Fidelity

Blimey! That was a little light reading eh?

My take on it is this(maybe it wasn't The Naked Ape but I definitely watched something about it with naked jiggly bits so you'd keep watching): men screw around so that their genes will be spread further and wider than they would have if they stuck with one partner. Women screw around so that if #1 big daddy gets killed by a sabre-toothed tiger #2 big daddy will hopefully look after ALL the kids not just his own. That was it in a nutshell.

Whether or not humans are hardwired for monogamy is a different argument to whether or not fidelity is the norm for human behaviour. Neither of those links establish unfaithful behaviour as being the norm... The first one showed a "nonpaternity rate" (their description, not mine) far lower than the ones I described for the UK, but it did estimate that in some cultures it may be as high as 30%

What this shows (to me at least) is that even the broadest estimate put the rate's at 1 in 3, meaning that the norm (defined as being behaviour displayed by at least an average number) is fidelity.... Of course this assumes that the so called nonpaternity rate is reflective of the actual numbers of unfaithful relationships. but seeing as simply asking is unlikely to elicit an accurate result, the only method we have that has any level of certainty built-in are these paternity rates. Personally, I think it's a perfectly valid assumption to accept they are, at the very least, moderately reflective.... In either case, the results of simply asking showed an infidelity rate of less than 1 in 4, which is even lower.

One thing that was very interesting, was the whole nature vs nurture thing, and I think there are solid arguments for both sides. I think it's pointless to argue on whether or not fidelity is a human construct or a natural state, though. Faithfulness is evidently an almost universally accepted condition of human partnership and it is maintained in the majority of relationships if the nonpaternity rates etc are reflective of infidelity... and this is the important bit.

Have you ever read Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Sagan and Druyan? Very interesting reading and it touches on that. The stepkid stuff. Postulates that abuse of stepchildren is hardwired as an evolutionary trait. Kill all the children that don't have your genes to insure survival of your own genes. Anyhow, very interesting book.






I don't limit my searching to just trying to prove my point. If I find something that I think interesting and on subject, I post that because I think others might enjoy reading the background and coming to their own conclusions about the topic. It's also the reason why I might post links to both sides of the argument. Just adding information for digestion really.

You don't think that the nature part of the argument is important? That's the part that I find most interesting. I'm also very much on the side of nature when it comes to the nature vs nurture debate. Which is almost a complete turn around from where I started. But the more I look into it, the more I think that nature rules the roost.

Okay, back to fidelity. That's why I asked if you separated human from mammal. Because including the entire grouping leaves fidelity or monogamy as not universal. The fact that it is a social construct is very important.

K. I'm trying to think of a way to emphasis why I think so, and I'm still half asleep....

Take homosexuality for example. The attitudes of our current society toward homosexuality are a social construct, when the reasons for homosexuality are mostly hardwired. Do you agree with that much?

I posted the definition of Fidelity for a reason.

You cannot break a promise or allegiance that hasn't been given. So discussion of pre-literate or pre-historic Human behaviour has surely little to do with fidelity.

How long has the institution of marriage (with its vows of fidelity) been established? Anyone know?

K. Sorry.

I disagree. I think exploring the reasons why has very much to do with fidelity.

*time out for one sec*

I participate in discussions like this when I'm interested in the subject. Basically taking the premise and then seeing what's out there. I learn a lot and modify what/why I think from there. If that is not allowed, then I honestly have no business in here. Wouldn't be very much fun to me, and would probably be very frustrating for y'all in trying to keep me on topic. Which is not going to happen.

So I *formally* withdraw from the discussion. I know that modding this forum is difficult enough without me in here making things that much more aggravating.

Yes, of course.... but look at it like this though.... We are designed by nature to be hunter gatherers, yet very few humans still pursue that lifestyle. Our whole society, our way of life etc are all human constructs that are "against" our naturally evolved behaviour pattern. When asking, therefore, if fidelity is against our evolutionary nature, one must understand the the answer is largely irrelevant if (as are most other human ideals) it has become a choice we deliberately make along with every other aspect of civilisation.



You are certainly not alone in that way of thinking, but I'm pretty sure (just MVHO) that "nurture" plays a far more significant role in our behaviour than genetic predisposition does.


As I was getting at in the first paragraph of this response, the way I see it, the construct argument is of little importance. Fidelity is a choice we make, in the same way that buying your dinner from the supermarket rather than donning a loincloth and hunting it down with a spear is.


The difference is, as I said, fidelity/infidelity is a choice, homosexuality is not... I could choose whether or not to cheat on my wife if Kelly Brook walked into the room and asked if I wanted to fool around, yet I wouldn't have the same choice on whether or not I was a homosexual.

Don't get me wrong, genetics and evolution certainly play a part in the nature of fidelity... I just don't believe that it is either prevalent enough to be classed as "the norm" or hardwired so deeply that we have little choice in the matter.



Topics very often wander all over the place, and you are free (and welcome) to explore any thoughts in this or any other thread.


I hope you stick around, I was certainly enjoying the debate and reading your POV... it definitely wasn't aggravating for me

Nothing to apologise for.

I wanted to separate fidelity from promiscuity. Promiscuity is perhaps a natural tendency, and can be argued for or against. Fidelity is more to do with telling lies or betraying a trust in a promise. Maybe humans are hardwired for promiscuity - argue the case by all means.

But are we hardwired for fidelity? That would be a different question.



Don't bug out on us now @Coyote. A discussion has to be clear on it's subject as I see it. This thread can wander to a discussion about promiscuity without a worry from me, as long as the OP doesn't object.

See what you are doing here is claiming that promiscuous behaviour and infidelity belong in two seperate conceptual categories. To me this is a false distinction because the biological imperative driving these behaviours is the same, and biologically speaking the act is the same. The duplicity that you speak of also has an evolutionary advantage as it gives the protection of an alpha male while still affording genetic diversity to the offspring. Now the effect is obviously more pronounced in mammals that give birth to litters in which offspring can have different fathers, but there is still a case for saying that multiple sexual partners is the hardwired norm for human behaviour.

While saying that, YMG is correct in saying that whether to give in to your hardwired urges is a moral choice. Marriage is something that runs against nature and this is recognised by the fact that it is a symboliised by vows like "forsaking all others."

Coyote: please keep posting. I've very much enjoyed your posts and reference material.

I don't agree that promiscuity and infidelity are part of the class of behaviours. One involves the betrayal of a trust, the other does not. We might argue about the validity and origins of this social compact, but it's largely irrelevant. Nobody forces anybody into a monogomous relationship - we each have the choice as to whether to participate. Having made the commitment, the promise, whether explicit or implicit, is binding, like any other social contract.

I think we're in danger of over-complicating the subject. Fidelity is moral behaviour if you make a commitment to behave faithfully. If you don't, and all parties understand this, then it's not immoral. It's simply keeping a promise made, and not betraying a trust.

As to nature vs nurture and how fidelity touches on promiscuity in general, while I think there's something in the idea that such behaviour is hard-wired, I'd also say that our responses to infidelity carried out against us must also be hard wired - otherwise why is it so devastating? My hunch is that our reaction to infidelity carried out against us is so impactful that it probably is more than simple socialisation. Something to do with abandonement, I reckon, which is one of a tribal species deepest fears.

Being as how no one likes to be cheated on and that the consequences of being caught cheating are normally severe and detrimental, then the motivation driving the infidelity must be strong. So I'd say that it has to be one of the primal needs which are motivating the behaviour. So even if you do think that promiscuity and infidelity are two distinct behaviours, which I'm not yet ready to concede, the sexual urge driving the behaviours is the same.

I say this not to excuse infidelity because if you believe a promise to be unrealistic you shouldn't damn well make it.

Having said that I do think that the way people like to condemn people who have been unfaithful when they aren't the ones directly affected is very unhelpful. If the marriage/partnership rules mean anything then along with the rules must go a certain level of tolerance when the rules get broken.

Thanks for the reminder of why I hardly ever come into LPP.

Actually when I originated this thread I was more interested in the reasons people think it's OK to fool around outside the relationship. I'm sick and tired of the excuses I've been given. I didn't fool around but their response was that the relationship was not good therefore they looked elsewhere. Is that reasonable? Why not try and fix the relationship? Or end it first.
If you are in an open relationship then that is something completely different.
The dictionary definition of fidelity is really beside the point and I'd have to agree that promiscuity and infidelity are not the same thing.
Please keep posting, Coyote, as I too have enjoyed your viewpoint.

I don't think that people really do think about it before they do it, let alone think it's ok. The excuses are never going to be satisfactory to you or any other injured party and trying to find a decent excuse for something someone else has done to you... that way madness lies. Either you can forgive it or you can't and no one can decide that for you and no one has the right to second guess that decison either way.

I would agree there is an incentive to sexual infidelity. After all, people don't abandon their church, or their sports team so easily do they? Perhaps innate promiscuity is the incentive and marital infidelity the consequence.

The dizzying diversity of human sexual strategies


SOME people revel in a reputation as a Casanova and others proudly proclaim their chastity. But most of us probably prefer not to advertise our sexual proclivities. Still, if you think your attitudes to sex are a private affair consider this. Earlier this year, Lynda Boothroyd of the University of Durham, UK, and colleagues published a study showing that the majority of men and women were able to accurately judge whether a person would be a good bet for a committed relationship or were more interested in a fling, just by looking at a photograph of their face.

How exactly we make this assessment based on such minimal information is up for debate, though Boothroyd's study did yield one clue. She found that men who were judged to be more "masculine" and women who were considered more "attractive", were likely to be seen as more inclined towards casual sex - and to actually be so (Evolution and Human Behavior, vol 29, p 211).

This surprising talent for accurately reading people's attitude to sex has an obvious benefit - it allows us to hook up with a partner who is likely to want the same out of a sexual relationship as we do. It also raises the more fundamental question of why individuals have such widely varying attitudes to sex in the first place. The answer is not simply that beautiful people have more opportunity. So what does make one person sexually restrained and another outrageously promiscuous? And how much do our attitudes to sex depend on factors such as our culture, upbringing, personality, age and gender?

Among the first researchers to take a scientific look at sexual attitudes were evolutionary psychologists Jeffry Simpson of Texas A&M University and Steven Gangestad from the University of New Mexico. Back in 1991, they devised a questionnaire to measure people's level of sexual unrestrictedness, which they dubbed sociosexuality (see questionnaire). They found that certain attitudes and behaviours co-vary - people who tend to have more sexual partners are also likely to engage in sex at an earlier point in a relationship, are more likely to have more than one sexual partner at a time, and tend to be involved in relationships characterised by less investment, commitment, love and dependency.

Men tend to score high on the sociosexuality scale more often than women, and evolutionary biologists say there are good reasons for this. Although men often invest considerably in their offspring, all they actually have to do to father a child is have sex, so there has been strong evolutionary pressure for men to be open to short-term relationships. Women, on the other hand, bear the heavy costs of pregnancy and breastfeeding, and in every culture they tend to do the bulk of childcare. So they are best off being choosy about sexual partners, or they might get left holding the baby.

Of course, it is not that simple. Women can be as sexually unrestrained as men. In fact, there is a huge overlap in the sociosexuality scores of men and women, with more variation within the sexes than between them. Some researchers are now trying to explain these subtleties in terms of biology and evolution.

Take the fact that women's interest in casual sex can vary wildly over time. A hint that these short-term sexual encounters might have biological and evolutionary advantages comes from the timing of them. Several studies have shown that women are more likely to fancy a fling around the time they are ovulating - although there is no suggestion that this is a conscious decision. Not only that, says David Schmitt of Bradley University, Illinois, women show a shift in preference to men who look more masculine and symmetrical - both indicators of good genes. Women may have a dual strategy going, suggests Schmitt. "Humans infants need a lot of help, so we have pair-bonding where males and females help raise a child, but the woman can obtain good genes - perhaps better genes than from the husband - through short-term mating right before ovulation."

That's not all. Schmitt has collected data on the sexual behaviour of men and women from 48 countries across the world and found that while men's sociosexuality peaks in their late 20s, women are most likely to be unfaithful to their partners when in their early 30s. "That's exactly the point where the odds of conceiving start to drop at a bigger rate, and it's also the point where the odds of having a child with a genetic problem or birth defect start to go up," he says. Of course plenty of women have babies much later, but Schmitt suggests that women's increased sociosexuality at around this time reflects an evolved reproductive strategy that maximises the chances of their conceiving and bearing a healthy child.

So, there may be times when it pays for women to be more sexually unrestricted, but what about individual differences in sociosexuality? What makes some women more likely to engage in casual sex at any time than others - and, for that matter, why is there also such a large variation among men?

One factor is personality. According to Daniel Nettle from the University of Newcastle, UK, the classically promiscuous man will be high in extroversion, low in neuroticism and fairly low in agreeableness as well. "The extroversion gives you the desire to do it," he says, "the low neuroticism means you don't worry too much about doing it and the low agreeableness means you don't really care if you mess someone around or cheat on your wife." The situation is similar for women, says Nettle, although another factor, openness, comes into the mix to some extent. This makes sense since people who are open to experience are likely to want to explore new relationship possibilities.

Our sociosexuality may also be influenced by early family circumstances. Developmental psychologist Jay Belsky of Birkbeck College, London, believes that when children grow up in stressful, unpredictable conditions, perhaps an absent father or marital conflict, girls in particular get a biological message to breed sooner and more often because there is no point in waiting around for a good long-term relationship. "We have new evidence from longitudinal studies on this," says Belsky, "showing that harsh parenting in the first four years of life predicts early puberty and growth and thereby predicts more unrestricted sexual behaviour by the time the child reaches 15 years of age" (Child Development, vol 78, p 1302).

Schmitt's survey also reflects this. "In every culture, men that scored highly on dismissing attachment - which means they think they are important and other people are not worthy of trust and investment - tended to be more short-term oriented or higher in sociosexuality." Such insecurity is thought to arise from stress during childhood when parents are unresponsive or unable to give consistent investment. "Secure men tended to be more monogamous," he adds. Results for women were similar, and the underlying factor is trust. "If a person was high in being able to trust other people, they were monogamous," says Schmitt. "If they were very low in trust they were much more likely to be unrestricted in sociosexuality."

Another factor with strong links to sociosexuality is masculinity. Boothroyd found men with more masculine-looking faces scored higher on sociosexuality, and it seems to be the same story for women. Sarah Mikach and Michael Bailey of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, examined how women's sociosexuality related to the degree to which they looked, felt or behaved in a masculine way. They found that heterosexual women who had high numbers of sexual partners were more likely to show higher levels of masculinity.

The researchers argued that these women behave in a way that is more typically male and this could be due to early - probably prenatal - exposure to androgens, such as testosterone, that organise typically "male" brains differently from typically "female" brains (Evolution and Human Behavior, vol 20, p 141). Supporting this idea, Andrew Clark of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, found a higher rate of sociosexuality in women with a smaller ratio of index to ring finger length - which some researchers believe corresponds to higher prenatal androgen exposure (Evolution and Human Behavior, vol 25, p 113).

It is not just prenatal testosterone that makes a difference. Peter Gray of the University of Nevada in Las Vegas and his colleagues found that saliva samples taken from married men and fathers contained lower levels of testosterone than in other men. Since testosterone is associated with competitive and mating behaviour in a wide range of mammals, the researchers proposed that lower testosterone in fathers allows them to channel more of their energy into their children (Evolution and Human Behavior, vol 23, p 193). In another study, however, Gray found that testosterone levels are higher in married men on the hunt for extramarital sexual relationships. So, are men with lower than average testosterone simply more likely to enter into a committed relationship, or does being in such a relationship lower men's testosterone levels? "In monkeys and rodents, we know the causal arrow goes both ways," says Gray. Although there is little data on humans, he believes it would be surprising if the same were not true of men.

Whether or not testosterone production is affected by the nature of men's relationships, the hormone does seem to influence sociosexuality in another way. There is some evidence that high testosterone levels confer a masculine appearance, and we know that masculine-looking men are particularly attractive to women who are looking for short term relationships. Could it be that such men behave in a sexually unrestricted way because they have more opportunity to do so?

Schmitt suggests that men with a highly masculine and symmetrical appearance may come to realise during adolescence that they have what it takes to attract women for short-term relationships - although they might not know it consciously. So they go for it, at least while they are young. Meanwhile, men who have more trouble attracting women for quick flings may have to settle for monogamy.

So what about particularly attractive women? On the one hand, you might expect that they would capitalise on their good looks to attract a partner with good genes and a tendency to be faithful. On the other, like men they might simply make the most of their increased opportunities for sex and play the field. Boothroyd's study certainly found that attractive women had the highest sociosexuality. However, she points out that her subjects were all university students in their early 20s who probably hadn't reached an age when they wanted to have babies and a committed relationship. Besides, other studies indicate that the level of sexual restrictedness in women is generally unrelated to how physically attractive they are (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 95, p 1113).

The level of sexual restrictedness in women is generally unrelated to how physically attractive they are
Fuelling the debate, Schmitt says that female attractiveness is likely to become increasingly related to sociosexuality. He points out that women are evolved to seek the benefits of short-term flings just a surely as men are, and argues that when societies become more liberal and equal, then women can express these preferences. "Historically we've repressed women's short-term mating and there are all sorts of double standards out there where men's short-term mating was sort of acceptable but women's wasn't," says Schmitt. "When you free a society by giving women ample resources, ample daycare and so on, then you see high sociosexuality scores in both men and women." This is exactly what he and his colleagues found in their cross-cultural study, with Scandinavian countries emerging as the pinnacle of liberal attitudes and unrestricted sexual mores.

Fhionna Moore at the University of St Andrews, UK, has also shown that a woman's status affects her choice of sexual partner. She found that women with a high level of control over their own finances tend to place higher importance on physical attractiveness in a man than on his financial prospects. Moore points to an intriguing consequence of this. If increasing female economic power leads to greater demands for good-looking sexual partners, it may pay men to invest more in their appearance. Given the explosion in the male grooming industry, it seems that men are already onto that one.

Cultural evolution is clearly bringing about changes in human behaviour, but should we expect ever to reach a stage where women and men have equally unrestricted attitudes to sex? "I think if we constructed a scale to measure 'sex without commitment with someone you consider especially physically attractive and socially dominant' and gave it to men and to women, when the women were nearing ovulation, women might score higher in many countries even today," says Schmitt. But there's no escaping the fact that women are the ones who get pregnant and bear children, so it's is hard to imagine that all of the differences in what men and woman look for in a relationship will ever go away.

The balance of sexual power
Individual attitudes to sex vary widely, but so too do cultural ones. In a survey of 48 countries, David Schmitt of Bradley University, Illinois, found one reason for this: the higher the number of men relative to women in a particular society, the less promiscuous the culture was. So for instance, in east Asian countries such as China, Japan and South Korea, where the population is heavily male biased there is a relatively low level of interest in uncommitted, casual sex. Meanwhile, urban areas of the US with low ratios of men to women, had a correspondingly high level of short-term relationships and divorce. This was particularly true, Schmitt says, of areas that have been hit hardest by some of the harshest drug laws and gang violence, meaning that many of the men were in prison or dead (New Scientist, 3 September, p 48)"If 'good men' - attractive, faithful, well-resourced, generous - are few then there will be very high competition between women to secure them as long-term mates," says psychologist Anne Campbell from the University of Durham, UK. "This means men can call the shots, and what men usually want is casual sex." However, most women want a stable partnership, at least when it comes to having children, and they can demand such a relationship if men substantially outnumber women, because it is harder for men to move on to new pastures. "It is a kind of sexual marketplace where whichever sex is in demand has the power," Campbell says.

Mairi Macleod is a freelance science writer based in Edinburgh, UK



Source

I found this article interesting . That infidelity in women may be hormone-driven(I just couldn't help it, darling). Also how easily men are able to dismiss the reason for their infidelity.(Oh, she was begging for it!) Funny how our stereotypes seem to relate to real life.

Gotta agree.
wow! I bet that shocked folks.

With the utmost respect for lut, it is, alas, bollocks.

Being in a relationship where you love your partner deeply does NOT stop you being attracted to other people, and neither does it mean you do not truly love your partner if you do. To say otherwise is to hold a hopelessly unrealistic or overly romantic view of human relationships.

Real love is not about never being attracted to/fancying other people, it's about never pursuing a sexual relationship with them.

On a related issue.... My fucktarded ex-wife used to hold similar views, and continually reminded me (usually when a good looking woman was around or there was nudity on the TV etc) that finding other women attractive was being mentally unfaithful. Of course, I humoured her by saying I agreed, but really I was thinking, what a fucking kipper!

Never cheat, even if you're cheated on - Just kick em to the curb.

I dumped a chick after we'd been together for 3 years and lived together etc...
I made her homeless/threw her out; didn't feel sorry about it.
You don't fuck with my heart - period!

Albert Camus is a very complex writer, so his symbolism is not always understood by all; this is a short résumé which I believe will shed a light on the subject at hand.

We French know how to cook. What are you thinking about?

I don’t believe it’s just to start from the middle of the story as every story has a beginning. Camus chose the start of his story to be in a housefly which has been circling for the last few minutes in the bus back and forth on tired wings. An odd sight there he claimed. Janine was contemplating the fly, when she noticed that it landed on her husband hand.

She looked at Marcel, a broad nose, an irregular mouse, he resembled a sulky faun. She hesitated before accepting his proposal as she didn’t like his laugh or his black protruding eyes. But she loved being loved, and he had showered her with attentions. By so often making her aware that she existed for him he made her exist in reality. No, she was not alone. . . .

Smog encircled the bus, wind started to blow, the sand struck the windows in packets as if hurled by invisible hands. The housefly flexed its legs and took a flight. The bus slowed down and seemed on the point of stopping, but the wind calmed down and the smog little by little disappeared, the vehicle resumed its speed.

The bus was full of Arabs pretending to sleep; some have swayed more than the others in the car motion. Janine was suffocated by their silence and impassivity, yet the bus had left only at dawn from the end of the rail line and for two hours in the cold morning it had been advancing on a stony, desolate, plateau, but the wind had risen and gradually swallowed up the vast expanse. From that moment on, the passengers had seen nothing more; they were silently progressing in a sort of sleepless night, occasionally wiping their lips and eyes irritated by the sand that filtered into the car.

Janine was not thinking of anything, or perhaps of that victory of the cooks over the prophets. She didn’t want to take this trip, she hated the flies and the filthy hotel room, but Marcel was too obstinate .She was still desirable, tall, a big not too fat sensual body, bright naïve eyes , a childish face , she was still able to turn man eyes.

The bus stopped abruptly, Janine was struck by the absence of the luggage inside the bus.The driver shouted a few words in that language she had heard all her life without ever understanding it.There was a complete silence, when suddenly silhouettes on the side of the road appeared. Shepherds! Marcel shouted. The driver reappeared, still alert, his eyes were laughing under the veil that masked his face; he announced that they would be soon underway.

She entered the hotel were she was shown to her room, it was really cold inside, she didn’t know whether to lay down or to stand, she remained standing holding her bag waiting –not knowing for what- looking through a “window” which opened to the sky . She was dreaming behind those walls, a sea of erect, flexible palm trees, of the girl she once used to be.

“Janine”, she startled at her husband’s call, The Koran didn’t know that well-done pork doesn’t cause illness, he said. They walked along a diminutive public garden planted with dusty trees, and they stopped before a small construction, Marcel entered the room while Janine stayed outside at the door, he started talking in this low voice that he assumed while talking business, he showed his merchandise, got exited, raised his voice, and laughed nervously, like a woman who wants to make an impression and is not sure of herself. The old man shook his head, Marcel wiped an imaginary swept and said: “They think they’re God almighty, but they’re in business too! Life is hard for everyone.”

Janine didn’t reply, although the pork was well cooked, it gave her a gastrointestinal unrest. She didn’t want to get back to the hotel, to that icy room and it occurred to her that the manager proposed that they climb to the terrace around the fort to see the desert. As they climbed the space widened and they rose into an ever broader light, cold and dry, in which every sound from the oasis reached them pure and distinct. As soon as they reached the terrace, their gaze was lost in the vast horizon, It seemed to her that the world’s course had just stopped and that, everywhere, henceforth, life was suspended—except in her heart, where at the same moment, someone was weeping with affliction and wonder.

Marcel was getting restless, he was cold and he wanted to go back. He didn’t love her, he was merely afraid of what she was not, and she and he should long ago have separated. But Marcel never could do so—he above all, a weak and disarmed child always frightened by suffering, her own child indeed who needed her and who, just at that moment, let out a sort of whimper.

Janine leaning her whole body against the parapet, speechless, she was incapable of tearing herself from the void that opened before her. From east to west, in fact, her gaze swept slowly, without encountering a single obstacle, beneath her, the blue-and-white terraces of the Arab town overlapped one another, and from their inner courts rose laughing voices or incomprehensible stamping of feet. Still farther off and all the way to the horizon extended the ocher-and-gray realm of stones, in which no life was visible. At some distance from the oasis, however, near the wadi that bordered the palm grove on the west could be seen broad black tents. All around them a flock of motionless dromedaries, tiny at that distance, formed against the gray ground the black signs of a strange handwriting, the meaning of which had to be deciphered. She was looking at the nomads’ encampment.

“We are catching our death of cold,” Marcel said. “You’re a fool. Let’s go back.” The room was frigid. Janine felt the cold creeping up while the fever was increasing. She breathed with difficulty, her blood pumped without warming her; a sort of fear grew within her. She must sleep, but she was counting black tents. She had not even seen the men living in them, and yet she could think only of them whose existence she had barely known until this day. Homeless, cut off from the world, they were a handful wandering over the vast territory she could see, a few men who were ceaselessly trudging, possessing nothing but serving no one, poverty-stricken but free lords of a strange kingdom. She got up gently from the bed , dressed slowly , and gently opened the door of the room. Her heart was beating madly, she ran along the short avenue, now empty, that led to the fort. Halfway up the stairs, the air burned her lungs with such cutting effect that she wanted to stop. A final burst of energy hurled her despite herself onto the terrace, against the parapet, which was now pressing her belly. Her eyes opened at last on the expanse of night. Not a breath, not a sound—except at intervals the muffled crackling of stones that the cold was reducing to sand—disturbed the solitude and silence surrounding Janine. After a moment, however, it seemed to her that the sky above her was moving in a sort of slow gyration. In the vast reaches of the dry, cold night, thousands of stars were constantly appearing, and their sparkling icicles, loosened at once, began to slip gradually toward the horizon. Janine could not tear herself away from contemplating those drifting flares. She was turning with them, and the apparently stationary progress little by little identified her with the core of her being, where cold and desire were now vying with each other. Before her the stars were falling one by one and being snuffed out among the stones of the desert, and each time Janine opened a little more to the night. Breathing deeply, she forgot the cold, the dead weight of others, the craziness or stuffiness of life, the long anguish of living and dying. After so many years of mad, aimless fleeing from fear, she had come to a stop at last. At the same time, she seemed to recover her roots and the sap again rose in her body, which had ceased trembling. Her whole belly pressed against the parapet as she strained toward the moving sky; she was merely waiting for her fluttering heart to calm down and establish silence within her. The last stars of the constellations dropped their clusters a little lower on the desert horizon and became still. Then, with unbearable gentleness, the water of night began to fill Janine, drowned the cold, rose gradually from the hidden core of her being and overflowed in wave after wave, rising up even to her mouth full of moans. The next moment, the whole sky stretched out over her, fallen on her back on the cold earth.

Concerning the karma, After a monstrous birth, Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” The foritself is the incontestable author of his own consciousness, being enlightened he’s not slave to a perspective, whatever the situation that he endures he must face it with the proud consciousness of being its author. Being not slave to any perspective the foritself is above karma.

This post has been edited by wutever: Dec 19 2008, 09:35 AM

I run the risk of being labeled a philistine here, but can I just say.... Eh?