Jack and Jane Hypothetical

Aaron (@easydiesy) 9 years, 9 months ago

Was reading IV by Chuck Klosterman and at the beginning of each chapter it introduces a hypothetical question for the reader to ponder. This one caught my attention and thought I would share with all the HEthens cause I think it has potential for good debate.

So here it goes…

Let’s say you have two friends named Jake and Jane. They have been romantically involved for two years, and the relationship has always been good. Suddenly, Jack calls you on the phone and sadly mutters, “Jane just broke up with me.” You ask why this happened. Jack says, “She thinks I cheated on her.” You ask, “Well, did you?” Jack says, “I’m not sure. Something strange happened.”

This is what Jack proceeds to tell you:

“There is this woman in my apartment building who I barely know,” he begins. “I’ve seen her in the hallway a few times, and we’d just sort of nodded our hellos. She is very normal looking, neither attractive nor unattractive. Last week, I cam home from the bar very drunk, and-while I was getting my mail-I ran into her at the mailboxes. She was also intoxicated. Just to be neighborly, we decided to go to her apartment to have one more beer. But because we were drunk, the conversation was very loose and slightly flirtatious. And then this woman suddenly tells me that she has a bizarre sexual quirk: she can only have an orgasm if a man watches her masturbate. This struck me as fascinating, so I started asking questions about why this was. And then-somehow-it just sort of happened. I never touched her and I never kissed her, but I ended up watching this woman masturbate. And then I went home and went to bed. And I told Jane about this a few days later, mostly because it was all so weird. But Jane went fudging insane when I told her this, and she angrily said our relationship was over. Now she won’t even return my calls.”

Whose side do you take: Jack’s or Jane’s?

August 8, 2012 at 8:26 am
DaJetPlane (994)M (@lytning91) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

Jack and Jane, they played the game
Two happy years they stayed
Jack got wasted, his neighbor embraced it
And invited him for a short stay

The neighbor was freaky, his eyes made her leaky
he thought there was nothing to say
Jane flipped her lid over what Jack just did
And now Jack must jack it today

[Hidden]
m jayne (46) (@mjayne) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@siantastic, You are totally entitled to your opinion. (:

The basis for claiming it as ignorance is because it only holds any validity if you accept outside correlations as proof to back up your assumptions.

If you are in a relationship, regardless of what you call it, why should it matter if you are the only two people on earth, or if you are one couple out of trillions? Should you feel or not feel the same way about respect and how you treat them regardless of what other people are doing? Should it or should it not be important to communicate well with your partner regardless of if you are the only two people on earth, or if you are one couple out of trillions? Does it really actually matter what you happen to think other people who are -like you-, in some sense or another, are doing. . .or does it matter what you two are doing in your relationship?

The whole concept that we can treat assumptions as facts, or that actions based on assumptions are not a form of ignorance, seems totally flawed right down to its root (to me).

What I want to know is why you DONT think that it is the same as saying that Americans from the south tend to consume more water mellon than anyone else so therefore ALL and ANY southern Americans can be rightfully assumed to consume more water mellon than anyone else (even when looking at them as individuals) UNLESS they specifically make a point out of clearing their name.

I am not saying that you are saying EXCACTLY THAT or even that at all. What I am asking is why you dont think that is exactly what you are doing. . .I want to know how you see that whaty ou are saying is different than that sceanrio and why. But also, if you do actually think that you are doing the exact same thing, which you totally could, then why do you think that it isnt an invalid way of justifying something.

Why is it okay to treat assumptions based on correlations as truth and act on them as such?

[Hidden]
Anonymous (251) (@) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@mjayne, I’m confused. This is a hypothetical question. A hypothetical answer is to assume. The answer actually means nothing other than what you think. I am simply saying how I feel about the hypothetical question, based on assumed facts and personal experience.

Is it because I’m talking about monogamy? Personally I think a monogamous relationship means that you do not receive, or give sexual gratification to anyone else. I consider anything different from that an open relationship, and although I guess it could be taken as a way of monogamy, not the kind I’m talking about. And I am not against open relationships at all.

[Hidden]
m jayne (46) (@mjayne) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@lytning91, LOL. Brilliant.

[Hidden]
m jayne (46) (@mjayne) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@siantastic, Yes, you are against them and what you consider to be them; not everyone is or defines them in the same way.

What Im getting at isnt about the question being hypothetical or not; or because you are talking about monogamy.

What Im getting at is that the approach you took to the hypothetical question which you answered with reference to monogamy, was based on an ignorance to the individualistic nature of individuals.

If you LITERALLY had this problem come up with your LITERAL friends Jack and Jane, then what difference would that make simply knowing it was real and not hypothetical. It is still facing you with the same situation. So it being hypothetical makes no difference in this regard as far as I can tell.

You talking about monogamy is fine. There is nothing inherently wrong with monogamy. It is not inherently ignorant I dont think. You could have been talking about monogamy or about hair removal habits and I dont see how it would matter in this regard.

The part that I find issue with is the part where you base your judgements on something that actually is an assumption based on some observed outside correlation. The part where you try to back things up by talking about how you think that some things are just a given and can be assumed about the nature of OTHER people and what everyone should just -know- already even though they have no real reason why they should have to -know- what other people do or how they feel or how they react or what their personal boundaries are.

Its not Jack and Janes problem what other people are doing or how they are setting their boundaries, it is their problem how THEY are setting their boundaries. Assuming another person will -just know- something because you consider it to be -common sense- or -common knowledge- or -obvious- is really ignorant. That, is my point.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (251) (@) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@mjayne, You’ve lost me.

[Hidden]
m jayne (46) (@mjayne) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@siantastic, D: What part of this do you not understand, so that I can try to maybe explain that part in a different way that may make more sense for you? I just copied+pasted the bits I want to know your thoughts on DIRECTLY. Would you mind telling me, in direct relation to these parts, what you think and what isnt making sense about them?

The basis for claiming it as ignorance is because it only holds any validity if you accept outside correlations as proof to back up your assumptions.

What I want to know is why you DONT think that it is the same as saying that Americans from the south tend to consume more water mellon than anyone else so therefore ALL and ANY southern Americans can be rightfully assumed to consume more water mellon than anyone else (even when looking at them as individuals) UNLESS they specifically make a point out of clearing their name.

I am not saying that you are saying EXCACTLY THAT or even that at all. What I am asking is why you dont think that is exactly what you are doing. . .I want to know how you see that whaty ou are saying is different than that sceanrio and why. But also, if you do actually think that you are doing the exact same thing, which you totally could, then why do you think that it isnt an invalid way of justifying something.

Why is it okay to treat assumptions based on correlations as truth and act on them as such?

[Hidden]
DaJetPlane (994)M (@lytning91) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@mjayne, Thanks dear.

[Hidden]
Bryan Hellard (307)M (@xyver) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@lytning91, Brilliant

I was reading through all the answers, but they were not going to change my mind, so I’m just going to answer the original question.

I take Jack’s side, Jane flipped her shit.

[Hidden]
Aaron (11) (@easydiesy) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@siantastic, “In a relationship which is monogamous it is generally agreed that you cannot receive sexual gratification or indeed give that gratification to someone else”

But what if Jane wore like a really slutty skirt and went shopping at the mall for a couple of hours AND suppose there where some sex deprived males that happened to notice her walking around AND suppose that they went home and couldn’t help but do the five knuckle shuffle because they where all excited by her outfit. Wouldn’t that be a parallel to the neighbor getting of because of Jack? There was no physical contact or intimacy or in either situation that would be warranted as “cheating”

@lytning91, that was quite beautiful. Almost brought a tear to my eye

[Hidden]
Anonymous (251) (@) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@easydiesy, Nope. Jack was there. Therefor he partook.

[Hidden]
Viewing 10 reply threads
load more