you can agree to settle it with me for sufficient sum of money (and my car on top). So same in the case of adultery - perhaps the punishment should be financially harsh on the adulterer. — Agustino

The purpose of civil law isn't to punish, except in the unusual instance where punitive damages are sought, but that concept doesn't exist in a divorce proceeding. Punishment is a criminal concept, and, to the extent anyone still cares, adultery is on the books as a criminal act in many states to this day. I doubt you're going to find any actual prosecutions for it, though because most don't consider it a matter for the state's interest.

That is, if cheating mom is the better parent all things considered, I wouldn't concern myself too terribly with her infidelity to dad. — Hanover

But do you recognize that her immorality is one of the factors to consider when making such a decision? Of course it's not the only one, maybe the father is a dangerous drunk for example, or a thief, etc. in which case obviously the cheating mother should get the children. Or even more - nothing wrong morally with the father, but he's an invalid and can't take care of the children - obviously the mother should still take the children - even though it is very unfair to the father, and I would expect some financial compensation from the mother for that.

Punishment is a criminal concept, and, to the extent anyone still cares, adultery is on the books as a criminal act in many states to this day. — Hanover

Well most legal codes have taken a very dim view of it all things considered. Anyway - in my mind it can be potentially very harmful and could very well be in need of punishment. You know that adultery rates are growing. From 10% up to 50% in the last 50 years - that's a problem, and we as a society need to do something about it.

I doubt you're going to find any actual prosecutions for it, though because most don't consider it a matter for the state's interest. — Hanover

If the state has a duty to protect citizens from serious, long-lasting harm, which is irreperable and can have strong consequences in the life of either of the spouses (or their children, or their families) - then it certainly is of the interest of the state, especially if it becomes a widespread problem as now - regardless of the liberal progressives who dogmatically claim the state should have nothing to do with it.

Once the cause is discovered, it will become crystal clear that it's not friends in themselves that they dislike — Agustino

There's no way that you can know this. And yes they could be deviant relative to the norm.

Yes but what do you give up in order to have this?

Well, monogamy for one. ;-)

is it worth giving up the feeling of belonging completely to someone with your whole being

I'd say that's worth giving up. People are not property to other people. And otherwise, it's just restating that a relationship isn't monogamous.

is it worth giving up the development of exclusive intimacy with someone?

Exclusive intimacy, yes, definitely. Again, that's basically just noting that it's not a monogamous relationship. By being monogamous, by the way, you're giving up the development of intimacy with multiple persons.

Is it worth giving up the specialness associated with monogamous love?

Likewise, we can say, "Is monogamy worth giving up the specialness associated with polyamory?"

it is simply about what is good for a human being

There's no such thing outside of particular humans' opinions about that.

By being monogamous, by the way, you're giving up the development of intimacy with multiple persons. — Terrapin Station

This assumes this sort of intimacy can be developed with multiple people at the same time or one after another. I disagree. The breaks that occur from one partner to the other stops this intimacy from ever gaining real and developing depth. I have no qualms with your choice, but you should at least be aware what you're giving up. This isn't a match "I'm giving up more than you" etc. It's just looking at the facts honestly.

Likewise, we can say, "Is monogamy worth giving up the specialness associated with polyamory?" — Terrapin Station

Polyamory doesn't have specialness - it has quantity. This is the quantity vs quality fight.

The breaks that occur from one partner to the other stops this intimacy from ever gaining real and developing depth. — Agustino

What would you be basing this on, though? What empirical evidence?

Polyamory doesn't have specialness - it has quantity. This is the quantity vs quality fight. — Agustino

Again, what are you basing that on? I don't at all agree that quantity means a lack of quality here.

What would you be basing this on, though? What empirical evidence? — Terrapin Station

Based on the simple fact that less time with someone, and less focus on someone, will result in less familiarity and intimacy. Intimacy takes time to develop. That is obvious - if you refuse to accept something that is simply obvious then what I will tell you is be more attentive to your own experiences... We don't need no scientific study to show us this - we already know it.

This may be a factor; but it also depends on how open you and the other are. If two people are very open, intimacy my be established extremely quickly; and I know this from experience.

Also if people are truly secure in themselves they will not be threatened by, and thus will not become jealous about, the other's intimacy with others. Really the wider spread intimacy can become the better it will be for society.

If you genuinely believe the difference between beating your partner and committing adultery "has no practical ramifications" then I have little confidence that anything I say will make be heard.

If you genuinely believe the difference between beating your partner and committing adultery "has no practical ramifications" then I have little confidence that anything I say will make be heard. — John

This is an outright lie. Cite where I have said that "the difference between beating your partner and committing adultery 'has no practical ramifications'"

Also if people are truly secure in themselves they will not be threatened by, and thus will not become jealous about, the other's intimacy with others. Really the wider spread intimacy can become the better it will be for society. — John

Again - nothing about being threatened here. Your words betray a liberal progressive ideology, regardless of your protests to the contrary. Jealousy is not a reaction to feeling threatened. That's not what jealousy is. When people feel threatened they react by anger or by fear (fight or flight) - not by jealousy. Jealousy is a reaction to perceived injustice regarding oneself (as opposed to a reaction to perceived injustice regarding other people). Because it is PERCEIVED injustice, I can have a problem with my judgement and perceive an injustice where there is none - or I can accurately see to the core of a situation. What is rightfully mine is taken away. The exclusivity of my marriage and relationship - which was rightfully mine - is taken away - hence I would feel jealous. This is an entirely normal reaction - in fact something would be wrong with my sense of justice if I didn't react so.

I'm not claiming that it's impossible to feel happy about your partner enjoying themselves physically with another person. Just the same way I'm not claiming that you can't laugh upon hearing news of one of your parents' death for example. Only that such reactions would be unnatural and harmful - they would underline a repression of your own nature - because you are afraid of the pain that feeling your jealousy or sadness in the case of the parents' example would imply. I've talked with a few psychologists about this - it's a very real phenomenon in modern societies. We condemn emotions like jealousy, because we're afraid of having the plague us. But jealousy, like all other emotions, has its usefulness in guiding us to reach the optimal state of well-being. Modern ideologues adopt laughter - or flippancy - when discussing moral matters such as adultery. They turn them into some laughing matter, into some joke. Why? Because they want to run away from the potential negative emotions that they would perceive if they were patient and open to the experience.

If using money that you have stolen from me you buy yourself a big mansion and I feel jealous - then that feeling of jealousy is objectively justified, because you have acquired something for yourself in an unjust way. — Agustino

Like all other human emotions, every emotion has a purpose. It's like claiming fear is bad. No - not all fear is bad. Some fear is bad, when it arises in circumstances in which it shouldn't, or when it impedes one from acting in a beneficial way. Likewise for jealousy. — Agustino

You keep talking about emotions "being justified'; this is a category error emotions cannot be justified or unjustified; it is thoughts and actions that may be justified or unjustified. If someone stales from you you would angry, not jealous, in any case. I agree that emotions such as anger and fear be useful. If one felt not fear, one might become reckless. for example, But even there the emotion should be well-tempered such that it has no hold over you, but merely informs your action in a positive way. I can see that anger might play such a role in some circumstances. But I fail to see any positive role for jealousy, which si not a pure emotion like fear and anger, but comes form the unhealthy habit of comparing yourself or your circumstances to others' own. One does not need that emotion to , for example be able to clearly see social injustices. jealousy is a very personally focused emotion that constricts the being; whereas as fear and anger are not necessarily like that at all. Once again, you are falling into an error of generalization in claiming that emotions, simply by virtue of being emotions, may all be understood in analogous ways.

You keep talking about emotions "being justified'; this is a category error emotions cannot be justified or unjustified; — John

Regardless of what you say - you're not justified to laugh if you hear from a credible source that your father has died for example. So emotions are - in practice - justified or unjustified.

But I fail to see any positive role for jealousy, which si not a pure emotion like fear and anger, but comes form the unhealthy habit of comparing yourself or your circumstances to others' own. — John

No - read what I wrote. Jealousy is a perceived injustice with regard to the self brought about on the self by another, as opposed to with regard to others.

But I fail to see any positive role for jealousy — John

Thanks for recognising! :D

And to reduce you to absurdity - if jealousy was useless, and there was nothing good in it, then Nature would have never placed such an emotion in man's heart. It's there because it is useful. That's the clearest proof of it.

Jealousy is a reaction to perceived injustice regarding oneself (as opposed to a reaction to perceived injustice regarding other people). — Agustino

That just is feeling threatened. When you perceive injustice in regard to others and feel rightly angry about it, the focus is not on self, and not on any threat to self. With jealousy the focus is most definitely on self, and the threat to self. You don't need jealousy to see any injustice, whether to self or others, and become angry about on the basis of principle, then the anger is the same if it is someone else being unjustly done by. So, jealousy is useless, unnecessary and self-focusing in an unhealthy way, pure and simple.

That just is feeling threatened. When you perceive injustice in regard to others and feel rightly angry about it, the focus is not on self, and not on any threat to self. With jealousy the focus is most definitely on self, and the threat to self. You don't need jealousy to see any injustice, whether to self or others, and become angry about on the basis of principle, then the anger is the same if it is someone else being unjustly done by. So, jealousy is useless, unnecessary and self-focusing in an unhealthy way, pure and simple. — John

Jealousy is what you feel when you perceive an injustice with regards to self. Anger is what you feel when you perceive an injustice with regards to others. Jealousy is just anger due to an injustice that happened to oneself. When you're jealous you're angry and upset, and seek to take back what was rightfully yours. Maybe to clarify even more - jealousy occurs when someone else unlawfully and unjustly uses something that belongs rightfully to you in order to extract some benefit for themselves, and prevents you from using it.

f someone stales from you you would angry, not jealous, in any case. I agree that emotions such as anger and fear be useful. — John

Yes I feel angry if I see him steal it. But if later I see him using it and extracting happiness out of it (happiness which I should have extracted and not them to be clear) then I will feel jealous.

Your are reducing yourself to absurdity, no one else. When you have no argument you resort to insult; I had hoped we had gotten past that.

What is your argument for claiming that all emotions must be useful. Is the desire to have sex with people other than your partner useful according to you?

Is the desire to have sex with people other than your partner useful according to you? — John

There is no such desire. There is a desire for sex okay? Now that desire can be channeled through a moral path or through an immoral one. What does a moral one mean? One which is in accord with both one's spiritual and one's physical nature - which brings harmony amongst those two. If we were merely animals, then shagging everyone you saw wouldn't be a problem. It's a problem precisely because we have spiritual desires - such as the desire for intimacy. A moral way of being is one which reconciles the desire for intimacy with the desire for sex - and fulfils both.

I can only be quick because I have to go out, but there is the "ownership" inherent within you postion. In someone sleeping with another, what is supposedly yours has been taken away. You don't understand adultary to be a betrayal of a promise to you, but rather a failure to have something you are entitled to because you own it.

Jealousy is terrible because it amounts to thinking you own other people. Pain at betrayal is fine, and people who ignore it do so at their own peril, but it manifests through the act of another not by who they own. Adultary hurts because someone used their freedom to betray, not because they belong to someone.

In someone sleeping with another, what is supposedly yours has been taken away. You don't understand adultary to be a betrayal of a promise to you, but rather a failure to have something you are entitled to because you own it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Of course, because they have freely given themselves over to me, and have not decided they no longer want to do this yet - they haven't divorced me obviously.

Jealousy is terrible because it amounts to thinking you own other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If they divorced me, okay, and then they went around sleeping with whoever, I wouldn't feel jealous, because they're not rightfully mine anymore. There's no question of my ownership here - two lovers own their bodies in common, like the communists own property.

Regardless of what you say - you're not justified to laugh if you hear from a credible source that your father has died for example. So emotions are - in practice - justified or unjustified. — Agustino

Another category error; laughing when hearing your father has died is an action, not an emotion.

No - read what I wrote. Jealousy is a perceived injustice with regard to the self brought about on the self by another, as opposed to with regard to others. — Agustino

Again, no. Jealousy is a possible feeling regarding a perceived injustice. It is precisely because you focus on the fact that the injustice has been done to you, rather than someone else, that produces the emotion of jealousy. But, actually I think that it is not so much the perceived injustice but the fear of what you might lose on account of it, which someone else will gain that makes you feel jealous. The think about jealousy is that it is not in regard to an act, but is always focused on a person in relation to oneself. That is why it is an unhealthy and unproductive emotion, because it is always on account of comparing yourself to another.

It is precisely because you focus on the fact that the injustice has been done to you, rather than someone else, that produces the emotion of jealousy. — John

Yes that's just a recitation of the definition of jealousy - obviously.

But, actually I think that it is not so much the perceived injustice but the fear of what you might lose on account of it, which someone else will gain that makes you feel jealous. — John

This is not true. If after you steal my money you buy yourself a nice car, and I see you everyday passing my house in it and enjoying yourself then I will feel jealous of you. There's no fear of losing anything there.

That is why it is an unhealthy and unproductive emotion, because it is always on account of comparing yourself to another. — John

It's not a comparison - regardless of what Osho has told you - and I know because his books (and I've read most of them) were the very first philosophy books I read - when I was 11 - very very long ago! This is exactly his idea. But he is wrong - there is no comparing of self with another in jealousy. There is a comparing between the self as possessing what is rightfully belonging to it, and the self as lacking this possession due to another. That's all.

I don't disagree Agustino; I am not promoting indiscriminate shagging at all. Personally I would have no interest in such a thing. But what you fail to understand is that all people are different, and that for some it may be possible to have an emotionally healthy, and not merely animal, desire to have sex with more than one intimate partner. I think that emotion could be useful in that context for such people, but you could never agree with that on account of your puritanical morality.

Edit: I corrected this because I had inadvertently addressed it to Willow.

Agustino could never agree with that on account of his puritanical morality. — John

Do you know what Puritanical means? It means to be against sexual enjoyment. Does it seem to you like I'm against all forms of sexual enjoyment? No - so therefore don't spit out propaganda around here.

puritanical
pjʊərɪˈtanɪk(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: puritanical

having or displaying a very strict or censorious moral attitude towards self-indulgence or sex.


adjective
1.
very strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so; rigidly austere.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) of, relating to, or characteristic of Puritans or Puritanism.

My usage is perfectly in accordance with ordinary usage, and applicable to what you espouse; so don't complain.

Not number 2 above. That is the sense I am not using.

That's still ownership, Agustino. If someone or the world takes it away, it seen as a violation of what someone's property. The anti-thesis of intimacy-- "You are mine regardless of anything"-- which takes no consideration of the person involved.

That's still a problem with "common property." It can't track individuals and how the world matters to them. So caught up in what you gain, "I have a right to this hammar. It's is common property." You cannot see any impact on another person.

You will take the hammer you own as insurance in case something breaks, while another is left without the tool to finish their house.

Much more to say, but that will have to wait till I get back.