Is infidelity wrong?

[African_Love]

Up until recently, I would have said that infidelity is both immoral and disrespectful. Then I adopted the view that it was disrespectful but not immoral (if it could be guaranteed that one's partner would never find out about it) and now I'm not sure it's even that much (disrespectful).

Imo, something is morally wrong if it either a) causes someone else to suffer or b) deprives them of pleasure/happiness. Cheating on your spouse, if it could be guaranteed that (s)he will never find out, would not cause him or her to suffer nor would it deprive him or her of pleasure/happiness. His/her preference to be in a monogamous relationship would be satisfied, irrespective of whether or not they actually are in a monogamous relationship. The standard argument against cheating is "I wouldn't want my partner to cheat on me or to keep it from me" but this is actually a nonsensical thing to say and I think it comes from our highly developed capacity for abstract thinking. If you did not know that X=Y then it's meaningless to say "If I didn't know X=Y, I would want to know that X=Y", it's not as though you would be sitting there thinking " I wish someone would tell me that X=Y " or "I wish X did not equal Y". What exists to you is what you consciously experience.

At the very least, I argued, it was disrespectful but to 'respect' someone is to hold them in high esteem. People do not cheat because they have a low opinion of their partner or because they are dissatisfied with their relationship, although I'm sure both justify cheating to someone who themselves believes that cheating is unethical and/or disrespectful. Bob has sex with Jill because he is attracted to Jill, not because he lacks respect for his wife Elisabeth or is dissatisfied with their relationship.

I feel that it's tacky to lie to someone you care about but I can't actually articulate why it is disrespectful or why honesty is a moral virtue in circumstances where lying wouldn't alleviate suffering or cause pleasure/happiness. I just don't see how you could lie to someone and be truly intimate with them. If nothing else, I think cheating is morally irresponsible for the simple fact that you cannot guarantee your partner will never find out and it wouldn't be worth the risk of causing them distress.

[Granny5]

Infidelity is both morally wrong and disrespectful. It is disrespectful to the partner who is being cheated on as well as disrespectful to the vows that are taken during the marriage rites. If one promises before their families and their God to be faithful, it is morally wrong.
Why take the vows if one doesn't respect them? Why marry someone if one doesn't feel enough love and respect for their partner to be faithful? Why on earth would someone go into a marriage/partnership with the belief that vows mean nothing? Seems wasteful to me.

[mayneverhave]

You're definitions are lacking because they lack proper objectivity.

These can be simultaneously good for you/bad for someone else, and bad for you/good for someone else, and either way, they are depriving someone of pleasure.

Ex. A starving man robs a street vendor. He thereby brings himself pleasure (by continuing his life, being nourished, etc.) and the vendor displeasure (by losing profit, being robbed, etc.)

And as for disrespect. What about self respect? Is it not disrespectful to yourself if you are trapped in a loveless marriage that is both emotionally and sexually unfulfilling? - i.e. Madame Bovary.

This less true of today, but in the past when marriages were more about forging alliances than love, infidelity was certainly less "morally wrong and disrespectful".


Why take the vows if one doesn't respect them? Why marry someone if one doesn't feel enough love and respect for their partner to be faithful? Why on earth would someone go into a marriage/partnership with the belief that vows mean nothing? Seems wasteful to me.

Multiple reasons can be given:

1. People are compelled to marry outside of their own will (i.e. by society, parents, etc.)

2. People frequently change, especially after marriage, because of the necessary fact of aging, the biological difficulities of monogomy. What if your husband/wife slowly develops into a completely different person?

[Granny5]

Multiple reasons can be given:

1. People are compelled to marry outside of their own will (i.e. by society, parents, etc.)

2. People frequently change, especially after marriage, because of the necessary fact of aging, the biological difficulities of monogomy. What if your husband/wife slowly develops into a completely different person?

I guess I was thinking of someone in a committed relationship. My husband and I ARE completely different people after 36 years together but we respect each other and are committed to our marriage and our family. I am lucky that we do love each other and married because we both wanted to grow and change with each other. Our basic selves are the same, we just continue to learn, grow, and change in our outlook on life and social beliefs. But if there was a change in either of us that caused our commitment to weaken or became unbearable to the other, we could/would end our marriage legally. But we both believe that when we took our vows, we were making a lifetime commitment that included respect and faithfulness.

[Virgil]

If anyone even has to ask then, wow, it's not even worth commenting. You can't get lower in moral equivilence than that.

[African_Love]

You're definitions are lacking because they lack proper objectivity.

What is this supposed to mean? There is no objective morality.


These can be simultaneously good for you/bad for someone else, and bad for you/good for someone else, and either way, they are depriving someone of pleasure.

Ex. A starving man robs a street vendor. He thereby brings himself pleasure (by continuing his life, being nourished, etc.) and the vendor displeasure (by losing profit, being robbed, etc.)

I clearly said that (imo) something was morally wrong if it caused another sentient being to suffer or deprived them of happiness.


And as for disrespect. What about self respect? Is it not disrespectful to yourself if you are trapped in a loveless marriage that is both emotionally and sexually unfulfilling? - i.e. Madame Bovary.

Again, sympathy/compassion/empathy (which I believe to be the only sensible basis for any moral framework) is other focused.


Infidelity is both morally wrong and disrespectful. It is disrespectful to the partner who is being cheated on as well as disrespectful to the vows that are taken during the marriage rites.

The vows that one takes are an abstraction, are they not? Does it matter if you disrespect an idea or concept rather than an actual being? If a man says "f--- my dead mother, she was stupid, fat etc." that is disrespectful, even though it doesn't harm her, because it shows he has a low opinion of her. Someone could think very highly of their partner and still be attracted to other people.



If one promises before their families and their God to be faithful, it is morally wrong.

I feel strongly that to break your word is tacky but I'm not sure about morally wrong.


Why take the vows if one doesn't respect them?

Because they wanted to have their cake and it as well, I guess.


Why marry someone if one doesn't feel enough love and respect for their partner to be faithful?

WHether cheating is acceptable or not, I believe most people are fully capable of loving and being attracted to more than one person so, imo, this is akin to asking "why be friends with so and so if you don't respect them enough to not develop any other friendships".

[qimissung]

It is wrong. It is disrespectful. I think some people use ist as a "raft" to help them move out of an unhappy relationship. That doesn't make it OK, moral, or respectful. A relationship by it's very nature implies that there will be honesty between the couple; to be dishonest and to engage in physical relations outside of a monogamous relationship hurts the relationship, even if the other person never knows. If it's not a monogamous relationship, well, that's out of my league, and another story entirely.

[African_Love]

even if the other person never knows

But how can someone be hurt without knowing that they're hurt? Imo, it's meaningless to talk about harm or benefit outside of consciously experiencing pain or pleasure. Assuming that the cheater's attitude doesn't change (they don't become more distant, less responsive, ) and the one being cheated on never suspects a thing, how does it hurt the relatinship?

I can understand the argument that it's disrespectful, I don't see how it could be considered immoral if it could be guaranteed that the person would never find out and thus, suffer as a result.

[Buh4Bee]

It is wrong. It happens and people do it, but even if the partner doesn't know, it still inadvertently will effect the relationship. If you are going to cheat than there is no more respect left. I agree with Gimissung, that people use it as a raft to float out of a bad relationship, which is the coward's way out.

[Dark Muse]

I can understand the argument that it's disrespectful, I don't see how it could be considered immoral if it could be guaranteed that the person would never find out and thus, suffer as a result.

That sort of logic is along the same lines as, you haven't really committed a crime unless you get caught.

First of all, I do not think there has ever been an incident in which a person was completely oblivious to the fact that they were being cheated upon. While their are those who might get away with it for a long period of time, it is my belief it is more to the self-denial of the spouse than the fact that they really do not have any idea at all, but rather they ignore the little signs to avoid confronting the truth.

By betraying their trust, of even if they do not know you are having an affair you are still betraying them, as they would have the basic expectation that would remain faithful to them, than you are doing harm, even if they are not directly aware of the infidelity.

The person who cheats is mocking their vows and basically stating that the feelings of his or her partner do not matter, and that their love and trust are worthless and meaningless. And if you are a person who is in away spiritual than by cheating your act is immoral in the fact that you are betraying vows not only to your partner but to whatever higher power you happen to believe in. Whatever religion a person might follow, in marriage they have sword to be faithful not only to their partner but also to some sort of divine power, and so their act is an offence against said divine power.

And if a person happens to be an atheist, even though it is not an actual law, they still have sworn before a judge to conduct themselves in a certain way to their partner. So in the act of cheating even if the spouse never finds out about it, a sacred contract is still being violated.

For me, betrayal is truly the sin of sins, it is the unforgivable wrong. And those that cheat are the lowest of the low. I have no respect of sympathy for them and they would deserve to be sent to the lowest ring of Dante's Hell. To violate someone's trust is a wound beyond any physical injury.

And I do not personally believe there could ever be a situation in which the spouse never finds out, and the longer the time that passes before they are forced to face the truth, the more it will hurt in the end, so it is not realistic to speak of in terms of "well if they never find out."

Under those terms a person could justify to themselves committing any act, if they can be assured that they will never be caught.

[blazeofglory]

From what we have learned from moral science and from our elders I think infidelity is spiteful. For our values, beliefs, moral standards are formed by what our schools, parents, elders have taught us; and we are conditioned of course. However love is something a little subtler than the rest of other values in that even among animals there is a little bit envy and they want to own their mating partners, and in birds it is more discernible. That presupposes the fact that fidelity is a virtue we must keep to in so far as we hold our postion in society and fidelity kept intact strengthens human relationship

[DWolfman]

A quote for you:

"Character is who you are when no one's looking"

Whether or not your significant other is aware of the cheating situation, it shows a lack of character to participate. By that premise, your character is undertaking something that is morally bankrupt and "cheating" by definition shows a clear disrespect for one you supposedly hold dear.

[African_Love]

I've reconcluded that it is disrespectful but not morally wrong (or at least it wouldn't be if it could be guaranteed that the person would never find out).




That sort of logic is along the same lines as, you haven't really committed a crime unless you get caught.

If you kill someone, you deprive them of all future possibility for happiness or pleasure. If you rape someone, you cause them to suffer, even if no one ever knows it was you. These things are immoral regardless of whether or not you get caught because they either cause disress or deprive someone of happiness, cheating does neither.


First of all, I do not think there has ever been an incident in which a person was completely oblivious to the fact that they were being cheated upon.


Which is why I think it's still morally irresponsible but in this hypothetical scenario (where the 'victim' will never find out), I don't think it is immoral. Just disrespectful.

[Dark Muse]

I've reconcluded that it is disrespectful but not morally wrong (or at least it wouldn't be if it could be guaranteed that the person would never find out).

It seems to me that by the very fact that it is not morally wrong only under the circumstances that another person does not discover it, is in itself proof of the immorality of it.

If an act is a moral act, than it should not rely upon secrecy to make it so.

And by saying that infidelity is not immoral, is by default saying it is in fact a moral thing to do, and by definition if an act is moral than it is just and right.

If you conclude infidelity is not immoral, than it is just, and right to be unfaithful.

For you cannot say that it is neither immoral nor moral, it must be one or the other.

[JBI]

If anyone even has to ask then, wow, it's not even worth commenting. You can't get lower in moral equivilence than that.

I'd have to agree, though I am unsure how I stand on morals, I tend to run my life by what is considered proper etiquette and manner, and, on those grounds, infidelity is certainly ill mannered.

[mortalterror]

Only for women.

[Virgil]

A quote for you:

"Character is who you are when no one's looking"

Whether or not your significant other is aware of the cheating situation, it shows a lack of character to participate. By that premise, your character is undertaking something that is morally bankrupt and "cheating" by definition shows a clear disrespect for one you supposedly hold dear.
Thank you Wolfman, I was looking for just such a quote when I was responding, but couldn't come up with one.


I'd have to agree, though I am unsure how I stand on morals, I tend to run my life by what is considered proper etiquette and manner, and, on those grounds, infidelity is certainly ill mannered.
Do onto others as one would have done onto oneself. The universal core moral. Nice to see we agree. :)

[DWolfman]

Which is why I think it's still morally irresponsible but in this hypothetical scenario (where the 'victim' will never find out), I don't think it is immoral. Just disrespectful.

From Dictionary.com:

IMMORAL
–adjective 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

I don't think the above definition splits hairs as to whether the victim finds out or not. Violating a trust and commitment, whether discovered or not, is contrary to moral standards.

Just because you don't get caught stealing from someone doesn't make it less than a crime, just unpunished.

[JBI]

Thank you Wolfman, I was looking for just such a quote when I was responding, but couldn't come up with one.


Do onto others as one would have done onto oneself. The universal core moral. Nice to see we agree. :)

That isn't the universal code, that's the Christian code. Confucius, for instance, would have it as "don't do unto others as you wouldn't do unto yourself," I tend to think he is closer.

As it is though, I told you, I don't function on right/wrong or good/bad, more on well-mannered/rude.

[OrphanPip]

Besides the fact that you are violating what is considered by most to be a sacred contract. You would be exposing your spouse to increased risk of disease without her/his knowledge.

There is more to harm than awareness, someone can certainly be harmed even if they are not aware. If someone is in a coma, that they could wake up from, do you have the right to break their fingers and steal from them because they aren't aware of it? Most of us I hope would consider torturing an unconscious individual wrong.

[Dark Muse]

Besides the fact that you are violating what is considered by most to be a sacred contract. You would be exposing your spouse to increased risk of disease without her/his knowledge.

Excellent Point!

There is also the case of children, even if those involved are using protection, that is not an absolute guarantee, supposing one of the parties involved within the affair were to become pregnant, the children would undoubtedly be harmed in what would follow in debating over what would become of their future, and the very way in which they were conceived could lead to resentment of them.

[billl]

If you kill someone, you deprive them of all future possibility for happiness or pleasure. If you rape someone, you cause them to suffer, even if no one ever knows it was you. These things are immoral regardless of whether or not you get caught because they either cause disress or deprive someone of happiness, cheating does neither.


Should a person be comfortable with the idea that a stalker or a peeping-tom might be watching them, without any fear of capture? What would it be like to meet such a voyeur, and learn of their "hobby?" Is it right to say that the person is behaving morally, as long as they go undiscovered?

Anyhow, I think that a cheater in a committed relationship would be dealing with their loved one in a manner that was no longer sincere, basically treating them as a child that should think that Santa exists, or that the family dog is still alive, on some relative's farm. To achieve such a superiority in the access to and manipulation of information especially for the purpose of deceiving a loved one, violating the trust of an equal and respected partner in life seems morally wrong. If we are committed to accuracy in textbooks, then it seems that a similar respect to those closest to us should be considered better than deception.

[Buh4Bee]

From what we have learned from moral science and from our elders I think infidelity is spiteful.

I believe infidelity can be spiteful. As mentioned before, infidelity can be used a way to move out of a bad relationship or get even. A very spiteful and disrepectful thing to do.

[African_Love]

It seems to me that by the very fact that it is not morally wrong only under the circumstances that another person does not discover it, is in itself proof of the immorality of it.

If an act is a moral act, than it should not rely upon secrecy to make it so.

And by saying that infidelity is not immoral, is by default saying it is in fact a moral thing to do, and by definition if an act is moral than it is just and right.

If you conclude infidelity is not immoral, than it is just, and right to be unfaithful.

For you cannot say that it is neither immoral nor moral, it must be one or the other.

Taking a walk is a morally neutral act. Let's say that your best friend is dying and before your friend dies, he asks you to scatter his ashes all over your garden. To promise to do this and not pull through (and it wouldn't be very difficult or inconvenient to do so) would be disrespectful to the memory of your friend but it would not be harmful, he died believing that his request would be granted, not granting or granting his request can neither harm nor benefit him. Again, I think our capacity for abstract thinking gives us an intuitively metaphysical view of the universe and I'm looking at this from a strictly materialist standpoint. We can talk about preferences, vows, contracts etc. but these are abstractions that exist in the privacy of our own 'minds', not in the external world. Not spreading your friend's ashes over your garden is disrespectful to the memory of your friend, yes, but that memory exists in your brain, it is a figment of your imagination and there is nothing you could do to harm or benefit your actual friend anymore.


Besides the fact that you are violating what is considered by most to be a sacred contract. You would be exposing your spouse to increased risk of disease without her/his knowledge.

In this scenario, you are either using a condom and/or the person you are having an affair with can provide you with medical documentation of being std-free.


There is more to harm than awareness, someone can certainly be harmed even if they are not aware. If someone is in a coma, that they could wake up from, do you have the right to break their fingers and steal from them because they aren't aware of it? Most of us I hope would consider torturing an unconscious individual wrong.

This is nonsensical to me, I really do not understand how someone can be harmed by an act if that act does not cause them to consciously experience distress (even if someone doesn't know that their food was poisoned, they would still suffer as a result). Besides (directly or indirectly) causing someone to consciously experience distress, the only other way you can wrong someone is to deprive them of benefit. If someone is in a coma that they will wake up from then breaking their fingers will cause them to suffer and stealing from them will deprive them of benefit, 'succesful' infidelity does not cause suffering or deprive one's partner of benefit.

We generally agree that killing humans is morally wrong and killing plants is not. My reasoning for this is simple. Humans have a conscious desire to experience pleasure or happiness and we are capable of suffering, plants have no similar desires that can be frustrated or satisfied and nothing we could do can harm them. Thus, it's meaningless to talk about harm or benefit outside of the conscious experience of distress or pleasure, what exists to you is what you consciously experience. I definitely agree that cheating is disrespectful and I would break up with a woman if I found out she was cheating on me but I cannot consider it to be unethical based on my moral framework.

[Stargazer86]

Advanced apology for disjointed post:

I understand morals vary from culture to culture, but there are certain broad ideas that can be accepted and agreed upon by most.

This is like saying "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one was around to hear it, did it really make a sound?"

I have a friend who has been married to her husband for a number of years (around 10 or so, I believe). She found out that not only had he cheated on her, but he has a 4 year old child with this woman (who is one of many with whom he's cheated on his very loyal wife). For some reason she chose to stay with him for a while after that, and encouraged him to see the child and to pay support to the the mother for the child (I'm telling you, this woman has a heart of gold). Anyway, the point being, her lack of awareness of his rampant infidelity didn't make it "moral" or "okay" on his part. It was wrong, immoral, and disrespectful no matter how you cut it, regardless of the fact that she didn't find this out until later.

Now if someone has an "open relationship" or if they're swingers...well that is thier own perrogative and I could see the "morals" on that being a little more subjective.
Disclaimer: not saying that I would do that or personally condone it, but I know people who have done this and I don't judge them or think of them as "immoral" as long as they are open with thier partners and safe. Still though...

[DWolfman]

I would break up with a woman if I found out she was cheating on me but I cannot consider it to be unethical based on my moral framework.


Let's see, one with his own personal moral framework????

How about:

SOCIOPATH
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.
-The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition


...
Edited because after re-reading my post,
I felt it may be construed as an attack.
I merely wish to counter the original position
of the poster saying infidelity is disrespectful
but not immoral.

[Emil Miller]

In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys.

[rimbaud]

In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys.


I think that anyone might feel let down by the infidelity of the partner. I've seen cases where the guy felt let down and insecure by his girlfriend's infidelity
he said that "I, a guy could restrain myself and she a girl could not" so it seems to me that just because the fact that women "know" in their heart that boys will be boys feel a little less hurt by infidelity than men.

well that's just one example, depends on the person, but if we are talking groups, my opinion would be that guys tend to get more hurt when being cheated on.

[LitNetIsGreat]

An interesting post I think.

There is a conflict between biology and morality going on here. On the one side nature is telling you to do one thing and the social ideology is telling you to do another. However faithful one person is to another, which is a loving and good thing, there is always, to some degree a biological pull in another direction, with the chance of other possibilities.

I'm not siding with either position, I'm just saying that biology is a factor that cannot be ignored.

[African_Love]

An interesting post I think.

There is a conflict between biology and morality going on here. On the one side nature is telling you to do one thing and the social ideology is telling you to do another. However faithful one person is to another, which is a loving and good thing, there is always, to some degree a biological pull in another direction, with the chance of other possibilities.

I'm not siding with either position, I'm just saying that biology is a factor that cannot be ignored.


Human 'nature' is a myth, imo. Everything we do is 'natural' since we are apart of nature. As biological organisms, biology is always a 'factor'.


Let's see, one with his own personal moral framework????

How about:

SOCIOPATH
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.
-The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition


...
Edited because after re-reading my post,
I felt it may be construed as an attack.
I merely wish to counter the original position
of the poster saying infidelity is disrespectful
but not immoral.

Everyone has a different perspective on what constitutes ethically sound behavior so I don't know why you're singling me out. I do think cheating is disrespectful so it's not like I'm saying "anything goes". I don't want a woman to cheat on me, I would likely break up with her if I found out that she was. I doubt I'd ever be in this position as I would let my hypothetical partner know that I'm fine with her having sex or romantic relationships with other men if it would make her happy.

I don't see how someone is a sociopath for cheating. If their partner never finds out then their behavior has no negative effect on them.

[Emil Miller]

I think that anyone might feel let down by the infidelity of the partner. I've seen cases where the guy felt let down and insecure by his girlfriend's infidelity
he said that "I, a guy could restrain myself and she a girl could not" so it seems to me that just because the fact that women "know" in their heart that boys will be boys feel a little less hurt by infidelity than men.

well that's just one example, depends on the person, but if we are talking groups, my opinion would be that guys tend to get more hurt when being cheated on.

I agree that some men are so affected by the infidelity of their wives or girlfriends that they will even resort to murder of either the female or male perpetrator of the betrayal. I live in South London and many years ago, a reported case in our local newspaper concerned a young man who discovered that his girlfriend was conducting a seperate affair with another man. He strangled the girl and travelled to Rome where he drowned himself in the Trevi fountain. Yes, it's the stuff of melodrama except that it actually happened. So I agree that the distress caused is not entirely one-way

[Dark Muse]

In this scenario, you are either using a condom and/or the person you are having an affair with can provide you with medical documentation of being std-free.


It seems to me the very fact that you have to come up with all these exceptions, scenarios, hyptheticals, etc. just to try and prove that infidelity is not morally wrong, should in itself tell you something about your claim.

And how it is exactly, that an act can be considered to be to be perfectly legitimate only under certain sets of circumstances.

That is your claim seems to be well infidelity is not immoral seems to only occur under very realistically unlikely guidelines.

Being that the partner never suspects or finds out about it.
Those having the affair both always remember to use proper protection and get a sexual medical history upon each other in advance (as if)
and by now chance should a child be accidentally be conceived (as the child would surely suffer under such circumstances)

And sets you are sitting up such strait ramifications to justify infidelity, you confess that it is wrong under normal circumstances, that being if the act is indeed discovered or some other consequence result.

But it is a legitimate act as long as it is kept under complete and total secrecy.

That is a rather ludicrous argument to make. If an act would be wrong under discovery than it is just as equally wrong when kept in secrecy, and if it has to be kept a secretly to justify doing it, that in itself proves the wrongness of it.

[papayahed]

In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys.

ahhh the ol' "boys will be boys" chestnut. Please note the saying isn't "men will be men".

Infidelity - not entirely wrong, if it is known to all parties involved.

Cheating implies shadiness and underhandedness

[qimissung]

Excellent argument, DM.

[Virgil]

That isn't the universal code, that's the Christian code. Confucius, for instance, would have it as "don't do unto others as you wouldn't do unto yourself," I tend to think he is closer.

Closer to what? First,that would be a sub set of "do onto others." Doing onto others would include don't doing since don't doing is an act of doing and not the converse. (If that makes sense, and I think it does. ;))

Second, that is not strictly Christian. I thought you were jewish. Have you not read Liviticus and Deuteronomy? "Love you neighbor as yourself." I believe some variation of that is in both books, and the ten commandments reduce down to two ideas, love God and do onto others. And frankly I believe it's in Islam as well, though I can't tell you where. You mention Confucius, so it's eastern religion, but I'm also pretty sure it's in Buddism and Hinduism as well. I believe it's universal. If you think about it, most laws are built around it.


As it is though, I told you, I don't function on right/wrong or good/bad, more on well-mannered/rude.
Then you don't think it's moral.

[OrphanPip]

Second, that is not strictly Christian. I thought you were jewish. Have you not read Liviticus and Deuteronomy?

Ha that isn't quite my interpretation of Leviticus, it's more like don't wear clothing made of two different fabrics and be sure to stone homosexuals and unvirtuous women.

[Virgil]

Ha that isn't quite my interpretation of Leviticus, it's more like don't wear clothing made of two different fabrics and be sure to stone homosexuals and unvirtuous women.

Well, then you haven't read it. Or read it correctly. What are you saying, the love thy neighbor dictum is not there?

[OrphanPip]

Well, then you haven't read it. Or read it correctly. What are you saying, the love thy neighbor dictum is not there?

Sure it's in there, along with all those admonitions against witches and the other "abominations". It's just not very consistent, it should be "love one's neighbor as oneself, unless your neighbor does magic or is gay."

[Virgil]

Sure it's in there, along with all those admonitions against witches and the other "abominations". It's just not very consistent, it should be "love one's neighbor as oneself, unless your neighbor does magic or is gay."

When you create your own religion, you can have your version. I suspect every culture has a view of homosexuality. But let's not go there.

[JBI]

Well, then you haven't read it. Or read it correctly. What are you saying, the love thy neighbor dictum is not there?

Or perhaps you haven't - the love your neighbor as you would love yourself, in the form in which you state it, comes from the great sage Rabbi Akiva, rather than from scripture, unless you pair it against Leviticus 19:18, but that is a stretch, given the emphasis of the sentence put upon countrymen.


Even so, the Confucian principle makes more sense - I shouldn't be nice to others because I would be nice to myself - I should act in accordance with how I would not act, the rest is up to me to decide - there shouldn't be a commandment telling me I should act nice to people as that is how I would want to be treated, rather, a principle stating to not act meanly to people is far better.

In the sense that I mention Confucius, I was implying that that is far closer to a universal rule of morality, in that it anticipates the difference of values, and ignores them, in favor of having a rule which takes into account diversity, while, at the same time, the fact that every person, to some level, or almost every person at any rate, has the same feelings about mistreatment.

And don't get me wrong, I'm no Confucian, and have great trouble with his philosophy, but ultimately, I think him here more right than Akiba, so I would side with him.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Ahh I've been trying SO hard to stay out of this!


Should a person be comfortable with the idea that a stalker or a peeping-tom might be watching them, without any fear of capture? What would it be like to meet such a voyeur, and learn of their "hobby?" Is it right to say that the person is behaving morally, as long as they go undiscovered?

Well said.



In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys.


This is the single biggest piece of crap I've heard in a long time.

I'd love to hear the justification for that one, Brian.

[rimbaud]

This is the single biggest piece of crap I've heard in a long time.

Agreed!

[Maryd.]

Agreed!

So do I...

[African_Love]

It seems to me the very fact that you have to come up with all these exceptions, scenarios, hyptheticals, etc. just to try and prove that infidelity is not morally wrong, should in itself tell you something about your claim.

And how it is exactly, that an act can be considered to be to be perfectly legitimate only under certain sets of circumstances.

That is your claim seems to be well infidelity is not immoral seems to only occur under very realistically unlikely guidelines.

Being that the partner never suspects or finds out about it.
Those having the affair both always remember to use proper protection and get a sexual medical history upon each other in advance (as if)
and by now chance should a child be accidentally be conceived (as the child would surely suffer under such circumstances)

And sets you are sitting up such strait ramifications to justify infidelity, you confess that it is wrong under normal circumstances, that being if the act is indeed discovered or some other consequence result.

But it is a legitimate act as long as it is kept under complete and total secrecy.

That is a rather ludicrous argument to make. If an act would be wrong under discovery than it is just as equally wrong when kept in secrecy, and if it has to be kept a secretly to justify doing it, that in itself proves the wrongness of it.

I never said that cheating was "legitimate", only that it wasn't immoral. Cheating is as "legitimate" as urinating on your mother's grave is (assuming you don't come from a culture where this is an expression of great respect). I think we have different criteria for determining whether or not an act is morally wrong, mine is harm (distress) and benefit (pleasure). I do think that cheating is morally irresponsible on the basis that it would harm your partner if they found out. Although you should respect agreements that you voluntarily enter and hold yourself to the same expectations you hold others, it is your body and you should be allowed to do what you want to do with your body.

[Dark Muse]

I never said that cheating was "legitimate", only that it wasn't immoral. Cheating is as "legitimate" as urinating on your mother's grave is (assuming you don't come from a culture where this is an expression of great respect). I think we have different criteria for determining whether or not an act is morally wrong, mine is harm (distress) and benefit (pleasure). I do think that cheating is morally irresponsible on the basis that it would harm your partner if they found out. Although you should respect agreements that you voluntarily enter and hold yourself to the same expectations you hold others, it is your body and you should be allowed to do what you want to do with your body.

I may respond to some of the other posts when I get around to reading them.

But the very fact that in order to justify it as not being immoral is under the criteria that it remains unknown should itself prove the faulty of that argument.

If an act is not immoral, it should be so under any circumstances, not just as along as it is not found out about.

It seems as if you have two different standards for infidelity.

As obviously if it is discovered than the person will be hurt, so by your own criteria, it would be immoral upon discovery.

But as long as the person gets away with it, than it is not immoral.

For me, an act is either immoral or not immoral.

And I presume than that you must view lying of any kind not to be immoral as long as the person never gets caught in their lie?

[DanielBenoit]

I haven't read all the posts, so I haven't followed the African Love's line of argument, but all I can say is that love, being such an immensely powerful and yet fragile thing, to have the one you love, who supposedly loves you back, cheat on you, is not only disrespectful, but immoral in the deepest sense of the word.

And yet, there are cultures in which polygamy is widespread, and since the peoples of that particular culture have accepted it as their moral standard, then there is nothing wrong with it, within that context, due to the fact that in that culture, to both men and women, that is 'The way things are'.


In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys.

My God do I agree with *Classic*Charm* :eek:

[African_Love]

But the very fact that in order to justify it as not being immoral is under the criteria that it remains unknown should itself prove the faulty of that argument.

If an act is not immoral, it should be so under any circumstances, not just as along as it is not found out about.

It seems as if you have two different standards for infidelity.

As obviously if it is discovered than the person will be hurt, so by your own criteria, it would be immoral upon discovery.

But as long as the person gets away with it, than it is not immoral.

For me, an act is either immoral or not immoral.

And I presume than that you must view lying of any kind not to be immoral as long as the person never gets caught in their lie?

This is more of a side issue but would you say killing someone is wrong in all possible circumstances? I wouldn't, I think euthanasia is an act of compassion and killing in self-defense is also justified.

In my world view, an act is immoral if it directly causes suffering and morally irresponsible if it may lead to suffering. For example, I'm an anti-natalist, I think that bringing children into this world is morally irresponsible because it will indirectly cause suffering (via the global warming that the unborn child's carbon footprint will contribute to or even the fact that the child him/herself will suffer, ecological reasons aside) but it is not immoral in the way that punching someone or stealing from them are immoral. People should have a right to have 20 children if they want since it's their body, they shouldn't have a right to do what they want to with other people's bodies.

Lying is direspectful (unless doing so would prevent suffering) but only immoral if it deprives someone of future benefit or causes suffering. Even just thinking "so and so is an idiot" is disrespectful but you are allowed to think what you do.

[Virgil]

Or perhaps you haven't - the love your neighbor as you would love yourself, in the form in which you state it, comes from the great sage Rabbi Akiva, rather than from scripture, unless you pair it against Leviticus 19:18, but that is a stretch, given the emphasis of the sentence put upon countrymen.


Yes Leviticus 19 but it fits the context:


11 "You will not steal, nor deal deceitfully or fraudulently with your fellow-citizen.
12 You will not swear by my name with intent to deceive and thus profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh.
13 You will not exploit or rob your fellow. You will not keep back the labourer's wage until next morning.
14 You will not curse the dumb or put an obstacle in the way of the blind, but will fear your God. I am Yahweh.
15 "You will not be unjust in administering justice. You will neither be partial to the poor nor overawed by the great, but will administer justice to your fellow-citizen justly.
16 You will not go about slandering your own family, nor will you put your neighbour's life in jeopardy. I am Yahweh.
17 You will not harbour hatred for your brother. You will reprove your fellow-countryman firmly and thus avoid burdening yourself with a sin.
18 You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your race, but will love your neighbour as yourself. I am Yahweh.
I guess it is limited to one's race.

[African_Love]

In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys

I have to confess, when I was younger, I once thought this. It always seems as though women 'tolerate' cheating so well, like they just go through the motions of pretending to be offended by it. I know this is wrong, it's just what it can seem like from a male p.o.v. I've even been told by a few women that men who did not cheat were boring or predictable. Stereotypically, women gravitate towards the kind of man who is likely to cheat. Society is more tolerant of male cheaters though, men are usually a lot harsher on female cheaters than women are on male cheaters.

I've never understood the poing in agreeing to behave monogamously if you will not behave monogamously and lying about it, it's just not my personality

[JBI]

Depends, it's a bit of a loose translation, to the say the least - I would interpret it as more of a tribalism than anything else.

[Dark Muse]

This is more of a side issue but would you say killing someone is wrong in all possible circumstances? I wouldn't, I think euthanasia is an act of compassion and killing in self-defense is also justified.

In my world view, an act is immoral if it directly causes suffering and morally irresponsible if it may lead to suffering. For example, I'm an anti-natalist, I think that bringing children into this world is morally irresponsible because it will indirectly cause suffering (via the global warming that the unborn child's carbon footprint will contribute to or even the fact that the child him/herself will suffer, ecological reasons aside) but it is not immoral in the way that punching someone or stealing from them are immoral. People should have a right to have 20 children if they want since it's their body, they shouldn't have a right to do what they want to with other people's bodies.

Lying is direspectful (unless doing so would prevent suffering) but only immoral if it deprives someone of future benefit or causes suffering. Even just thinking "so and so is an idiot" is disrespectful but you are allowed to think what you do.


I do not think that your argument of killing quite compares to your argument here. As you are not trying to make an argument that a person might be justified in having an affair based upon the circumstances of their relationship, but purely based on if they do or do not get caught.

So say a person killed another person, and do so suddenly and instantly, so the person whom was killed did not truly suffer because they never saw it coming and were dead before they could even feel the pain and naturally once they are dead, it is not as if they know the difference. Though their life was taken, they have no awayness of that fact, so ultimately they were not truly harmed. And supposing this person lived completely alone, and had no family, or loved ones, so know one else was harmed by the death either.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Although you should respect agreements that you voluntarily enter and hold yourself to the same expectations you hold others, it is your body and you should be allowed to do what you want to do with your body.

This sounds a little contradictory to me. You should respect your agreements but you should still be allowed to break them if it involves your body?

Sounds pretty straightforward to me, AL. If you aren't going to be monogamous, don't enter into a monogamous relationship. If you truly believe that it's your body and you should be allowed to do with it what you please, then why would you have someone you care about believe otherwise? Why would you tell a partner that you are monogamous if you are not?


I have to confess, when I was younger, I once thought this. It always seems as though women 'tolerate' cheating so well, like they just go through the motions of pretending to be offended by it. I know this is wrong, it's just what it can seem like from a male p.o.v. I've even been told by a few women that men who did not cheat were boring or predictable. Stereotypically, women gravitate towards the kind of man who is likely to cheat. Society is more tolerant of male cheaters though, men are usually a lot harsher on female cheaters than women are on male cheaters.

This going to sound really harsh and I don't mean to offend anyone (I swear!), but women who tolerate cheating are dumb. As are men who do the same. It's one thing to forgive once (something I couldn't do), but to have it happen multiple times and stick around, NO WAY. I have very serious opinions on women who "like" men who cheat on them, etc.


I've never understood the poing in agreeing to behave monogamously if you will not behave monogamously and lying about it, it's just not my personality

But thats exactly what you're saying is okay! You're saying that it's okay to allow your partner to believe that you are monogamous when you're not!

[African_Love]

I do not think that your argument of killing quite compares to your argument here. As you are not trying to make an argument that a person might be justified in having an affair based upon the circumstances of their relationship, but purely based on if they do or do not get caught.

So say a person killed another person, and do so suddenly and instantly, so the person whom was killed did not truly suffer because they never saw it coming and were dead before they could even feel the pain and naturally once they are dead, it is not as if they know the difference. Though their life was taken, they have no awayness of that fact, so ultimately they were not truly harmed. And supposing this person lived completely alone, and had no family, or loved ones, so know one else was harmed by the death either.


I've addressed this. Killing someone in their sleep or instantaneously in a scenario where they never saw it coming would deprive them of all future pleasure/happiness, since you have to be alive to experience pleasure/happiness. Cheating on someone would not deprive them of pleasure or the monogamous partner that they want, their preference for you to be faithful is being satisfied even if you aren't actually being faithful.




This sounds a little contradictory to me. You should respect your agreements but you should still be allowed to break them if it involves your body?



If you agree not to do something with your body then you should hold that agreement but it is your body. Cheating is not something bad that's done to your partner, it's something you do with other people. It's not as though you've rented your genitalia to them, your spouse does not own you.


Sounds pretty straightforward to me, AL. If you aren't going to be monogamous, don't enter into a monogamous relationship. If you truly believe that it's your body and you should be allowed to do with it what you please, then why would you have someone you care about believe otherwise?

I completely agree that it's disrespectful, I don't see how I could have argued otherwise before. Why you might want to have someone you care about believe otherwise is obvious. You want sexual variety but you also want to maintain your relationship with them. Maybe you don't want them to feel jealousy and break up with you, maybe you don't want them to enjoy the same sexual variety (the latter is beyond arrogant).



Why would you tell a partner that you are monogamous if you are not?

Again, obviously to prevent them from being jealous or angry and breaking up with you. People want to have their cake and eat it too (retarded saying, I know).


But thats exactly what you're saying is okay! You're saying that it's okay to allow your partner to believe that you are monogamous when you're not!

Did you read the analogy I made about promising your best friend you'll scatter his ashes over your garden when he's dead? I never said that cheating was "okay".


I'm actually surprised that as many people agree with me as they do in regards to my stance that cheating is disrespectful but not immoral. I expected most people to agree that cheating is disrespectful but I'm surprised that so many people think it's immoral. It's strange when you think of how many people actually cheat (a good 30-40 something % of the population, according to some surveys and studies I've read of).

[Dark Muse]

I've addressed this. Killing someone in their sleep or instantaneously in a scenario where they never saw it coming would deprive them of all future pleasure/happiness, since you have to be alive to experience pleasure/happiness. Cheating on someone would not deprive them of pleasure or the monogamous partner that they want, their preference for you to be faithful is being satisfied even if you aren't actually being faithful.

But if a person is killed they will never know that their future pleasure or happiness is being deprived. They do not suffer from this, because they are completely unaware of it.

Now if a person cheats on another person, there is the potential that their pleasure or happiness may be denied or harmed if they ever discover the truth.

Though you argue the scenario that the truth is never found, in the very act there is the possibility of the truth being discovered and thus harm being done.

So, if it is wrong to kill a person because you are robbing them of future happiness, than it should be equally wrong to do something that has the potential to rob them of their future happiness.

Because in both cases of the person being killed, and a person being cheated upon are left completely oblivious to the pleasure and happiness which is or could be denied to them.

[*Classic*Charm*]

If you agree not to do something with your body then you should hold that agreement but it is your body. Cheating is not something bad that's done to your partner, it's something you do with other people. It's not as though you've rented your genitalia to them, your spouse does not own you.

The term is "Cheating on your partner", is it not? The action is relative to your partner, not relative to what you do with someone else. Someone else just happens to be involved. Cheating is to gain advantage at cost to someone else. So yes, it is something you do to your partner.

So you don't have to keep the agreement you made with another person if it's no longer what you want. That is what you're saying here. Fine, break it, but the other person has a right to know that the agreement is over.


I completely agree that it's disrespectful, I don't see how I could have argued otherwise before. Why you might want to have someone you care about believe otherwise is obvious. You want sexual variety but you also want to maintain your relationship with them. Maybe you don't want them to feel jealousy and break up with you, maybe you don't want them to enjoy the same sexual variety (the latter is beyond arrogant).

ONLY THE LATTER?! Every single one of those reasons is beyond selfish and arrogant. Letting your partner believe that you are being monogamous when you're not, under ANY circumstances, for ANY reason, is selfish and conceited, and pathetic. It is willfully deceiving another for your own personal gain. That is immoral.


Again, obviously to prevent them from being jealous or angry and breaking up with you. People want to have their cake and eat it too (retarded saying, I know).

Again, WEAK. If you truly care about the person you've "committed" yourself to, then you would give her the option of choosing. Maybe if that's what would make you really happy, she'd be willing to let you do that. Don't let her think you're monogamous when you're not.


Did you read the analogy I made about promising your best friend you'll scatter his ashes over your garden when he's dead? I never said that cheating was "okay".

I'm actually surprised that as many people agree with me as they do in regards to my stance that cheating is disrespectful but not immoral. I expected most people to agree that cheating is disrespectful but I'm surprised that so many people think it's immoral. It's strange when you think of how many people actually cheat (a good 30-40 something % of the population, according to some surveys and studies I've read of).

But you have essentially said that although it is disrespectful, it is not immoral. If it's not immoral, then how can it not be okay? Being disrespectful is either amoral or immoral. Unless you've been raised in a bubble, I think the first case unlikely. If, however, your disrespect is not innocent and accidental, it has been done in full knowledge of the fact that it is meant to offend and insult. If you have deliberately offended and insulted someone, you have acted immorally. Therefore, is cheating is disrespectful, it is also immoral.

[African_Love]

But if a person is killed they will never know that their future pleasure or happiness is being deprived. They do not suffer from this, because they are completely unaware of it.

They don't have to be aware that they are being deprived of benefit to be deprived of benefit.


Now if a person cheats on another person, there is the potential that their pleasure or happiness may be denied or harmed if they ever discover the truth.

There is the potential which is why I consider it to be morally irresponsible rather than flat out immoral


Though you argue the scenario that the truth is never found, in the very act there is the possibility of the truth being discovered and thus harm being done.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. In my hypothetical scenario, the truth will never be discovered by their partner. In real life, this can never be guaranteed which is why I think it is morally irresponsible.


So, if it is wrong to kill a person because you are robbing them of future happiness, than it should be equally wrong to do something that has the potential to rob them of their future happiness.

No, killing definitely robs someone of all opportunity for future pleasure/happiness, cheating only has the potential to cause suffering. Furthermore, killing someone is doing something to their body, cheating is doing something with your body- your 'property'- that you said you wouldn't do.







The term is "Cheating on your partner", is it not? The action is relative to your partner, not relative to what you do with someone else.

The term (which obviously wasn't coined by people who share my harm/benefit based moral world view) involves your partner but the actual action simply does not.



Someone else just happens to be involved.

Sex between Bob and Betty 'just happens' to involve Betty?


Cheating is to gain advantage at cost to someone else. So yes, it is something you do to your partner.

In my hypothetical circumstance, cheating does not cause suffering and it does not deprive someone of benefit. Our lives, as sentient beings, come down to two things : seeking pleasure and avoiding stress. People agree to behave monogamously (correct me if I'm wrong and you have a different reason) because the thought of 'sharing' their partner makes them jealous. If you do not know what your partner is doing with other people, you cannot experience jealousy as a result. No jealousy, no problem. I admit, this and my autonomy argument is kind of a sidetrack from my basic harm/benefit argument but as cliche as the 'what you don't know won't hurt you' saying is, it's true and being cheated on doesn't deprive you of happiness either. You might say "but I would want to know" but like I pointed out earlier, you would have to know x= y to want to know that x=y or care about it one way or the other so there's no use adopting such existentially impossible, metaphysical points of view.


So you don't have to keep the agreement you made with another person if it's no longer what you want. That is what you're saying here. Fine, break it, but the other person has a right to know that the agreement is over.

'Rights' are a social construct. Personally, I'm more concerned with the right to be happy. I think that you should be honest with your partner but I also think that you should scatter your friends ashes over your garden if you promised him you would.




ONLY THE LATTER?! Every single one of those reasons is beyond selfish and arrogant.

Relationships themselves are, to a great extent, attachment (selfish) based rather than empathy (other) based.



Letting your partner believe that you are being monogamous when you're not, under ANY circumstances, for ANY reason, is selfish and conceited, and pathetic. It is willfully deceiving another for your own personal gain. That is immoral.

This is a stretch but would it be immoral to neglect telling your fiancee that you snore or look like Freddy Krueger in the morning knowing that this info. might change his opinion about you? Romantic relationships are more attachment based than empathy based as it is, which is why we even require that our partners remain exclusive with us when we would never ask our platonic friends to do the same. This isn't the best reasoning for my position, I just believe that ethics is only a matter of pleasure and pain.




Again, WEAK. If you truly care about the person you've "committed" yourself to, then you would give her the option of choosing. Maybe if that's what would make you really happy, she'd be willing to let you do that. Don't let her think you're monogamous when you're not.

I completely agree that cheaters should propose an open relationship rather than being deceptive if they cannot behave monogamously. I'm not gung-ho about cheating, I just can't put it in the same category as theft, murder, rape etc.




But you have essentially said that although it is disrespectful, it is not immoral. If it's not immoral, then how can it not be okay?

Why is it so hard to understand that something can be disrespectful without being immoral? A bunch of high school kids gossiping about their classmate when she isn't there is disrespectful, it isn't unethical if they don't cause her harm (or deprive her of benefit).




Being disrespectful is either amoral or immoral. Unless you've been raised in a bubble, I think the first case unlikely.


Why?

Let's say you have two options : 1) the option of cheating on your spouse, (s)he believes you are faithful and this belief makes them happy, they will never find out or 2) not cheating on your spouse, (s)he believes you are faithful and this belief makes them happy. The decision you make is completely irrelevant to their state of mind, completely. You won't harm them if you do cheat and you won't benefit them if you don't. What will harm or benefit them is their belief that you are or are not cheating. We have no direct, reliable access to the external world, what exists to us is what we consciously experience.


If, however, your disrespect is not innocent and accidental, it has been done in full knowledge of the fact that it is meant to offend and insult. If you have deliberately offended and insulted someone, you have acted immorally. Therefore, is cheating is disrespectful, it is also immoral.

Bob does not sleep with Betty because he deliberatly and intentionally wants to insult or offend his wife Jasmine. If this were the case, he wouldn't hide it from her. Bob sleeps with Betty because he is attracted to her and he will be regardless of his relationship with his wife. You cannot choose who you are attracted to, monogomy would be easier if you could.

[Dark Muse]

They don't have to be aware that they are being deprived of benefit to be deprived of benefit.

I do not see how that is any different than cheating upon a person, the partner is not aware that they are being betrayed, but that does not change the fact that they are being betrayed.


I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. In my hypothetical scenario, the truth will never be discovered by their partner. In real life, this can never be guaranteed which is why I think it is morally irresponsible.

That is just it, the idea of the partner never finding out the truth can really only exist hypothetically, so the argument cannot be applied to real life. Hypothetically cheating may not be immoral, but in the real world is not valid as there is no way to guarantee that no harm will be done to the person.


Furthermore, killing someone is doing something to their body, cheating is doing something with your body- your 'property'- that you said you wouldn't do.

But it is not strictly doing something to only your body. It is doing something to another's body as well, as to have an affair there must be another person involved. So here is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The harm that is being done to the 2nd party within the affair. Rarely are those truly happy just being nothing more than objects of sex, most have some expectation that someday said person will leave the one they are with for them. So if a person is having an affair, what of the harm to the one they are having the affair with, they are directly having their own future happiness and pleasure denied for they can never have a meaningful relationship with the person whom they are having the affair with, and however wrong they might be in their part within it, they still are emotionally suffering from the affair because of the position they are in.

[Mathor]

Okay, so you say something is not immoral if the person never finds out. But isn't it immoral not to tell your spouse and keep something like that from them? You can't justify betrayal and lying. Lying to your spouse hurts your spouse.

[Maryd.]

Okay, so you say something is not immoral if the person never finds out. But isn't it immoral not to tell your spouse and keep something like that from them? You can't justify betrayal and lying. Lying to your spouse hurts your spouse.

Go Mathor... Yahoooo! ;)

[Jozanny]

But it is not strictly doing something to only your body. It is doing something to another's body as well, as to have an affair there must be another person involved. So here is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The harm that is being done to the 2nd party within the affair. Rarely are those truly happy just being nothing more than objects of sex, most have some expectation that someday said person will leave the one they are with for them. So if a person is having an affair, what of the harm to the one they are having the affair with, they are directly having their own future happiness and pleasure denied for they can never have a meaningful relationship with the person whom they are having the affair with, and however wrong they might be in their part within it, they still are emotionally suffering from the affair because of the position they are in.

As someone who has had a number of married men, this was both true and not true in my case. On a graded scale, a fling is slightly different than something where a woman becomes a mistress for any length of time; the latter hurts more if either party has feelings--but sometimes the thrill of physical contact is just that, and the sinning spouse may actually not love the betrayed spouse any less. Life is complicated, and I was as often the sympathy ear for men obsessed with perceived emotional slights from their wives. I might have been a talking pc for all they cared.

When you get caught, life becomes more complicated still, so I am not here to give advice. I enjoyed what I had, got hurt on more than one occasion, and at one point burned my correspondence like something out of a Gothic suspense novel and was fearful of divorce attorneys.

I guess I did have a life once upon a time:p (not to worry ladies, I'm out of commission)...

[blazeofglory]

Infidelity is so common today; People in some cultures want their would-be spouse virgin, unsexed and if she or he was already exploited he or she would be deemed adulterated or grimy in point of fact. We want chastity in others whereas we always infringe on the domain. In fact what we call chastity, fidelity are the sets of principles men have framed in the course of civilization through evolutionary phases for there is no such thing as fidelity and infidelity in nature. You may argue that this is obviously manifest among birds, and yet the extremity with which man deals with this not found in bestial communities in point of fact. For, sex is not a subject of debate there, nor any being is charged for violating it. Man however is a funny species and sex or the question of infidelity is so much accentuated in man’s society.
I wonder when man will look at it from a different perspective. I envision when this civilization will be over and a new will pop up with all our codes of conducts redrafted we will take this issue of fidelity and infidelity totally differently in point of fact. This is the other view on it, not in fact an opposite view.

[Michael T]

First of all African Love, I think you need to understand that immorality and disrespect don’t depend on someone other than yourself being aware of your actions. Your whole argument seems to rest on whether or not the person being betrayed is aware of the betrayal that is taking place.

If you accept the meanings of the terms ‘Infidelity’, ‘Morality’ and ‘Respect’ then your argument falls apart. The meaning of these terms do not depend on the person you are betraying/disrespecting being aware of your actions.

Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.

Morality can be used either
1. Descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for his/her own behaviour or
2. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Infidelity is a violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of an intimate relationship, which constitutes a significant breach of faith or a betrayal of core shared values with which the integrity of the relationship is defined. In common use, it describes an act of unfaithfulness to one’s husband, wife, or lover, whether sexual or non-sexual in nature.
There are two areas in a close relationship where infidelity mostly occurs: physical intimacy and emotional intimacy. Infidelity is not just about sex outside the relationship, but about trust, betrayal, lying and disloyalty. What makes infidelity so painful is the fact that it involves someone deliberately using deception to violate established expectations within a relationship.

African Love, I end by leaving you the definition of the word you yourself have used often in this thread to describe the actions you wish to condone:

Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others, Cheating implies the breaking of rules. The term "cheating" is less applicable to the breaking of laws, as illegal activities are referred to by specific legal terminology such as fraud or corruption. Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less, often used when referring to marital infidelity. A person who is guilty of cheating is generally referred to as a cheat

[Virgil]

I'm really encouraged by the outcome of the vote. With all the moral relativism that goes on in today's world, and especially on lit net, I would have thought the outcome would be different. :)

[TheFifthElement]

I think Qimi made a good point:

It is wrong. It is disrespectful. I think some people use ist as a "raft" to help them move out of an unhappy relationship.

but I'd add to that not just a raft to get out of an unhappy relationship but also a raft to cope with an unhappy relationship. At its core it is disrespectful, if you've reached the point where you can betray a person's trust then you no longer love and respect that person. Is it immoral? Hmm, I find that more hard to judge. I guess it depends on the circumstances. The 'right' thing to do, it would seem to me anyway, would be to end one relationship before you start another, but I know of people who have had affairs because they fell in love with someone else and no longer loved/respected their husband/wife, but did not want to end the marriage because of their children. I don't think that's necessarily right, but I can understand why people would do it. I think it's not so easy doing the right thing when you're torn between being in love with someone and your love for your children. It's a quandary I've been lucky not to face.

That being said I can't imagine myself ever having an affair, but then I love and respect my husband a great deal :D and if I was unhappy in one relationship I can't imagine that starting another relationship would make things any better though perhaps that is a lack of imagination on my part. I'm also in the position that I can only be married to my husband because his first marriage broke down (and there was an affair, on both sides - not with me I'd like to point out!) so perhaps that gives me a slightly different perspective on things.

[Jozanny]

I'm really encouraged by the outcome of the vote. With all the moral relativism that goes on in today's world, and especially on lit net, I would have thought the outcome would be different. :)

I cannot vote, because my answer would be to brake on not being too quick to judge. I did not wake up one day and declare I wanted to be "the other woman."

Life happens to people, and everyone has needs.

[Michael T]

I did not wake up one day and declare I wanted to be "the other woman."

Life happens to people, and everyone has needs.

You did wake up one day with the ability to choose though.

[Dark Muse]

You did wake up one day with the ability to choose though.

Yes!

That is ezactly what I was going to say.

You do not just "happen" to be a mistress, it is a concious choice you made.

One of my favorite quotes

You can't help what you feel, but you can help how you behave

[Maryd.]

You can't help what you feel, but you can help how you behave

Great quote. Especially for this topic...

[Jozanny]

You did wake up one day with the ability to choose though.

And that seems easy to you Michael? Try telling a single woman who can walk that you are confined to a wheelchair for life, and see what happens after a while.

Married men were not afraid of me, and I am a human being. Did I mean to hurt their wives? Of course not, and most of the time I stepped out of the picture without ever having been the cause of the problem.

I do not recommend it as a way of life, but I'd take kindness over the routine pain of daily loneliness if the former is the best I could do.

[Michael T]

And that seems easy to you Michael? Try telling a single woman who can walk that you are confined to a wheelchair for life, and see what happens after a while.

Are you suggesting that people confined to wheelchairs require different moral values? Should ugly people have special concessions too?

[soundofmusic]

"Morals" are often set in place to protect the fragile balance of certain societal structures:
Marital relationships often begin to wear when there are financial difficulties, a pregnancy or new child, something temporary; sometimes these partnerships can mend if there isn't an outside force pushing them in the other direction.
There are some people who are not exactly happy in the marital state; but need the security of it, or the status; they often take many lovers, over time, make empty promises and keep the person in limbo.
Ones mate or children may not know that the other mate is having a relationship; but they sense the "drift"...we don't live in a vacuum, everything we do affects the people we are close to.
We are emotional beings, we often fall in love with the wrong people. In order to give a relationship the best chance of survival, keep it as simple as possible. Don't go in while your "friend" is in the midst of a bitter break up, divorce or custody battle. If possible, give them a year after the end of a relationship to "pick up the pieces". Yes, they may find someone else in the interim; they will probably be back!

[Dark Muse]

And that seems easy to you Michael? Try telling a single woman who can walk that you are confined to a wheelchair for life, and see what happens after a while.

Married men were not afraid of me, and I am a human being. Did I mean to hurt their wives? Of course not, and most of the time I stepped out of the picture without ever having been the cause of the problem.

I do not recommend it as a way of life, but I'd take kindness over the routine pain of daily loneliness if the former is the best I could do.

I cannot even bring myself to come up with anything close to a civil response to that.

[Jozanny]

I cannot even bring myself to come up with anything close to a civil response to that.

I don't care Dark, nothing personal.

Marriage, as a state of being, is not always what it is cracked up to be, and happy ones are far and few between, not that they don't exist, but they are rarer than young people would like to believe.

Young people also like to see things in black and white, and life really isn't like that.

There is a tendency on boards like these to bat reactionary labels around like Halloween candy, and I am contrary enough to push back. Even able-bodied women find themselves in situations where virtue is not the better part of valor, and adultery also mixes up the paternity issue. It is good for the species.

That last is cheeky, but I am always willing to consider all parties. No one, Dark Muse, is as culpable as the straight and narrow advocates would like to believe.

[Maryd.]

"Morals" are often set in place to protect the fragile balance of certain societal structures:
Marital relationships often begin to wear when there are financial difficulties, a pregnancy or new child, something temporary; sometimes these partnerships can mend if there isn't an outside force pushing them in the other direction.
There are some people who are not exactly happy in the marital state; but need the security of it, or the status; they often take many lovers, over time, make empty promises and keep the person in limbo.
Ones mate or children may not know that the other mate is having a relationship; but they sense the "drift"...we don't live in a vacuum, everything we do affects the people we are close to.
We are emotional beings, we often fall in love with the wrong people. In order to give a relationship the best chance of survival, keep it as simple as possible. Don't go in while your "friend" is in the midst of a bitter break up, divorce or custody battle. If possible, give them a year after the end of a relationship to "pick up the pieces". Yes, they may find someone else in the interim; they will probably be back!


I couldn't have put it better myself Soundofmusic. You are very wise.:angel:

[Dark Muse]

I don't care Dark, nothing personal.

Marriage, as a state of being, is not always what it is cracked up to be, and happy ones are far and few between, not that they don't exist, but they are rarer than young people would like to believe.

Young people also like to see things in black and white, and life really isn't like that.

There is a tendency on boards like these to bat reactionary labels around like Halloween candy, and I am contrary enough to push back. Even able-bodied women find themselves in situations where virtue is not the better part of valor, and adultery also mixes up the paternity issue. It is good for the species.

That last is cheeky, but I am always willing to consider all parties. No one, Dark Muse, is as culpable as the straight and narrow advocates would like to believe.

And I personally have no sympathy for people who make the conscious choice to cheat and betray. There is no excuse for it that I will accept.

If you are in a bad relationship you, you handle it like an adult and you get out of it. No one is saying that is easy, but life is not just about making easy decisions that meet with your instant gratification.

Being that having an affair is something that is completely and totally within my control, I can say with complete confidence that I will never do it, no matter what the circumstances.

It is not something that is just going to "happen" to me, it is something of which I would make the choice to decide to do, and it is a choice I will never make for myself, period!

[soundofmusic]

I couldn't have put it better myself Soundofmusic. You are very wise.:angel:

Thank you, Maryd; that means alot coming from such a wise and good person:nod:


And that seems easy to you Michael? Try telling a single woman who can walk that you are confined to a wheelchair for life, and see what happens after a while.

I do not recommend it as a way of life, but I'd take kindness over the routine pain of daily loneliness if the former is the best I could do.

:( I can see Jozannys point here; it is a terrible thing to live with someone you love and cannot express it through physical intimacy. Sometimes the loneliness is almost unbearable. People are vulnerable, they sometimes make selfish choices that are not the best thing for everyone involved.
I don't think Jozanny is saying that this is the first choice one makes; but that sometimes life is very cruel and a person will choose love over sadness.

[African_Love]

I do not see how that is any different than cheating upon a person, the partner is not aware that they are being betrayed, but that does not change the fact that they are being betrayed.


It's different because one deprives someone of future pleasure (if I remember what you're replying to) and the other does not. One is immoral and the other is disrespectful. Betraying someone by breaking an agreement you've voluntariliy and without coercion entered into with them is disrespectful, I just don't think it's immoral, not in this case.


That is just it, the idea of the partner never finding out the truth can really only exist hypothetically, so the argument cannot be applied to real life. Hypothetically cheating may not be immoral, but in the real world is not valid as there is no way to guarantee that no harm will be done to the person.

If it's hypothetical then it's hypothetical. I would still argue that it's morally irresponsible rather than directly immoral.



But it is not strictly doing something to only your body. It is doing something to another's body as well, as to have an affair there must be another person involved. So here is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The harm that is being done to the 2nd party within the affair. Rarely are those truly happy just being nothing more than objects of sex, most have some expectation that someday said person will leave the one they are with for them. So if a person is having an affair, what of the harm to the one they are having the affair with, they are directly having their own future happiness and pleasure denied for they can never have a meaningful relationship with the person whom they are having the affair with, and however wrong they might be in their part within it, they still are emotionally suffering from the affair because of the position they are in.

Circumstances vary, I'm sure. Some 'other men/women' don't want anything more, some do, either way they chose to get into what they did.



adultery also mixes up the paternity issue. It is good for the species.

This was something else, lol. I can't relate to Jozanny's position, believe it or not. I've never accepted the 'life is complicated', 'it just happens' argument because (for all intents and purposes I'll pretend I'm not a determinist), we do choose to behave how we behave despite circumstances. I don't have to do anything I consider to be inappropriate, whether it's kill someone in anger, cheat on my wife or whatever. This argument could be a cop-out for anything.


But isn't it immoral not to tell your spouse and keep something like that from them?


Not if it either a) does not cause them distress or b) deprive them of pleasure/happiness, imo.



You can't justify betrayal and lying.

As far as character is concerned, I agree with you. I don't know why no one seems satisfied with acknowledging that it is disrespectful and 'bad' in that sense. After all, nobody who loves their partner would want to disrespect them, even if it could be morally justified.



Lying to your spouse hurts your spouse.

That just isn't true.

[wessexgirl]

And I personally have no sympathy for people who make the conscious choice to cheat and betray. There is no excuse for it that I will accept.

If you are in a bad relationship you, you handle it like an adult and you get out of it. No one is saying that is easy, but life is not just about making easy decisions that meet with your instant gratification.

Being that having an affair is something that is completely and totally within my control, I can say with complete confidence that I will never do it, no matter what the circumstances.

It is not something that is just going to "happen" to me, it is something of which I would make the choice to decide to do, and it is a choice I will never make for myself, period!

Well said! Of course infidelity is wrong, it wrecks lives, and anyone who thinks differently, and that they can justify their selfish behaviour is kidding themselves. I know from bitter experience; my kids no longer have a dad. I will never be convinced that cheating and lying is okay. It's a betrayal of the highest order, the most hurtful thing one person can do to another. I'm tired of seeing people trying to salve their consciences, if they have them, by using the old chestnut, "that's life". It may be some people's lives, but it will never be part of mine, I have too much respect for myself and my family to go along with that bull. I could never behave so despicably as to knowingly inflict hurt on other people for my own gratification. I have my own moral compass, and knew that if such a thing ever happened to me, that would be the end, no questions about it, finito, and it was. His sorry *** was kicked out so fast with all his belongings, that his feet didn't touch the ground. After many years of marriage, I find myself alone, and considerably worse off. Infidelity breaks up families. I have seen many people go through it. It's not just the couple who suffer, the knock-on effects are massive. My life, and that of my kids has changed forever, through no fault of our own, but because there are people out there who see nothing wrong in doing what they do. My daughter is getting married next year, and she has only my side of the family to be there. Her father's side is as good as dead to her. There is no contact with any of his side of the family, so because a couple of selfish people decided they wanted their cake and eat it, many innocent people are affected. We are just one of the many millions of families the world over who have been affected by such selfish, immoral and disrespectful people, but just because the numbers are great, it will never be acceptable behaviour.

[Dark Muse]

Well said! Of course infidelity is wrong, it wrecks lives, and anyone who thinks differently, and that they can justify their selfish behaviour is kidding themselves. I know from bitter experience; my kids no longer have a dad. I will never be convinced that cheating and lying is okay. It's a betrayal of the highest order, the most hurtful thing one person can do to another. I'm tired of seeing people trying to salve their consciences, if they have them, by using the old chestnut, "that's life". It may be some people's lives, but it will never be part of mine, I have too much respect for myself and my family to go along with that bull. I could never behave so despicably as to knowingly inflict hurt on other people for my own gratification. I have my own moral compass, and knew that if such a thing ever happened to me, that would be the end, no questions about it, finito, and it was. His sorry *** was kicked out so fast with all his belongings, that his feet didn't touch the ground. After many years of marriage, I find myself alone, and considerably worse off. Infidelity breaks up families. I have seen many people go through it. It's not just the couple who suffer, the knock-on effects are massive. My life, and that of my kids has changed forever, through no fault of our own, but because there are people out there who see nothing wrong in doing what they do. My daughter is getting married next year, and she has only my side of the family to be there. Her father's side is as good as dead to her. There is no contact with any of his side of the family, so because a couple of selfish people decided they wanted their cake and eat it, many innocent people are affected. We are just one of the many millions of families the world over who have been affected by such selfish, immoral and disrespectful people, but just because the numbers are great, it will never be acceptable behaviour.

Here! Here!

Good for you for being strong enough not to put up with that nonsense. I completely agree, I think it is ridiculous the excuses people try to come up with to justify to themselves their choice to have an affair with another person. And the fact that so many of them seem to try to make it sound as if they are in fact not responsible for the choice they made.

Life is hard sometimes, but that is never a justification for having an affair.

[Virgil]

Young people also like to see things in black and white, and life really isn't like that.

Thanks for considering me young. :) Perhaps I never grew up. :p


Well said! Of course infidelity is wrong, it wrecks lives, and anyone who thinks differently, and that they can justify their selfish behaviour is kidding themselves. I know from bitter experience; my kids no longer have a dad. I will never be convinced that cheating and lying is okay. It's a betrayal of the highest order, the most hurtful thing one person can do to another. I'm tired of seeing people trying to salve their consciences, if they have them, by using the old chestnut, "that's life". It may be some people's lives, but it will never be part of mine, I have too much respect for myself and my family to go along with that bull. I could never behave so despicably as to knowingly inflict hurt on other people for my own gratification. I have my own moral compass, and knew that if such a thing ever happened to me, that would be the end, no questions about it, finito, and it was. His sorry *** was kicked out so fast with all his belongings, that his feet didn't touch the ground. After many years of marriage, I find myself alone, and considerably worse off. Infidelity breaks up families. I have seen many people go through it. It's not just the couple who suffer, the knock-on effects are massive. My life, and that of my kids has changed forever, through no fault of our own, but because there are people out there who see nothing wrong in doing what they do. My daughter is getting married next year, and she has only my side of the family to be there. Her father's side is as good as dead to her. There is no contact with any of his side of the family, so because a couple of selfish people decided they wanted their cake and eat it, many innocent people are affected. We are just one of the many millions of families the world over who have been affected by such selfish, immoral and disrespectful people, but just because the numbers are great, it will never be acceptable behaviour.

I agree with Dark Muse. Hear, hear!!

[Dark Muse]

:( I can see Jozannys point here; it is a terrible thing to live with someone you love and cannot express it through physical intimacy. Sometimes the loneliness is almost unbearable. People are vulnerable, they sometimes make selfish choices that are not the best thing for everyone involved.
I don't think Jozanny is saying that this is the first choice one makes; but that sometimes life is very cruel and a person will choose love over sadness.

And there are people in the world with disabilities who have meaningful, legitimately, genuine relationships. It is not as if once you are disabled you have to have affairs just to find some form of so called companionship.

It does not matter what your circumstances are in life you still have the responsibility to choose not to act in a reprehensible way that could cause other's pain.

[billl]

I just want to point out that, in African Love's moral framework, it is perfectly legitimate (and NOT immoral) to disrespect another person, even if they deserve one's respect.

As I pointed out a page or two back, this moral framework also implies that peeping-toms and stalkers are not behaving immorally, provided they have taken proper care not to get caught. I also wonder if fondling a sleeping or passed-out drunk would be viewed as moral or morally neutral, according to this framework.

[Jozanny]

Thanks for considering me young. :) Perhaps I never grew up. :p

Not now, okay? I know you are basically a decent good hearted sort, but you cannot step into certain life experiences, and if I leave again it will be for good this time. If it is one thing I cannot stand it is that people think they are better than others because of some rule book that really has nothing to do with how people live and breathe.

I am going away for awhile. I haven't been feeling well and for whatever reason I am still trying to believe I can accomplish something for my own satisfaction. I shouldn't be getting upset over threads with the new moral majority on the march.

[1n50mn14]

Absolutely and without question, infidelity is wrong.

This comes from personal experience.

Even if you don't 'know' at the time, with solid, concrete evidence that cheating is going on, you 'know' on some other level. It rises like bile in your throat, until you find out. And you always find out, eventually. At which point it becomes even worse. The logic 'if they never find out, it doesn't hurt them' is complete B.S. That adds a whole new spin on the wrongness of the situation.

I could go on about this for hours and hours, but it's simple.

It's wrong.

No further comment.

[soundofmusic]

And there are people in the world with disabilities who have meaningful, legitimately, genuine relationships. It is not as if once you are disabled you have to have affairs just to find some form of so called companionship.

It does not matter what your circumstances are in life you still have the responsibility to choose not to act in a reprehensible way that could cause other's pain.

Thank you, Dark Muse, for pointing that out. I was writing in the context of someone who lives with a severely disabled person. Of course there are disabled people like Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve who maintained their intellect though they were in wheelchairs. There are also people who have brain tumors removed and have the IQ of a child, severe dementia, paranoid schizophrenia so severe that physical intimacy is out of the question. The person who is married to them is "sealed in time"; married on paper with no love or support in their life. They care for the person because they want whats best for them; but are they to waste away for endless years while the medical community keeps their loved one alive.

I am not saying this is the right thing to do; or the thing I would do. I do, however understand the rationale of peoples actions in such cases.

[Emil Miller]

This is the single biggest piece of crap I've heard in a long time.

I'd love to hear the justification for that one, Brian.



Well, as usual, my observation is based on my own experience. I have known several cases where men have been unfaithful to their wives, such as the colleague who told me about her husband's infidelity. When I said that the trouble with the world is that women want a man but men want women she didn't contradict me. Then there is the case of a friend who told me that while he was abroad with a number of other guys from different countries working on the same project, the majority of them had a girlfriend despite being married. A female friend whose husband spent six years working in Japan with infrequent visits home told me that she knew her husband had had other women but she was philosophical about it knowing that men are predatory by nature. On one occasion I was looking at some old photographs with another female acqaintance and she remarked that a woman in one of them had been, and I quote, "...my husband's sweetie." I tactfully refrained from mentioning that I already knew about the affair.
I am surprised that some people on what is a literary forum seem not to have noticed that the philandering male is a stock character in literature. A moment's reflection will show that some societies are polygamous. Why do you think that is? It is also interesting to note that there is no male equivalent of the Harem and that bigamists are always men.
My original post used the words "in general" because I recognise that there are always exceptions to the rule but, notwithstanding the specifc examples I have given, it is the generality that counts.

[blazeofglory]

There are varieties of infidelity and some are mild and others are acute; as humans cannot completely maintain fidelity under circumstances it is not a sin to be infidel.
For instance if a slaves serves his master but the master is so inhumane and treats the servant cruelly and famines the latter, and if the servant becomes an infidel to steal from the master’s granary to stuff his bowel with foods such infidelity on the part of the slave is tolerable in point of fact. There are indeed levels of fidelity and infidelity and here most seem preoccupied with sexual infidelity, and of course this one is a little more serious than the rest I have mentioned heretofore

[isidro]

African Love has obviously never been cheated on since he or she thinks that cheating causes no distress to anyone. I was forced in a marriage and the man would have cheated on me except all the women turned him down.

That is merely disrespectful?

[*Classic*Charm*]

African Love has obviously never been cheated on since he or she thinks that cheating causes no distress to anyone. I was forced in a marriage and the man would have cheated on me except all the women turned him down.

That is merely disrespectful?

Apparently it doesn't cause you distress if you don't know about it :rolleyes:

[Dark Muse]

Apparently it doesn't cause you distress if you don't know about it :rolleyes:

LOL yes, remember, it is only wrong if you get caught!

[soundofmusic]

A female friend whose husband spent six years working in Japan with infrequent visits home told me that she knew her husband had had other women but she was philosophical about it knowing that men are predatory by nature.

On one occasion I was looking at some old photographs with another female acqaintance and she remarked that a woman in one of them had been, and I quote, "...my husband's sweetie." I tactfully refrained from mentioning that I already knew about the affair.

It is also interesting to note that there is no male equivalent of the Harem and that bigamists are always men

There is a good deal of peer pressure for a woman with a cheating mate to "dump him"; women often choose to remain with a man who keeps them in a home, pays the bills, pays the credit cards and doesn't burden them with his laundry or his sexual desires. Your female friend may have merely been trying to sound philosophical about a sweet lifetime deal with a pension at the back of it ( It's much less than his female companion will reap) or perhaps, she was shamed by her lack of initiative.

In female language, Your female acquaintance was asking you to "spill your guts"

There are no "KNOWN" male equivalents to a Harem; as there are no "KNOWN" female bigomists...this is because female bigomists don't call their best friends to brag;)

[blazeofglory]

The question of infidelity is really bothersome. You cannot commoditize another person. Owning a person so that he or she will always obey you is savagery. Just because you marry someone or have a bond of love or engage in a matrimonial tie you should not think that you own the person. It is likened to owning slaves. The idea that you own a person like you own cows and horses and you expect that he or she must prove fidelity to you all the time is sheer foolhardiness and nothing else. This presupposes the fact that fidelity is not something that always works or should work in point of fact.

[Dark Muse]

The question of infidelity is really bothersome. You cannot commoditize another person. Owning a person so that he or she will always obey you is savagery. Just because you marry someone or have a bond of love or engage in a matrimonial tie you should not think that you own the person. It is likened to owning slaves. The idea that you own a person like you own cows and horses and you expect that he or she must prove fidelity to you all the time is sheer foolhardiness and nothing else. This presupposes the fact that fidelity is not something that always works or should work in point of fact.

When you agree to marry another person, you give your word, of your own free will that you will be faithful to them. It is an understanding agreed upon by both parties.

It is ludicrous to compare slavery to the expectation that your spouse will stay loyal to you after giving their vows that they will remain so.

If you cannot be faithful to one person, than you do the mature and grown up thing by not agreeing to commit yourself to another person, and you do not give your solemn oath that you will be faithful, you find an arrangement with someone who can understand your unwillingness to remain loyal to only them.

[blazeofglory]

We give vows and swear by God and by fire in Hinduism and the like. But promises, vows are more often than not broken and many marriages end up in divorces. And the few who are running successful marriages are doing so on compromises. In reality people choose to own persons, bluntly speaking enslaving other beings. I do not say there is no fidelity in all cases. There is complete or fractional fidelity and people prove fidelity under certain circumstances and when the circumstances turn upside down the fidelity they take pride in will be turned to ashes. This is reality and in an ideal situation, however fidelity exists.

[Dark Muse]

We give vows and swear by God and by fire in Hinduism and the like. But promises, vows are more often than not broken and many marriages end up in divorces. And the few who are running successful marriages are doing so on compromises. In reality people choose to own persons, bluntly speaking enslaving other beings. I do not say there is no fidelity in all cases. There is complete or fractional fidelity and people prove fidelity under certain circumstances and when the circumstances turn upside down the fidelity they take pride in will be turned to ashes. This is reality and in an ideal situation, however fidelity exists.

Here is something I have never understood. Why are people so unwilling to hold others accountable for their own choices and actions? Why is it somehow seen as a bad thing to expect a person to take responsible for the decisions they decide to make in their lives, and to suffer the consequences when they make the choice to act wrongly and cause harm to another?

What is with all the excuse making to pardon those who behaving in a repulsive way?

Infidelity is wrong! It is not wrong to expect your spouse to be faithful to you.

I grow wearing of all this talk of "circumstances" you act as if a person can just unexpected happen to find themselves being unfaithful with no control over the situation.

That is a bunch of bullocks.

If a person is unfaithful they made the conscious choice to be so, and they and they alone are responsible for it, and they and they alone are in control over whether or not they are faithful and it is never ok not to be faithful.

You seem to be victimizing the cheaters and villaninzing those who suffer at their hands.

[blazeofglory]

There is a stench of Christianity in your opinions. Free Choice? This word was coined by Christian orthodox. That means when a person commits crimes he must be punished and the circumstances he or she is not accountable for all that happens. This is ridiculous. I want to give the example of a boy whose mother was sick and almost in her deathbed. She wants to eat strawberries before dying. He was a child and wanted to please his mother. He was an innocent and did not know the Free Choice stuff at all. He did not know Christianity and all its morals though he was a Church goer with his mother. He knew that his neighbor had a garden where he could get strawberries. He had heard stealth is a sin and he should not steal anything from others. But he does not care and steal the strawberries from his neighbors’s garden. He had a choice between love and moral. He chose the former.

As long as understanding takes place it is OK between individuals and if a person has under certain circumstances uttered words of vows and promises it does not mean he has to carry out it for ever and that his spouse too must be compelled to prove conformity. Most of fidelity is forced and laws, religions, faiths, cultures enforce it but they are weak and their impact is skin deep. Man loves his spouse as long as he can gratify him sexually and of course economically and socially and once this breaks he will fall for another.
What you think in terms of moral values is simply conditioning and to understand the truth of the matter you must de-condition your mind. Of course under a very conducive or favorable circumstance we tend to be very moral, faithful, kind and just and when the situation becomes difficult all your good ideals will vaporize. It is like convincing a famished person that stealing foods is a sin. And telling a woman whose husband is far and does not meet her for years to be faithful to her husband is a good idea and yet the husband has a girl friend and wants his wife to fidelity is an idea that is primitive in point of fact.
Dark Muse, under normal circumstances what you said is correct. But when circumstances turn complex you will be proved wrong

[The Comedian]

When you agree to marry another person, you give your word, of your own free will that you will be faithful to them. It is an understanding agreed upon by both parties.

I agree with Dark Muse here that the morality of infidelity is, ultimately, a morality of promise, of trust. If you and your partner have agreed to be faithful, then a violation of that faith is the corruption. And, yes, you are responsible for for it insofar as you are a willing party.

Of course, if one is in an "open" relationship where no such promises of fidelity are made, then, in my mind, no moral responsibility is violated when sexual activity is extended beyond the confines of the relationship.

RE: My response to the "boys will be boys" idea is this: "Man up, kiddies."

[Dark Muse]

As long as understanding takes place it is OK between individuals and if a person has under certain circumstances uttered words of vows and promises it does not mean he has to carry out it for ever and that his spouse too must be compelled to prove conformity. Most of fidelity is forced and laws, religions, faiths, cultures enforce it but they are weak and their impact is skin deep. Man loves his spouse as long as he can gratify him sexually and of course economically and socially and once this breaks he will fall for another.

If a person finds they are no longer able to uphold their vows and promise, they do not have the right to go behind their partners back and betray the trust and promise that they made. That is a cowardly and unforgivable thing to do.

They act like a mature, and grown adult, and they tell their spouse that they no longer wish to uphold their vows, and it is between them if the spouse is willing to forgive this, or decides that they wish to break off the relationship when their partner can no longer uphold their end of the deal.


What you think in terms of moral values is simply conditioning and to understand the truth of the matter you must de-condition your mind. Of course under a very conducive or favorable circumstance we tend to be very moral, faithful, kind and just and when the situation becomes difficult all your good ideals will vaporize. It is like convincing a famished person that stealing foods is a sin. And telling a woman whose husband is far and does not meet her for years to be faithful to her husband is a good idea and yet the husband has a girl friend and wants his wife to fidelity is an idea that is primitive in point of fact.
Dark Muse, under normal circumstances what you said is correct. But when circumstances turn complex you will be proved wrong

There is no innocent, noble, or excusable reason to have an affair. And a person always under any circumstances has the ability to choose if they are going to be unfaithful or not, and when a person makes the choice to be unfaithful they know what they are doing is wrong.

I can guarantee that I will never make the choice to be unfaithful. For it is fully within my control and my power if I am faithful or not, and that is the uncrossable line for me. No circumstance can make me choose to betray the person I love and break the vow that I gave them. My dearly beloved has absolutely every right and justification in expecting me to be faithful, truthful and honest.

[ennison]

Prince Charles(vile man) made a public pledge which he had no intention of keeping. In life we do not like being lied to. We do not like not being able to trust. Even if we are monstrous liars ourselves.

[isidro]

RE: My response to the "boys will be boys" idea is this: "Man up, kiddies."

Can I marry you? LOL!

Yes, Dark Muse, you are absolutely correct. It is always a choice. I am sure you and certainly I have had plenty of opportunities to cheat. That does not mean that you or I have taken it.

And Blaze of Glory, Christianity is not an evil thing and the "stench" to which you refer comes from the narrow minded thinking to combat traditional morality in which one frequently finds happy and loving relationships.

[MANICHAEAN]

We need to be a bit circumspect here in submitting to an understandable impulse of trying to attain any moral high ground on this very interesting subject.
Sure, religion & society lay down standards of morality that we are supposed to use as a benchmark & good luck to those that can both attain & be comfortable in them.
But what about those that cannot? Man is capable of loving more than one woman. In Islam its allowed to have six wives. In Africa a man can have his wife & children & as long as he looks after them properly & is discreet, is able to take any number of girlfriends. The rest of African society does not look down on him & call him immoral. Its the norm. French presidents with mistresses (Chirac, Mitterand) dont even raise an eyebrow. Lately Italian ones do! Eisenhower, slept with his driver during the Second World War & it most probably kept him sane with the pressure he was under. Kennedy adored women, but was unable to keep it under wraps. Authors like Graham Greene could never have written books like "The End of The Affair" unless he had a penchant for whores & mistresses.
The point about infidelity being a "raft" to help one move out of a bad relationship is a good one. I will take it one step further. If you enjoy the company of woemen & have a relationship, it actually helps you. Its not immoral to keep more than one woman happy if you are capable of it. It is disrespectful if you lack discretion.

[Dark Muse]

The point about infidelity being a "raft" to help one move out of a bad relationship is a good one. I will take it one step further. If you enjoy the company of woemen & have a relationship, it actually helps you. Its not immoral to keep more than one woman happy if you are capable of it. It is disrespectful if you lack discretion.

But it is never ok to do it behind a persons back. It is wrong to give a person the impression that you will be faithful if you will not. You do not give a vow to someone you have no intention of keeping.

If you like to be with multiple people than you make that known to those of whom you are with, you find people that can accommodate your chosen life style.

For me the immorality of infidelity is in the act of betrayal. And there is no justification for a person doing that, it is sheer act of cowardice.

If you know you are incapable of being faithful to one person, than do not make anyone falsely believe that you will.

I do not care what consenting adults decide to do in their private lives. But that is the key, everyone involved needs to be consenting to it.

[Scheherazade]

What I find most interesting in this thread is that it seems like *mostly* men run in to justify why "infidelity" is *not* wrong.

We can all philosophize how it is different for men or how it is OK to divorce "sex" from "emotional attachments" but the fact remains that when one strays too far from the path they are supposed to be on, s/he is simply breaking a promise. It does not matter that it has anything to do with sex. You might have promised not to use any cutlery during your relationship or never to wear a blue shirt; if you are in a committed relationship, then you should honour your promise and not use any cutlery or wear that blue shirt ever again.

If you think that promise does not suit you anymore, you should, first and most importantly, discuss the issue with your partner rather than trying to make amends in your own way.

Infidelity is not about the person to whom you are unfaithful but about the kind of person you are, in my opinion.

[Dark Muse]

What I find most interesting in this thread is that it seems like *mostly* men run in to justify why "infidelity" is *not* wrong.

We can all philosophize how it is different for men or how it is OK to divorce "sex" from "emotional attachments" but the fact remains that when one strays too far from the path they are supposed to be on, s/he is simply breaking a promise. It does not matter that it has anything to do with sex. You might have promised not to use any cutlery during your relationship or never to wear a blue shirt; if you are in a committed relationship, then you should honour your promise and not use any cutlery or wear that blue shirt ever again.

Excellent point and well put!


If you think that promise does not suit you anymore, you should, first and most importantly, discuss the issue with your partner rather than trying to make amends in your own way.

Exactly !!!


Infidelity is not about the person to whom you are unfaithful but about the kind of person you are, in my opinion.

Yes, that is so true.

[MANICHAEAN]

I find it hard to understand why you find it difficult to come to terms with the reality that a man (and a woman presumably) can love more than one person.
I've known many cases where men have a wife/family, domestic bliss etc which satisfies one side of their natures & a mistress which satisfies another (and I'm not just talking about sex).
It is the variety in human relationships that keeps them interesting. It provides a balance that, (unless you are lucky) cannot be filled by one person. Take for instance Pilar (Pablo's woman), in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and her words to the effect "You dont know what it is to be born ugly and yet know within thyself that thou art beautiful". Thats not your straight forward housewife but one complicated lady that had drunk the cup to the full with the relationships she had been in. They had satisfied different aspects of her nature, whether it had been the matador's sheer guts or the mundane comfort zone with the partisan leader.
Also I've chosen this as a feminine example for it is just as relevant as those invariably protrayed from the male perspective. If your response is "its a fictional character", then I've known real life ones.

[Dark Muse]

I find it hard to understand why you find it difficult to come to terms with the reality that a man (and a woman presumably) can love more than one person..

You seem to be missing my point. If you want to have multiple relationships, there is no reason to do it behind anyone's back, there is no reason to do it in a way that could hurt someone who believes you are committed to just them.

If you want to love more than one person, than be open and honest about it with everyone involved.

It is the lying and betrayal that I am against, the vowing to be faithful to someone and than going behind their back to sleep with other people.

A person can engage in an open arrangement where their partners are aware of the fact that it will not be a monogamous relationship.

But there is no justification for intentionally misleading another person that you claim to love. If you really loved them, you would tell them the truth about your intentions.

As Scheherazade pointed out. It is not the act of sex that is the main issue, it is the act of breaking a given promise to another person.

If you are not going to be faithful, than do not swear a vow to someone telling them that you are going to be.

[billl]

If you are not going to be faithful, than do not swear a vow to someone telling them that you are going to be.

Or, at least be willing to accept that there is some immoral "spice" being added to to the passion/tragedy/whatever when the relationship with a loved one becomes, in a very significant sense, reduced to a lie or dissimulation, or a dimly realized, tortuous deception.

Being "open" about it isn't easy, but I think it's the best way if one wants to re-establish reality in a loving relationship. Deception and betrayal are "real", of course, but I can't imagine that they're the best elements in an authentic bond. Well the mistress (or male counterpart) might appreciate it, but not so much the deceived...

[TheFifthElement]

What I find most interesting in this thread is that it seems like *mostly* men run in to justify why "infidelity" is *not* wrong.

That sounds like bias to me Scher, bais verging on the edge of sexism. Either that or you haven't read the whole thread. Many men have, on this thread, said that infidelity is wrong and disrespectful. There have also been women who have counselled a less judgemental position. Perhaps less people are willing to come in and discuss the matter, because they're not keen on the idea of being hoisted on someone's pitchfork. When is the burning, by the way ;)


We can all philosophize how it is different for men or how it is OK to divorce "sex" from "emotional attachments" but the fact remains that when one strays too far from the path they are supposed to be on, s/he is simply breaking a promise. It does not matter that it has anything to do with sex. You might have promised not to use any cutlery during your relationship or never to wear a blue shirt; if you are in a committed relationship, then you should honour your promise and not use any cutlery or wear that blue shirt ever again.

You raise an interesting point Scher, because throughout the thread people have been talking about infidelity and it seems that infidelity is generally considered to be sex. My question is this - how far does infidelity go? You seem to imply, by your comments, that it is an act of infidelity to wear that blue shirt if you've promised not to wear that blue shirt again. And Dark Muse has talked a lot about promises too, and breach of trust, and the fact that it is entirely within your control to breach trust or not. I ask you this: if you, as part of your marriage vows, promise to 'love' the other person and later on you find that you're not in love with that person any more, but you do not leave them or give them any sign that you don't love them any more, is that infidelity? You have breached your promise; this, according to some, is something entirely inside your control; you are lying to your partner. You say that it's not just about sex. Therefore, surely this is an act of infidelity?

What if you fell in love with someone else, you loved them, longed for them, but never acted on it. Is this too an act of infidelity? Perhaps you do act on it, but never have sex with the person. Perhaps you develop a close friendship and by this you express your love for that 'other' person who is not your spouse, but you never touch them, never kiss them, never have sex with them, never tell them you love them, but you do. Perhaps when you have sex with your spouse, which is a lie but you do it because not to will bring questions which may open that irreparable breach, you are thinking about this other person. Perhaps you are not brave enough to take the next step? Perhaps you'd feel guilty about leaving your spouse, after all you might not be in love with them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you don't still care for them or feel responsible towards them. Perhaps you have children and, by leaving your spouse who you no longer love, that will make your children poorer - either financially or because of the inherent loss that comes from splitting the family unit, or the fact that you know your 'ex' will punish you by denying you access to the children, using them as a weapon, which is wrong but it happens (a lot), and because of this you do not leave your spouse, because this idea of a clean break is lovely but naive. You are still living a lie, lying to your spouse. You have broken your promise. By your definition this is infidelity, it is no different to having sex with someone.

[Scheherazade]

That sounds like bias to me Scher, bais verging on the edge of sexism. Either that or you haven't read the whole thread. Many men have, on this thread, said that infidelity is wrong and disrespectful. There have also been women who have counselled a less judgemental position. Perhaps less people are willing to come in and discuss the matter, because they're not keen on the idea of being hoisted on someone's pitchfork. When is the burning, by the way ;)That is a big conclusion to draw based on a single sentence of mine, surely.

I said, "What I find most interesting in this thread is that it seems like *mostly* men run in to justify why "infidelity" is *not* wrong."

So far, I think there have been four/five members who said "infidelity" may not be a "wrong" thing and three of them have been men; so, yes, it still seems like it is mostly men who defend it.

It is not a sexist remark; it is a statistically justified remark. :p

As for people feeling intimidated... The poll is an anonymous one and the results reflect the opinions posted so far; either nobody has been intimidated or they have been too intimidated even to take the poll :p

Regarding broken promises; in my opinion, if one deceives another person with whom they are in a committed relationship in any way, it is a form of infidelity. If you don't love or respect your partner like you say you do and carry on with the relationship in the name of convenience and/or financial security, isn't this being deceitful and, hence, cheating?

I am aware that my views might come across as "naive" as I don't have any experience on the subject but I would like to think that if faced a dilemma like this one, I will be brave enough to do what I believe is the "right" thing and not be swayed by financial concerns and such.

[blazeofglory]

Infidelity, whether or not we accept is common and hardly people do we come across in this postmodern world who are or who choose to prove fidelity except in a cinematic way. Man kind of is an animal who is conditioned to be good but in actuality he is brutish in nature deep down.
Man is more honest and whereas some women try to act to be what they are not most men do not pretend to be what they are.

we make vows and promises but most of promises and vows will be proved wrong in due course.

[Scheherazade]

Man is more honest and whereas some women try to act to be what they are not most men do not pretend to be what they are.Now, here is a sexist remark if I have ever seen one!

:p

[The Comedian]

if you, as part of your marriage vows, promise to 'love' the other person and later on you find that you're not in love with that person any more, but you do not leave them or give them any sign that you don't love them any more, is that infidelity?

No, but with qualification. Love is simply an emotion. And, like all the rest of 'em, they change as we change. Add to this that we're people and often don't know ourselves very well, I'd say that if this were my situation, my first reaction would be to wait. Perhaps this will pass. Or perhaps, that I'm falling out of love has more to do with my own involvement to the relationship than anything else. I'd take time, a lot of time, to search my feelings, see if such a profound change really did happen, and if there is something that I could do to address it.

A healthy love and a healthy relationship are like a lot of other healthy things (body, diet) -- they require habit, practice, routine, and patience. I don't think that one trip to the gym will make me healthy forever, nor do I think that falling in love is like setting an object in motion in the vacuum of space.

In any long-term relationship both parties will go through the kinds of thoughts that you ask about above.

Novelty is but the spark that ignites the fire. It's up to us to add the wood to keep the home fires burning. And, if the fire starts to go out, there's no need to douse it with water. Just gather some kindling and dry wood -- whatever that may be. And burn again.

Of course, if there is truly no hope -- that the love is lost. Then, after a time, when you really know this to be true, then, "yes" carrying on with the relationship is a lie.

But methinks, as I've alluded to above, most give up too quickly. Panic at the first opportunity, and in so doing, leave love unaided and alone.

[African_Love]

Apparently it doesn't cause you distress if you don't know about it :rolleyes:

The fact that what you aren't aware of cannot harm you may or may not justify cheating but that much is true. Right or wrong, having sex with men/women other than your partner when you've agreed to behave monogamously will not cause them to suffer, only their discovery of this fact will cause them distress. Nobody can deny that much.




Infidelity is not about the person to whom you are unfaithful but about the kind of person you are, in my opinion.

I completely agree. Cheating shows poor character.

I'm not even sure how to further articulate my view. The idea that you can harm or benefit someone outside of causing or depriving them of a distressing or pleasurable conscious experience is metaphysical to me, it's abstract and useless.


we do not like being lied to

We cannot like or dislike what we aren't aware of. We do not like finding out/suspecting that we have been lied to.


What if you fell in love with someone else, you loved them, longed for them, but never acted on it. Is this too an act of infidelity? Perhaps you do act on it, but never have sex with the person. Perhaps you develop a close friendship and by this you express your love for that 'other' person who is not your spouse, but you never touch them, never kiss them, never have sex with them, never tell them you love them, but you do. Perhaps when you have sex with your spouse, which is a lie but you do it because not to will bring questions which may open that irreparable breach, you are thinking about this other person. Perhaps you are not brave enough to take the next step? Perhaps you'd feel guilty about leaving your spouse, after all you might not be in love with them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you don't still care for them or feel responsible towards them. Perhaps you have children and, by leaving your spouse who you no longer love, that will make your children poorer - either financially or because of the inherent loss that comes from splitting the family unit, or the fact that you know your 'ex' will punish you by denying you access to the children, using them as a weapon, which is wrong but it happens (a lot), and because of this you do not leave your spouse, because this idea of a clean break is lovely but naive. You are still living a lie, lying to your spouse. You have broken your promise. By your definition this is infidelity, it is no different to having sex with someone.

I think this was a good point although I don't think it 'justifies' cheating as far as it not being disrespectful or indicative of poor character. It does seem arbitrary to me that everyone tolerates their partner being attracted to other people since no one can really expect otherwise but acting on that attraction is unthinkable. Your partner will be sexually/romantically attracted to other people regardless of whether or not they act on that attraction. If the single only reason you don't want them to act on that attraction is jealousy, a 'don't ask, don't tell' open relationship seems sensible. I would never ask a woman to remain 'loyal' to me alone even though I could be monogamous if she wanted me to but I won't go into my views on open relationships.

[The Comedian]

The fact that what you aren't aware of cannot harm you

Not all the time. Say I'm secretly, quietly embezzling a small portion of your pay check. You aren't aware I'm doing it, of course. And I don't take much, just enough to go unnoticed. You? You change your life accordingly, make 1000 small sacrifices, but sacrifice you do, unaware of the harm I'm causing you.

Or, let's say you and I are in a committed relationship with each other. I start to have an affair. You don't know about it. But, slowly, almost unseen at first, I start to resent you. You start to seem a fool to me. I'm unaware of this myself at first, but soon, in small ways, I snap at you easier. I tune you out. I don't take you as seriously. Even though I'm the one cheating, you seem to me the fool. My behavior makes you feel worse about yourself, wonder if you've done something wrong. You become more tense around me. Our relationship sputters, loses its energy. . . all as you are unaware of the cause of my change in behavior.

[African_Love]

Not all the time. Say I'm secretly, quietly embezzling a small portion of your pay check. You aren't aware I'm doing it, of course. And I don't take much, just enough to go unnoticed. You? You change your life accordingly, make 1000 small sacrifices, but sacrifice you do, unaware of the harm I'm causing you.

Embezzling a small portion of my pay check deprives me of the pleasure/satisfaction that money would have given me. Furthermore, while I would not be aware of what is causing me to experience distress, I would be experiencing distress as a result of your embezzlement.


Or, let's say you and I are in a committed relationship with each other. I start to have an affair. You don't know about it. But, slowly, almost unseen at first, I start to resent you. You start to seem a fool to me. I'm unaware of this myself at first, but soon, in small ways, I snap at you easier. I tune you out. I don't take you as seriously. Even though I'm the one cheating, you seem to me the fool. My behavior makes you feel worse about yourself, wonder if you've done something wrong. You become more tense around me. Our relationship sputters, loses its energy. . . all as you are unaware of the cause of my change in behavior.

Your having an affair is not what would cause me distress, your mistreating me is what would cause me distress. You could treat me very well and have an affair, you could treat me very poorly and behave monogamously. Forcing yourself not to act on feelings you have for other people does not help or benefit me in any way.


I just want to point out that, in African Love's moral framework, it is perfectly legitimate (and NOT immoral) to disrespect another person, even if they deserve one's respect.

What do you think of people who, in the privacy of their own minds, fantasize about setting their spouses on fire? Can they be morally faulted for this? No, it's just disrespectful.


As I pointed out a page or two back, this moral framework also implies that peeping-toms and stalkers are not behaving immorally, provided they have taken proper care not to get caught.

I don't think it can ever be guaranteed that someone won't discover that you are cheating on them, spying on them or stalking them. If it could, then I have to be consistent.



I also wonder if fondling a sleeping or passed-out drunk would be viewed as moral or morally neutral, according to this framework.

See above.

[Dark Muse]

Embezzling a small portion of my pay check deprives me of the pleasure/satisfaction that money would have given me. Furthermore, while I would not be aware of what is causing me to experience distress, I would be experiencing distress as a result of your embezzlement.

And if someone is having an affair it does cause little changes in the partners life even if they are not actively aware of the affair, there will be things they have to sub-consciously adapt to, things they will notice.

If a person is engaged within affair than their habits undoubtly will have to change in order to find ways to meet up with their illicit accomplice. They will suddenly have to start staying at work later, and start going on business trips, something in their life will alter to make room for the affair.

Even if the spouse never knows there is an affair, they will be affected by these changes, even if they think their spouse is really working late, or going away on business not having them at home as much will deprive them of pleasure and happiness.

undoubtly they will notice little changes in their partners behavior and attitude to them, even if they do not ever suspect an affair, they will be emotionally affected by these changes, and it will cause them distress, no matter if they know the reason for them or not.

There will be a series of small changes that will occur within the spouses life, that will lead to their unhappiness even without them ever discovering the affair.

[billl]

Quote:


Or, let's say you and I are in a committed relationship with each other. I start to have an affair. You don't know about it. But, slowly, almost unseen at first, I start to resent you. You start to seem a fool to me. I'm unaware of this myself at first, but soon, in small ways, I snap at you easier. I tune you out. I don't take you as seriously. Even though I'm the one cheating, you seem to me the fool. My behavior makes you feel worse about yourself, wonder if you've done something wrong. You become more tense around me. Our relationship sputters, loses its energy. . . all as you are unaware of the cause of my change in behavior.
Your having an affair is not what would cause me distress, your mistreating me is what would cause me distress. You could treat me very well and have an affair, you could treat me very poorly and behave monogamously. Forcing yourself not to act on feelings you have for other people does not help or benefit me in any way.

Having a secret affair denies the partner the opportunity to seek a more compatible relationship with another person. I think I mentioned this a few pages back, but the cheater's position in the relationship becomes akin to that of an adult towards children around Christmas, allowing them to believe in some fantasy (about Santa or fidelity). It is a superiority in information about the environment built wholly on a deception and an abuse of trust. The cheated spouse would be living in an artificial environment, reality will have been broken/denied to them, for the selfish purposes of another individual who subsequently acquires an advantage in action based upon their better access to truth.

If the spouse were Hitler, then it might be OK, but if the spouse is deserving (perhaps especially deserving) of one's respect, then I would say that the cheating and the subsequent arrangement would be immoral.





What do you think of people who, in the privacy of their own minds, fantasize about setting their spouses on fire? Can they be morally faulted for this? No, it's just disrespectful.



If it is done in the privacy of their own minds, I think that is something else altogether. Part of the human experience is our ability to consider things that we would not actually do.
I don't think that, if person A were in the same room with person B--who person A had recently fondled, secretly watched on the toilet, or cheated on--it would be at all the same thing as if person A had merely fantasized about those things.

The whole thing seems to hinge on the ability to control circumstances (in some theoretical or supernatural way), in order to take advantage of others without their knowledge.




I don't think it can ever be guaranteed that someone won't discover that you are cheating on them, spying on them or stalking them. If it could, then I have to be consistent.



Then, in a world where people could be 100% sure that they won't be caught (and this is the only world that African_Love seems to feel would be an appropriate place for this particular moral framework) then everyone would be equally free to:

1. cheat on a wife/husband/committed lover (regardless of the circumstances)
2. stalk another person
3. be a peeping tom
4. fondle unconscious individuals

The moral framework would hold that such acts would be disrespectful, yet morally neutral.

For those of us that are not attracted to such activities (either as the perpetrator, or as possible unwitting victims of those who wish to treat us in such ways) such a world would represent a diminishment of the human experience. I don't seek such "advantages". I don't want to be part of such a world. And I don't see how judgments based on its context can be used as support for infidelity or any other behavior in other contexts.

I am glad that African_Love has included the word "respect" in the discussion. The fact that respect is not synonymous with the word moral can be a useful distinction, but I don't think it affects the question of infidelity, except in cases where the cheated-on spouse is not deserving of respect. Being kind to our naive children in regards to Santa might be fine for some, but treating our spouse in such a way is, I feel, both disrespectful and (except in certain complex cases, such as tragic injury, etc.) immoral.

[Haunted]

Up until recently, I would have said that infidelity is both immoral and disrespectful. Then I adopted the view that it was disrespectful but not immoral (if it could be guaranteed that one's partner would never find out about it) and now I'm not sure it's even that much (disrespectful).

This statement is so sociopathic, it really bothers me.

Morality is a concept of right and wrong. Conscience is never subject to outside influence.

For instance, if you kill someone, it's wrong. Whether or not anyone knows about it or if you hurt anyone in the process.

You can't change wrong into right, but you can try to justify it. Hence, justifiable homicide. But the act itself remains immoral.

If you think it's wrong only when someone is hurt or when someone finds out, then it's shame you're experiencing. The presence or absence of shame doesn't change the moral nature of an act — yes, it is still wrong.

To glorify an immoral act — murder, infidelity, etc. — into something moral and innocuous and admirable, you'll need a sleazeball lawyer.

[papayahed]

Your having an affair is not what would cause me distress, your mistreating me is what would cause me distress. You could treat me very well and have an affair, you could treat me very poorly and behave monogamously. Forcing yourself not to act on feelings you have for other people does not help or benefit me in any way.


Here's the problem. My having an affair would cause me distress. It would be pretty difficult to look myself in the mirror knowing that I'm lying to someone I care about. A lie is still a lie even if nobody finds out.

I have a friend who's having an affair. How can I trust her character knowing she can lie so easily to someone she has made a commitment to. I would have second thoughts about trusting this person with anything.

[Dark Muse]

If it is done in the privacy of their own minds, I think that is something else altogether. Part of the human experience is our ability to consider things that we would not actually do.
I don't think that, if person A were in the same room with person B--who person A had recently fondled, secretly watched on the toilet, or cheated on--it would be at all the same thing as if person A had merely fantasized about those things.

The whole thing seems to hinge on the ability to control circumstances (in some theoretical or supernatural way), in order to take advantage of others without their knowledge.


Then, in a world where people could be 100% sure that they won't be caught (and this is the only world that African_Love seems to feel would be an appropriate place for this particular moral framework) then everyone would be equally free to:

1. cheat on a wife/husband/committed lover (regardless of the circumstances)
2. stalk another person
3. be a peeping tom
4. fondle unconscious individuals

The moral framework would hold that such acts would be disrespectful, yet morally neutral.

For those of us that are not attracted to such activities (either as the perpetrator, or as possible unwitting victims of those who wish to treat us in such ways) such a world would represent a diminishment of the human experience. I don't seek such "advantages". I don't want to be part of such a world. And I don't see how judgments based on its context can be used as support for infidelity or any other behavior in other contexts.

I am glad that African_Love has included the word "respect" in the discussion. However, I think that the fact that respect is not synonymous with the word moral has mistakenly led to the idea that disrespect can never be immoral. Being kind to our naive children in regards to Santa might be fine for some, but treating our spouse in such a way is, I feel, both disrespectful and (except in certain complex cases, such as tragic injury, etc.) immoral.

You bring up a very good point here. Actually some years go out this way, there were this new "craze" where people would secretly slip these spy cams to look up women's skirts and dresses out in public, without them knowing about it, and than put the photos and video online, but you never saw the faces of the victims and there was know way of knowing who the people and no one would know if it happened to them or not, so apparently to African Love, there is nothing the least bit immoral about doing that.

[isidro]

I have an absolutely brilliant idea for persons such as African Love! Let's just throw the whole relationship thing out the window and everyone sleeps with everyone else since there is nothing wrong with it. No one will ever be loyal to you and you cannot expect them to be since you will never be loyal to them. Sure, we throw actual love and commitment entirely out the window but since that takes more effort than many people in this society can muster what is the use considering it in the first place. Order? That is thoroughly archaic.

[Dark Muse]

I have an absolutely brilliant idea for persons such as African Love! Let's just throw the whole relationship thing out the window and everyone sleeps with everyone else since there is nothing wrong with it. No one will ever be loyal to you and you cannot expect them to be since you will never be loyal to them. Sure, we throw actual love and commitment entirely out the window but since that takes more effort than many people in this society can muster what is the use considering it in the first place. Order? That is thoroughly archaic.

LOL that would suit Blazeofglory and African Love just fine, but while the rest of the world goes to the dogs, me and my mate will stick to our old fashioned and apparently evil Christian (even though I am not even one) values of commitment, honesty, and faithfulness.

[Haunted]

You could treat me very well and have an affair, you could treat me very poorly and behave monogamously.

How commendable, to treat someone well while having an affair. :rolleyes:

So using this model, it wouldn't be morally wrong then to put this piece of work through a meat grinder? Rest assured that it'll be done with loving thoughts and utmost respect.

[Michael T]

How commendable, to treat someone well while having an affair. :rolleyes:

So using this model, it wouldn't be morally wrong then to put this piece of work through a meat grinder? Rest assured that it'll be done with loving thoughts and utmost respect.


:D Nice one :D :thumbs_up

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such remarks will be deleted without further notice.

[blazeofglory]

You seem to be missing my point. If you want to have multiple relationships, there is no reason to do it behind anyone's back, there is no reason to do it in a way that could hurt someone who believes you are committed to just them.

If you want to love more than one person, than be open and honest about it with everyone involved.

It is the lying and betrayal that I am against, the vowing to be faithful to someone and than going behind their back to sleep with other people.

A person can engage in an open arrangement where their partners are aware of the fact that it will not be a monogamous relationship.

But there is no justification for intentionally misleading another person that you claim to love. If you really loved them, you would tell them the truth about your intentions.

As Scheherazade pointed out. It is not the act of sex that is the main issue, it is the act of breaking a given promise to another person.

If you are not going to be faithful, than do not swear a vow to someone telling them that you are going to be.

What you said will be correct in an ideal situation where both partners are absolutely ideal and understand each other transcending of course all conventional values. But realistically such ideas never hold true. People having multiple relationships do it behind their back.

Man is a funny creature. Today you may betray somebody and again tom arrow you can maintain a very close relationship.

In Nepal sexual relationship behind their matrimonial ties is a taboo and people hate them if they keep multiple relationships. But still it often happens as today things are different thru globalization in Nepal.
I know a couple. In that case the husband, though married, has a relationship with a few other women. But afterward he got changed and started maintaining very close relationship with his own wife.

All I want to say conclusively here is multiple relationships are likely to happen today and people understand that things like this are uncontrollable and they know for sure that there is no ideal situation.

Everyone is vulnerable or indefensible. In an ideal situation what DARK MUSE sad may hold true

[Dark Muse]

What you said will be correct in an ideal situation where both partners are absolutely ideal and understand each other transcending of course all conventional values. But realistically such ideas never hold true. People having multiple relationships do it behind their back.

And because people do it, makes it by default right? I really do not get your logic, should murder also be right since in an ideal situation people would not kill other people but sense in reality they do, that means that it should just be accepted?

Or what about rape and child molestation. Ideally these things would not happen, but in the real life they do, so what? We should pardon it?

[papayahed]

All I want to say conclusively here is multiple relationships are likely to happen today and people understand that things like this are uncontrollable and they know for sure that there is no ideal situation.


uncontrollable??? How is that possible? Did the man accidently fall on top of the woman and accidently have sex? I'm not buying it. At every step a desicion was made to cheat. There is no uncontrollable.

[Dark Muse]

uncontrollable??? How is that possible? Did the man accidently fall on top of the woman and accidently have sex? I'm not buying it. At every step a desicion was made to cheat. There is no uncontrollable.

LOL :lol:

Thank You!!!!

You are completetly right. It is 100% within a persons control if they have an affair or not.

[Dragon Shadow]

Infedilty is a sin and it is immoral. I believe that if you make a commitment to someone else then you should keep your commitment.
When someone cheats in a relationship not just one person gets hurt (the one who is cheated on) the one who is the other person also gets hurt. The person doing the actually cheating is being selfish and not putting anything in to either relationship that he or she may have. He is only taking.

[metamorphoser]

agree with you, Blazeofglory. Uncontrollable, indeed!

eeh, Dragon Shadow, is fidelity then humanity or responsibility? if blinded by passion and make a seemingly sacred oath believing it would never fail, after knowing it was not ..however trying to keep what it used to, we soar then..

[virginiawang]

I don't really understand why infidelity exists. I will never have my heart thinking about two men at the same time. I will not tell lies in a love relationship. However I will allow the man I love to do whatever he likes beacuse I love him.

[blazeofglory]

LOL that would suit Blazeofglory and African Love just fine, but while the rest of the world goes to the dogs, me and my mate will stick to our old fashioned and apparently evil Christian (even though I am not even one) values of commitment, honesty, and faithfulness.

What percentage of commitment, honesty and faithfulness do you have in your culture? I do not know exactly which culture you belong to? In western culture I think virginity, faithfulness, trust are things of the past in most cases if not in all. I am not much familiar with western cultures but what I glean from books, journals, TV serials, newspapers and magazines and cinemas.

Maybe what you said applies a little bit in eastern cultures; at least ostensibly if not actually. Because primitive or traditional values still exist in our villages if not in our cities where globalization is looming large.

[Dark Muse]

What percentage of commitment, honesty and faithfulness do you have in your culture? I do not know exactly which culture you belong to? In western culture I think virginity, faithfulness, trust are things of the past in most cases if not in all. I am not much familiar with western cultures but what I glean from books, journals, TV serials, newspapers and magazines and cinemas.

Well you know what they say, if everyone else jumps off a bridge does that mean you are just going to blindly follow them?

If crime rates are high in an area should I then say what the hell, and just become a criminal because it is just the thing to do.

I am not just going to follow blindly with the sheep, nor I am going to use that as a basis to justify anyone's actions.

Because other people are unfaithful, does not mean that makes being unfaithful the right thing to do. Nor does it mean it is a practice to adopt within my own personal life.

That is where we seem to differ and fail to understand each other. For me just because everyone else is doing it, does not mean that by default makes it the right thing to do, nor does it mean that I ought to throw my own values out the window and join in just to be with the in crowd.

You seem to think that the whole world should just operate off some sort of peer pressure system. And everyone should just go along with popular trends simply because they are popular, and the very popularity of it, automatically makes it a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

I prefer to think for myself.

[billl]

Blaze, I think that in some ways magazines, TV, etc. reflect what happens among some people, but really the reason for the prevalence of betrayals and scandalous behavior in entertainment (and news, as well) is the fact that people are more likely to read or watch it. It is generally more interesting and juicy than reports of faithfulness.

In the U.S., there are certainly many who have experienced cheating in their relationship, as well as divorce, but the number that think that such things are just fine is much less, I think. In any case, it is far from a universal occurrence, many refrain from temptation, and my guess is that many feel that refraining from affairs is best for them, in the long term. Attitudes will possibly vary from region to region, as well as according to other factors, similar to the village/city situation in your country--but that's just the impression I get, nothing to do with statistics.

I just briefly investigated the statistics online, and it seems that maybe about half of the people in U.S. marriages cheat on their spouse, although some studies offer a much lower percentage. an example list of stats (http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html) It seems that men do (or admit to doing) it more often than women, with the ratio being (perhaps) 60%men and 40%women. I wonder what percentage of "cheaters" are actually married to "cheaters" as well--I figure discovery and dismissal of all commitment on both sides would probably crowd a lot of the "cheaters" into the same marriage, and thus push this unreliable analysis to something like a slight but solid majority of marriages being entirely faithful. 51%? 70%? I saw one statistic that claimed that 1 out of 2.7 marriages will be affected by an affair. But the whole thing is difficult to analyze with any accuracy. I searched on google: marriage cheating statistics.

Again, I think you are maybe being poetic about human frailty when you are making pronouncements in this thread about how ALL OF US are utterly helpless and can't control ourselves. It seems a striking exaggeration, to me--although sensible resistance to such statements might easily overstate their case as well, in such a blow-by-blow medium as these forums.

I think we have an animal self that we must respect and respond to, but that we also have a higher capacity, and that it is fair to assign blame to many selfish acts that we might commit. In all but the most unfortunate cases, I think it is reasonable for most of us to expect that we and are partners will be in charge of our actions. That is what separates us from animals, of course. We can reflect and try to do better than our instincts might sometimes seem to insist.

Some might have differing opinions about the importance of fidelity, but I think that a secret betrayal and subsequent deception would demean a loving relationship tragically, and that honesty and trust are treasures that need not be dispensed with, if a couple is truly matched for each other.

[blazeofglory]

Well you know what they say, if everyone else jumps off a bridge does that mean you are just going to blindly follow them?

If crime rates are high in an area should I then say what the hell, and just become a criminal because it is just the thing to do.

I am not just going to follow blindly with the sheep, nor I am going to use that as a basis to justify anyone's actions.

Because other people are unfaithful, does not mean that makes being unfaithful the right thing to do. Nor does it mean it is a practice to adopt within my own personal life.

That is where we seem to differ and fail to understand each other. For me just because everyone else is doing it, does not mean that by default makes it the right thing to do, nor does it mean that I ought to throw my own values out the window and join in just to be with the in crowd.

You seem to think that the whole world should just operate off some sort of peer pressure system. And everyone should just go along with popular trends simply because they are popular, and the very popularity of it, automatically makes it a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

I prefer to think for myself.

What majorities do will be a yardstick ultimately. For example when I was a small boy in a very remote village women were not allowed to wear jeans, and if they spoke with males they were looked down. Even in my families my sister-in-laws were restricted to behave the way males used to do. If a male became a widower he could marry second, third, fourth times. No females married second times. Males were given preference for education. females were expected to be submissive, quiet and not outgoing.

Now things have changed dramatically. Girls go not only to schools but abroad also from my part of the country. Some girls among my own relatives got married second times. Things have changed even in my family. Even in my family my father chose bridegrooms for my brothers from conservative families and he did not want educated daughter-in-laws.
Now things have gone upside down. Girls fly abroad along with boys. Second marriages for girls are not looked down or this has at-least not been a taboo.
Of course fidelity is sought and valued immensely.

What I want to stress here is even in a country, where primitive or ancinet values are preserved, things have changed suddenly one can figure out what may be going in a developed country where the pace of life is very fast.

Now even in our countries there are so many multinational or modern companies and women too work their and have to work late hours in the evening. And of course people want faithfulness and fidelity. But people know very well to find the fullest degree of fidelity in this modern time is rare.

Dark Muse, I understand what you really mean to say. we all idealize it but to come across communities where people live with fidelity in the degree and manner you said is rare, though somewhat we find it in some places.

I do not think people take affairs outside matrimonial ties very unnatural and matters of sin the way it was deemed a century ago.
Things have changed and values are looked at differently today.

[billl]

I think that allowing women the same opportunities for education and re-marriage is a move toward equality of human rights. It is a dramatic change in a culture, of course, and as such might seem to unfairly besmirch the culture as a whole in the eyes of a traditionalist. But I see no objective tragedy in such a change.

However, I think that increases in infidelity represent unfairness in most, if not all cases. Here, I think that the dignity attained through honesty and trust among loved ones is a value well-worth retaining, and that it is a timeless value, not a mere vestige of some tradition. What we need is a way for people to be honest about their commitments, and for an accepted form "non-sexually-committed" or "open" relationship to also be available to those who think it would be best for them. As well, perhaps, as an accepted method of transition between the two forms, if some partners feel they want to adjust the intensity of their physical commitment and exploration of their union. But when one person is cheating, and the other is led to believe that their commitment is being repaid in kind--that sort of relationship is disfunctional, and it in no way represents an evolution or increase in human achievement, as far as I can tell. Once we dispense with fairness to our mates and family, we're moving in the wrong direction entirely, in my opinion.

[Virgil]

Blaze, I think that in some ways magazines, TV, etc. reflect what happens among some people, but really the reason for the prevalence of betrayals and scandalous behavior in entertainment (and news, as well) is the fact that people are more likely to read or watch it. It is generally more interesting and juicy than reports of faithfulness.

In the U.S., there are certainly many who have experienced cheating in their relationship, as well as divorce, but the number that think that such things are just fine is much less, I think. In any case, it is far from a universal occurrence, many refrain from temptation, and my guess is that many feel that refraining from affairs is best for them, in the long term. Attitudes will possibly vary from region to region, as well as according to other factors, similar to the village/city situation in your country--but that's just the impression I get, nothing to do with statistics.

I just briefly investigated the statistics online, and it seems that maybe about half of the people in U.S. marriages cheat on their spouse, although some studies offer a much lower percentage. an example list of stats (http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html) It seems that men do (or admit to doing) it more often than women, with the ratio being (perhaps) 60%men and 40%women. I wonder what percentage of "cheaters" are actually married to "cheaters" as well--I figure discovery and dismissal of all commitment on both sides would probably crowd a lot of the "cheaters" into the same marriage, and thus push this unreliable analysis to something like a slight but solid majority of marriages being entirely faithful. 51%? 70%? I saw one statistic that claimed that 1 out of 2.7 marriages will be affected by an affair. But the whole thing is difficult to analyze with any accuracy. I searched on google: marriage cheating statistics.

Again, I think you are maybe being poetic about human frailty when you are making pronouncements in this thread about how ALL OF US are utterly helpless and can't control ourselves. It seems a striking exaggeration, to me--although sensible resistance to such statements might easily overstate their case as well, in such a blow-by-blow medium as these forums.

I think we have an animal self that we must respect and respond to, but that we also have a higher capacity, and that it is fair to assign blame to many selfish acts that we might commit. In all but the most unfortunate cases, I think it is reasonable for most of us to expect that we and are partners will be in charge of our actions. That is what separates us from animals, of course. We can reflect and try to do better than our instincts might sometimes seem to insist.

Some might have differing opinions about the importance of fidelity, but I think that a secret betrayal and subsequent deception would demean a loving relationship tragically, and that honesty and trust are treasures that need not be dispensed with, if a couple is truly matched for each other.
Wow, Bill, that is one excellent post. Kudos for that. :)

[gbrekken]

Much has been made of the intended nature of most infidelity. What if you are guilty of allowing unintended emotional infidelity? Should such a person excuse themselves from serious relations since they are that clueless, and hence unworthy of relations?

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse, I understand what you really mean to say. we all idealize it but to come across communities where people live with fidelity in the degree and manner you said is rare, though somewhat we find it in some places.

I do not think people take affairs outside matrimonial ties very unnatural and matters of sin the way it was deemed a century ago.
Things have changed and values are looked at differently today.

Well in my own personal relationship infidelity will not be tolerated under any circumstances, my dearly beloved knows exactly how I feel upon the issue, it was made clear to him early on, and he made a promise to me to be faithful and he knows I take it very seriously, and he knows he can rely upon me.

I have every confidence and faith in him, but if he should ever happen to break his vow to me, he is history. I would sooner live out the rest of my days alone than ever live with someone who would betray me and be unfaithful. That is a standard for myself I will not lower, no matter what the current trends in soceity are.

[Niamh]

Infidelity is wrong IMO. I've seen the effects it has done on marraiges and relationships. I've never been, and will never be unfaithful in a relationship.

[African_Love]

Having a secret affair denies the partner the opportunity to seek a more compatible relationship with another person.

If they are satisfied with the relationship then it's meaningless to say they are being deprived of anything. Their desire to be in a monogamous relationship built on honesty and mutual respect is satisfied based on whether or not they believe they are in such a relationship, not on whether or not they are in such a relationship.

Living in a world where you are the only sentient human and every other human only behaves as though they are sentient is, as far as you're concerned, irrelevant if you believe that your loved ones are sentient and feel the same way about you as you do them. Of course nobody wants to live in a world where they are the only sentient human alive but as I said earlier, you can't want or not want what you aren't aware of. To say 'I wouldn't want this to happen without my knowing it' is projecting an informed perspective onto a hypothetical character that doesn't have that information.


I think I mentioned this a few pages back, but the cheater's position in the relationship becomes akin to that of an adult towards children around Christmas, allowing them to believe in some fantasy (about Santa or fidelity). It is a superiority in information about the environment built wholly on a deception and an abuse of trust. The cheated spouse would be living in an artificial environment, reality will have been broken/denied to them, for the selfish purposes of another individual who subsequently acquires an advantage in action based upon their better access to truth.

You won't get any argument from me that cheating is disrespectful and arrogant but children enjoy the Santa fantasy, don't they? I don't think something is necessarily immoral even if it is disrespectful.






If it is done in the privacy of their own minds, I think that is something else altogether. Part of the human experience is our ability to consider things that we would not actually do.
I don't think that, if person A were in the same room with person B--who person A had recently fondled, secretly watched on the toilet, or cheated on--it would be at all the same thing as if person A had merely fantasized about those things.

There is a difference between what occurs in the 'real' world and what occurs in your mind but not as much as many people believe, imo. Many people would feel hurt if their partner confessed that they were madly in love with someone else even if they had never acted on this feeling, not only did they avoid sex with this person but they avoided any kind of relationship with them at all. I'm drifting from my main argument (because I do think cheating is disrespectful so I'm not trying to 'justify' it with this point) but it's somewhat arbitrary to me that honest/non-deluded people accept their partner will be attracted to other people but acting on that attraction is 'immoral' to them. I'm pretty sure the same mirror neurons fire when you fantasize about having sex with someone as they would if you actually had sex with them.


The whole thing seems to hinge on the ability to control circumstances (in some theoretical or supernatural way), in order to take advantage of others without their knowledge.

I admit this is theoretical which is why I think cheating is morally irresponsible.







For those of us that are not attracted to such activities (either as the perpetrator, or as possible unwitting victims of those who wish to treat us in such ways) such a world would represent a diminishment of the human experience. I don't seek such "advantages". I don't want to be part of such a world. And I don't see how judgments based on its context can be used as support for infidelity or any other behavior in other contexts.

We can't live in a world where (positive) human relationships don't involve a high amount of trust and the only way that we can ensure that other people are trustworthy is if most people (including ourselves) sincerely are.


(except in certain complex cases, such as tragic injury, etc.)

I really don't get this at all. So it's all right to cheat on someone if they were severely injured (and I'm assuming couldn't perform sexually or were too hideous to want to have sex with)? This is beyond inconsistent. If something is disrespectful or immoral, how can it be justified because the victim is injured? If someone doesn't want to be cheated on, they don't want to be cheated on, regardless of whether or not they are injured. This reminds me of someone else who claimed that cheating was all right so long as the couple didn't have children. So when, outside of self-defense, is it acceptable to do unto others as you would not have done unto you?



" Conscience is never subject to outside influence."

Of course it is. Much of what we consider to be wrong is determined by culture and environment. Drinking urine most likely disgusts you, it's normal in many cultures where people believe it has therepeutic properties. You are probably saddened or angered by female genital mutiliation but that's also normal in many cultures, future generations might come to view male genital mutilation as equally wrong but most North Americans currently see nothing wrong with it.

"For instance, if you kill someone, it's wrong. Whether or not anyone knows about it or if you hurt anyone in the process."

It's wrong because it deprives an individual of pleasure/happiness. Cheating (if one is never caught) does not deprive an individual of happiness or cause them distress.

"You can't change wrong into right, but you can try to justify it. Hence, justifiable homicide. But the act itself remains immoral."

I'm less concerned with what's 'immoral' (morality is a social concept that varies from culture to culture) than I am what's harmful/beneficial. It's more important to be compassionate (and compassion necessarily involves respect) than it is to follow the rules (ie. to be 'moral').

"If you think it's wrong only when someone is hurt or when someone finds out, then it's shame you're experiencing. The presence or absence of shame doesn't change the moral nature of an act — yes, it is still wrong."

I would feel shame if I cheated on my wife but I would also feel shame if I called her a 'dumb ****' in the privacy of my own mind or talked badly about her with my friends. Are these things immoral, rather than simply disrespectful?

Imo, all moral rules that extend beyond harm/benefit are meaningless, even disadvantageous (the need to moralize can cause us great distress). Instead of asking 'is this immoral or ethical' we should ask 'will this benefit so and so, will it deprive them of benefit or cause them distress'. If you love someone you will respect them so cheating doesn't have to be 'immoral' to avoid it or disapprove of it. If your partner doesn't respect you, that in itself is the problem rather than their expression of their disrespect. You can't fault them for not respecting you, just find someone who does.

[blazeofglory]

Well in my own personal relationship infidelity will not be tolerated under any circumstances, my dearly beloved knows exactly how I feel upon the issue, it was made clear to him early on, and he made a promise to me to be faithful and he knows I take it very seriously, and he knows he can rely upon me.

I have every confidence and faith in him, but if he should ever happen to break his vow to me, he is history. I would sooner live out the rest of my days alone than ever live with someone who would betray me and be unfaithful. That is a standard for myself I will not lower, no matter what the current trends in soceity are.

Now I understand why you stressed the significance of fidelity and I am really moved when you gave an example from your own personal experiences and I do not need further statements or proofs and am convinced, in fact I was always, fidelity is one of the great virtues, in fact a great divine asset man is in possession.

Of course I do maintain and so is she though we have never expressed we would maintain and we never and never even in our dreams and imaginations can think about betraying or about becoming infidels at all.
Even if I go out of home for years or she we still hold each other in complete faithfulness and honest.

In fact fidelity is maintained really amazingly in Nepal.

All my arguments is just to know how much this, fidelity is maintained in the rest of the world. In fact this was simply with the motive to educate myself on this issue thru diverse views on this.

[billl]

If it is done in the privacy of their own minds, I think that is something else altogether. Part of the human experience is our ability to consider things that we would not actually do.
I don't think that, if person A were in the same room with person B--who person A had recently fondled, secretly watched on the toilet, or cheated on--it would be at all the same thing as if person A had merely fantasized about those things.

There is a difference between what occurs in the 'real' world and what occurs in your mind but not as much as many people believe, imo. Many people would feel hurt if their partner confessed that they were madly in love with someone else even if they had never acted on this feeling, not only did they avoid sex with this person but they avoided any kind of relationship with them at all. I'm drifting from my main argument (because I do think cheating is disrespectful so I'm not trying to 'justify' it with this point) but it's somewhat arbitrary to me that honest/non-deluded people accept their partner will be attracted to other people but acting on that attraction is 'immoral' to them. I'm pretty sure the same mirror neurons fire when you fantasize about having sex with someone as they would if you actually had sex with them.


Mirror neurons firing is a reference to thought-events (which would, of course occur in the context of many other thought-events). Many of us (if not all) have envisioned ourselves doing terrible things that we would not actually do. Considering alternatives is useful, and we often rule certain ones out. Imagining a wonderful clandestine fling is not at all the same as actually embarking upon one, there would be plenty of other attendant thinking, envisioning, scheming, and desperate attempts to re-frame things going on, as well as the attendant action leading up to and including the infidielity.
If, however, you are interested in making moral judgments about selected impulses arising during a person's musings, thought experiments, and fantasies, then we really are entering new territory. We could even start a new thread, but it might be most appropriate to place it in the Orwell sub-forums.
Incidentally, I would level the same criticism at the Biblical commandment against "coveting thou neighbor's wife," as far as it might be aimed at our private musings. (A point I recently saw made in a Christopher Hitchens youtube video--to give credit where credit is due...)

In any case, in your answer, you seem to be retreating to the position that making the relationship an open relationship between "honest, non-deluded" people would be best, if one or both partners were sufficiently attracted to (even "madly in love with") other people to warrant an end to their monogamy. And I think that position is far superior to the defense of infidelity that my quoted passage was arguing against.



I admit this is theoretical which is why I think cheating is morally irresponsible.


Is driving with one's eyes closed through a school zone "morally irresponsible"? In the case of someone who drove in such a way--but didn't kill, injure, or get caught--would you still claim that they had not made an immoral decision? Is morality a matter of luck?




Then, in a world where people could be 100% sure that they won't be caught (and this is the only world that African_Love seems to feel would be an appropriate place for this particular moral framework) then everyone would be equally free to:

1. cheat on a wife/husband/committed lover (regardless of the circumstances)
2. stalk another person
3. be a peeping tom
4. fondle unconscious individuals

The moral framework would hold that such acts would be disrespectful, yet morally neutral.

For those of us that are not attracted to such activities (either as the perpetrator, or as possible unwitting victims of those who wish to treat us in such ways) such a world would represent a diminishment of the human experience. I don't seek such "advantages". I don't want to be part of such a world. And I don't see how judgments based on its context can be used as support for infidelity or any other behavior in other contexts.

We can't live in a world where (positive) human relationships don't involve a high amount of trust and the only way that we can ensure that other people are trustworthy is if most people (including ourselves) sincerely are.


Your point isn't clear to me here, maybe, but I will say that if you are suggesting that we should ensure people are trustworthy by becoming peeping-toms and stalkers, then I just want to say that achieving such a theoretically "ideal" society is a cure that is worse than the disease, in my opinion. In fact, simply contemplating it, I think, might help make it clear why the idea that "it is immoral only if the person finds out" is ultimately promoting a world in which trust has no place.

Do you mean that, since you feel that being untrustworthy is merely "morally irresponsible", peeping-toms should therefore be permissible, as a balancing force, a possible means to discovering your transgressions? Of course, the police, the FBI, etc. sometimes operate according to these principles, but I guess maybe I am old-fashioned, and don't want it to become a big part of my love life.

Or do you mean something else?





(except in certain complex cases, such as tragic injury, etc.)

I really don't get this at all. So it's all right to cheat on someone if they were severely injured (and I'm assuming couldn't perform sexually or were too hideous to want to have sex with)? This is beyond inconsistent. If something is disrespectful or immoral, how can it be justified because the victim is injured? If someone doesn't want to be cheated on, they don't want to be cheated on, regardless of whether or not they are injured. This reminds me of someone else who claimed that cheating was all right so long as the couple didn't have children. So when, outside of self-defense, is it acceptable to do unto others as you would not have done unto you?


No, I don't think that a tragic injury would always mean that cheating were OK. Life is complex, though, and with this parenthetical statement I merely meant to prevent the appearance that I felt the world were perfect, and that having an affair should always be a target for reflexive moral reproach. I will now expound in a perhaps overblown manner, to correct for the perhaps misleading brevity above.

No, I don't think a tragic injury on its own would necessarily be reason enough to make cheating arguably "moral or morally neutral." If both partners were able (physically and emotionally) to move on, perhaps separately or in an "open relationship" (or without either of them needing sex from anyone), then I think an arrangement might be possible without recourse to a secret affair. Honesty would be better than deception, ideally.

However, a tragic injury could leave the injured person in a mental state that was very fragile, and sex might become a very dangerous subject, at least early on, and perhaps forever. Sex is a powerful form of expression and communication. If someone were injured to the point where they could no longer participate and satisfy their partner, I imagine it might be very difficult for both partners, especially if the injury/trauma had other extreme detrimental effects on the victim. If a person is injured to the point of being totally dependent on others (including their spouse) for day to day survival and routine functions, then I think a spouse might eventually make the understandable decision to find a way to again experience sexual intimacy, but perhaps judge it best not to trouble their partner's mind about it. I mean, they might have to take the injured partner's stability and mental health into account, and the decision would of course vary, case by case. And, in such an event, my argument wouldn't be that such cheating were OK because the partner "wouldn't know"--I would instead suggest that the "cheating partner" would be choosing the lesser of two evils (ie. choosing deception, over possibly depriving a relatively helpless loved one of their last remaining vestige of stability, etc.).

It would be unfortunate (and, in a vacuum, immoral) to render the injured partner unaware of things like the violation of their vows, lies about where their partner had claimed to have been earlier in the day, etc.--but it would be a possible moral path that one might choose to take, in order to avoid the perhaps even more immoral decision that absolute honesty was an unassailable virtue, more important than the destruction of a fragile and highly emotionally dependent person's most important loving relationship. I'm not saying I would take such a position myself, but I can't say for sure that I wouldn't, given certain circumstances.

Ideally, I think a person who had been injured in such a way might eventually make it their own responsibility to broach the subject, and come to terms with the situation, and absolve their partner of guilt (or unnecessary saintliness) as much as possible. But things are variable, some people might never really recover from extreme trauma.

Finally, the invocation of the Golden Rule (do unto others, etc.) is surprising here. Are you suggesting that you want to be in a committed relationship in which both you and your partner might secretly cheat on each other? Wouldn't be possible to come to an agreement ahead of time? For example:
"Let's get married--but, if you cheat on me, just be sure not to tell me. Take care against disease, and be absolutely, undiscoverably discreet. I will do the same, but treasure you above all. Just spare me the painful jealousy I would feel, and swear to treasure me as well..."
Or something like that. I wouldn't want to promote it over monogamy or anything, but it might be just the right thing for some couples. It might, in certain cases, even be a possible (but delicately accomplished) path to saving some previously monogamous couples from divorce.

And for the record, certainly, if I were in a coma for, say several years, with no signs of snapping out of it, I think that that might be a little late for my spouse to begin cheating, certainly. Of course, in such a case, there would be no option of informing me, so I'll just say that, if I should ever be so unlucky to fit the description of the unfortunate, severely dependent victim I described above, then I, in my current capacity, understand either hypothetical decision regarding the matter.



Imo, all moral rules that extend beyond harm/benefit are meaningless, even disadvantageous (the need to moralize can cause us great distress). Instead of asking 'is this immoral or ethical' we should ask 'will this benefit so and so, will it deprive them of benefit or cause them distress'. If you love someone you will respect them so cheating doesn't have to be 'immoral' to avoid it or disapprove of it. If your partner doesn't respect you, that in itself is the problem rather than their expression of their disrespect. You can't fault them for not respecting you, just find someone who does.

But by secretly cheating, you deprive them of the knowledge that you don't respect them. Do you really think that, in any significant percentage of cases of cheating, the partner would derive the most rewarding and pleasurable future in a relationship with someone who doesn't respect them? Isn't it likely that the cheating partner is enjoying a reward at the expense of the other's pleasure? Even if the cheated-upon doesn't bother, under the circumstances, to imagine that their partner's effective facade of fidelity could be improved on by dumping them and moving on to another more committed and devoted partner that actually respects them, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be improved upon, if they knew it were something that might be worth checking out?



Finally, I don't want to make my other points disappear in an increasingly unreadable expanse of text, but for completeness sake:


If they are satisfied with the relationship then it's meaningless to say they are being deprived of anything. Their desire to be in a monogamous relationship built on honesty and mutual respect is satisfied based on whether or not they believe they are in such a relationship, not on whether or not they are in such a relationship.

Living in a world where you are the only sentient human and every other human only behaves as though they are sentient is, as far as you're concerned, irrelevant if you believe that your loved ones are sentient and feel the same way about you as you do them. Of course nobody wants to live in a world where they are the only sentient human alive but as I said earlier, you can't want or not want what you aren't aware of. To say 'I wouldn't want this to happen without my knowing it' is projecting an informed perspective onto a hypothetical character that doesn't have that information.



You won't get any argument from me that cheating is disrespectful and arrogant but children enjoy the Santa fantasy, don't they? I don't think something is necessarily immoral even if it is disrespectful.


I think these two quotes might go hand in hand. In the first passage, you seem to be saying that considering others as being mere imitations of sentient humans is a perfectly valid starting point from which to make judgments about morality. This is a point so shocking that a reader (if there still are any) might want to go back and read it again. Maybe, instead of sentient, you meant "sincere"? In any case, there seems to be a stress on devaluing a shared reality, and excusing the sort of mind-control strategies that have made a mess of, not just a lot of relationships, but even entire countries.

In the second quote, you don't seem to recognize the selfishness of treating a spouse (perhaps a soul mate?) as if they were a child. (I suppose it might be because they may as well not even be sentient?) I say this is selfish (and immoral) because you are improving your position at a cost to the other's reality. It isn't merely arrogant--it is reducing the partner's position in your universe, reducing the relevance of their decisions about the shared world around them, in fact treating them as if they were mere toys in your own, exclusive world. Instead of speaking to them about reality, you are warping and weaving a fantasy around them, and thereby biasing their decisions within the real world that they actually inhabit. And, rather than resorting to this sort of deception because the other person is a lonely soul suffering chronic emotional damage (as I have proposed in my example above about how a severe injury might produce extenuating circumstances) or some other especially complicated scenario, it seems that your instinct is simply to act without recourse to empathy or compassion for the other, and how they would really want to be treated, and the place in your life that they made clear preference for in the establishment of a committed relationship.

Wouldn't honesty be less damaging to both parties? Might the cheated-upon partner want to expand their number of partners, as well, or find someone else who is interested in monogamy to a greater degree than the cheater's acting talents might be able to imitate?

To return to the beginning of the quote: in a case where "they are satisfied with the relationship" it doesn't seem to me "meaningless" to suggest that they might be far more thrilled with a partner that respects them, rather than with one that (secretly) doesn't.

And, regarding honesty, just to be clear, I don't think people in a relationship should need a peeping-tom watching over them to keep them honest, however that might be meant to fit in.

[subterranean]

Wow, this is indeed a very interesting and thought provoking thread with all those arguments thrown at the table. On a relevant topic, I read this quote that says, ''Infidelity in woman is a masculine trait”. With referrence to the definition of masculinity being the characteristic of the male sex , does this quote implies that men, compare to women, more likely to be unfaithful?

[soundofmusic]

[QUOTE=blazeofglory;80417

Man is a funny creature. Today you may betray somebody and again tom arrow you can maintain a very close relationship.

In Nepal sexual relationship behind their matrimonial ties is a taboo and people hate them if they keep multiple relationships. But still it often happens as today things are different thru globalization in Nepal.
I know a couple. In that case the husband, though married, has a relationship with a few other women. But afterward he got changed and started maintaining very close relationship with his own wife.
[/QUOTE]

You've made a very good point, Blaze. People seem to see love as something that is consistent; it is not:
How many times when you were a child did you shout at your parents; perhaps tell them you hated them or wished them dead. How annoyed have you been when your parents interfer with your disiplining your children. Perhaps some of you are even making the sacrifice of having an older relative living in your home, maybe they are forgetful or have poor hygiene. Do we consistently love them as we loved them when they bought us that new bike; do we feel the same heart wrenching as we will when we stand over their coffin.

Do you remember the first time you saw your mate; you could barely talk for fear of saying something stupid. You were so proud to be with them. How do you feel now. Are you frustrated that they can't even fix a lawn mower or the car. Do you purposely dim the lights and think of someone else when their bloated, balding figure makes its way to the bed. How do you feel when he can't get an erection...are you as willing to help.

These are the things that are all to common in any type of relationship; it is why we sometimes look for someone to understand us. Sometimes men find a woman whom they think will increase their desire enough to have an erection; sometimes they have multiple mid-life relationships looking for that one. That doesn't mean that there is not that vision of the person we love and still love in the back of our heads. It doesn't mean that we would not be crushed to lose that person.

[Dark Muse]

These are the things that are all to common in any type of relationship; it is why we sometimes look for someone to understand us. Sometimes men find a woman whom they think will increase their desire enough to have an erection; sometimes they have multiple mid-life relationships looking for that one. That doesn't mean that there is not that vision of the person we love and still love in the back of our heads. It doesn't mean that we would not be crushed to lose that person.

Well there is no room for infidelity in my personal relationships, because if my mate truly loves me, than he will be faithful, to be unfaithful is a weakness in their love for their spouse, for if they truly had their spouse in their thoughts, the pain of knowing what being unfaithful would do to their spouse would be enough to stop them from having the affair.

The very thought of me doing anything that would hurt my mate, the idea of betraying him, going behind his back, making a mockery of our love, is a thought that causes me torment and is unbearable.

Once my trust has been broken I do not think there are enough years in a single lifetime to rebuild it again.

[blazeofglory]

Fidelity is a two way traffic. If your spouse becomes faithful to you and you will repay in the same degree and what if your spouse betrays you? Of course in a circumstance like this the other one who is betrayed also seeks something to revenge and this is the way the world goes and the number of infidels keep on growing

[soundofmusic]

Well there is no room for infidelity in my personal relationships, because if my mate truly loves me, than he will be faithful, to be unfaithful is a weakness in their love for their spouse, for if they truly had their spouse in their thoughts, the pain of knowing what being unfaithful would do to their spouse would be enough to stop them from having the affair.

The very thought of me doing anything that would hurt my mate, the idea of betraying him, going behind his back, making a mockery of our love, is a thought that causes me torment and is unbearable.

Once my trust has been broken I do not think there are enough years in a single lifetime to rebuild it again.

I admire your strong beliefs and faith in love and your mate. Everyone should enter a relationship with such earnestness. I hope you will always have the love you so deserve.

[Jozanny]

I should not be returning to this topic, primarily because what we are actually dealing with are issues of trust and betrayal, and these two states are not easily handled, neither by the straight and narrow, nor the bent and crooked, like myself, but I do not think a rigid code is worth branding people who do not necessarily adhere to it.

I have done some stupid things in my life that cannot be undone, even instigated flirtations I should not have, even as late as my early 40's, but I also tried to do everything right in the normative coda of Judeo-Christian morality around the notion of marriage, and ended up in a barren emotionally bitter desert. The affairs I had offered me a precious space of delight in life, with really enjoying physical intimacy with men who belonged to others but gave me a little romance none of my uncommitted partners did, including the idiot I could not bring myself to marry. I am sure monogamy is the right thing for most of the members here raised to believe in it, but it does not always work, and I refuse to condemn people who break their promises, though I realize powerful emotions on all sides are involved.

Sorry, I am in a bit of a mood to chat, and this computer is the closest thing I have to real friends these days.

[billl]

Jozanny, I'm glad you returned and (once again, frankly) offered a view that is quite even-handed, reasonable and generously given. I think a lot of the earlier argumentation was about a particularly idealized situation (and focussed on a particular 'epistemological' twist), and your nuanced post earlier sort of sprouted up with surprising frankness in the midst of a perilous crossfire that wasn't quite ready for it.

[Dark Muse]

I am sure monogamy is the right thing for most of the members here raised to believe in it, but it does not always work, and I refuse to condemn people who break their promises, though I realize powerful emotions on all sides are involved.

And it is possible to have a non-monogamous lifestyle without being a cheater. There are people who are comfortable with open relationships, or those who simply just do not wish to have any sort of commitment, but it can be achieved without being unfaithful to anyone.

I do not care what consenting adults do in their personal love/sex lives, but there is no just cause to betray another person. If a person means to no longer hold their promise they have an obligation to first and foremost tell their partner. It is just sheer cowardice to go behind their back or to give vows a person knows they cannot or will not keep.

[billl]

In general, and in an ideal world, I agree Dark Muse. But what about a person, married at a very young age, who is abused by their spouse (perhaps cheated on by them?), in a society that doesn't provide them with any realistic option for divorce, a society with warped laws and customs that favor the opposite gender, maybe based on some religious text.

If that person then cheated (with great care, and in fear for their life even) with a friend in a sort of secret loving commitment, more real than the one to their marriage partner--would that be immoral? Could the cowardice perhaps be justified--be, in fact, a form of bravery, owing to the system and circumstances in which the vows had been taken?

This is just a wild counter-example, but I think it might show how some people can find that certain extreme situations (degrees of extremity being difficult to measure, and by no means an easy standard to meet) make such choices at least understandable.

[Dark Muse]

In general, and in an ideal world, I agree Dark Muse..

First of all I just have to say, it seems a lot of people want to try and put the spin on things that it is completely implausible to expect people to actually be faithful in the real world and that fidelity is something that can only work in some utopian fantasy land.

Faithfulness is actually plausible in the real world and it is not just completely unreasonable to expect fidelity within a relationship. I personally know people who have had long lasting faithful relationships.

And I have known people who have been in less than ideal situations making the choice not to stoop to cheating even if they were in a situation in which might them to do so.


But what about a person, married at a very young age, who is abused by their spouse (perhaps cheated on by them?), in a society that doesn't provide them with any realistic option for divorce, a society with warped laws and customs that favor the opposite gender, maybe based on some religious text.

If that person then cheated (with great care, and in fear for their life even) with a friend in a sort of secret loving commitment, more real than the one to their marriage partner--would that be immoral? Could the cowardice perhaps be justified--be, in fact, a form of bravery, owing to the system and circumstances in which the vows had been taken?

This is just a wild counter-example, but I think it might show how some people can find that certain extreme situations (degrees of extremity being difficult to measure, and by no means an easy standard to meet) make such choices at least understandable.

Under these particular circumstances I would presume that the person in question probably did not have a whole lot of say in their spouse, and probably did not really have the option or refusing, or choosing. In such a situation where the rights solely favored one gender over the other, matches likely would have been arranged. So the person would have been forced into the marriage and not by their own personal free will given their vow to the person.

In this case, though I still cannot bring myself to say that the act of infidelity is justified and I do not think that morals can necessarily be altered to fit individual situations, it would be more understandable why a person in these circumstance would be driven into such an act.

[Mrig]

Nothing is direspectful as long as you are honest, you talk it out and content with yourself.

Also there cannot be any universal answer to some questions.

the circumstances matter.

Also whether you being answerable to yourself matters to you is another parametre.

[optimisticnad]

Hillarious. I've not been here for a while and this is what we've been up to. Is infidelity wrong! lol. Too late to vote now it seems but just so you know incase nobody else has mentioned it - YES. If you want out of a relationship - that's perfectly fine, it happens, however painful it might be people change and love comes and goes. What you don't do is cheat on em! I love that song by Vonda Shephard (spelling?) which goes 'Don't break my heart...slowly'. Or something like that. It's more poetic than that I think.


Nothing is direspectful as long as you are honest, you talk it out and content with yourself.

Also there cannot be any universal answer to some questions.

the circumstances matter.

Also whether you being answerable to yourself matters to you is another parametre.

The circumstances matter???????

Sorry. Gettign carried away but ...come on! Circumstances matter? I mean really? You can be immoral or do something wrong (and I really don't want to get into definitions and debates over 'immoral') in certain circumstances? i think it's that kind of thinking that is messing up society so much. No principles and morals. It changes as often as the wind. I'm a firm believer in making choices and sticking by them. So if you're in a tight fix get out of it no matter the damage because in the long run you'll cause much more damage, or stay in the situation, to hell with all circumstances, and lie in the bed you've made.

[Jozanny]

And it is possible to have a non-monogamous lifestyle without being a cheater. There are people who are comfortable with open relationships, or those who simply just do not wish to have any sort of commitment, but it can be achieved without being unfaithful to anyone.

I am reading a small collection of Tolstoy's later works towards the end of his life, and "The Forged Coupon" tells the story of a boys' prank, due to materialism, of course, where naughty students forge a 2.5 ruble coupon into a 12.5 coupon, and the consequences it has as it passes person to person. I actually like this novella better than Anna Karenina or The Death of Ivan Ilyich, but disagree with Tolstoy's assumptions. The porter Vassily did not necessarily have to take the lesson to heart that lying for his master meant he could become a thief, without any cost to himself; Stephan did not have to murder the horse thief who was victimized by one of the coupon passers and subsequently turn into a serial killer, and so on.

In the same vein, no one is going to say that cheating is ethical, not me nor anyone else, which is why I am as much annoyed with myself for getting upset with this discussion as I am annoyed with the discussion itself, because the question isn't even worth asking.

But I am willing to recognize human frailty and not necessarily condemn those who fail. Now there are sociopathic behaviors that need control over and above sympathy, serial liars and serial cheaters who will never change and prey on others. I've come up against those and try not to think about them so as to not take up target practice-- but not everyone who breaks has that kind of pathology.

I can see why John Edwards had his lapse and forgive rather than flame him, and I still believes he loves Elizabeth, and I can forgive myself mine, because I never had the love of the able-bodied man I wanted in my life. I never loved another man in that way. My ex-fiance was just me turning 40+ and figuring the fat slob was the best I was going to get, but my contempt triumphs over his good points, and those are he is a pliable lap dog when handled well.

When I was your age I had a script too my dear, and it didn't turn out as I hoped. If I am still around in 30 years give me a buzz and let me know how its going. I'm sure I'll be interested.

Now I have to get to work.

[Virgil]

In the same vein, no one is going to say that cheating is ethical, not me nor anyone else, which is why I am as much annoyed with myself for getting upset with this discussion as I am annoyed with the discussion itself, because the question isn't even worth asking.

But I am willing to recognize human frailty and not necessarily condemn those who fail. Now there are sociopathic behaviors that need control over and above sympathy, serial liars and serial cheaters who will never change and prey on others. I've come up against those and try not to think about them so as to not take up target practice-- but not everyone who breaks has that kind of pathology.

Well said. I wanted to try to capture that frailty myself somewhere here, and I'm not sure if I did or not. Dante puts infidelity for love in the first circle of hell, which is the most lenient.


I can see why John Edwards had his lapse and forgive rather than flame him, and I still believes he loves Elizabeth,
Oh he is such an a$$. I don't have any sympathy for him. He was lying through his teeth to the public as well as his wife.

No need to explain you personal situation. No one is without frailty. (Read John chpt 8:1-11)

[Jozanny]

No need to explain you personal situation. No one is without frailty. (Read John chpt 8:1-11)

For goodness sake Virgil, don't spout the New Testament at me, really. I tried to tell you some time ago that I am not one of those passively brain damaged kids that get flashed on television so that able-bodied people can feel magnanimous and along with Jerry Lewis, patronizing.

Maybe if I go growl at Marty Peretz nice enough about how he looks like a Jewish gangster again perhaps he will pair me with Michelle to see who can ***** each other out in better form. I've had it with this nonsense. See ya.

[isidro]

Perhaps this might be a good time and place to throw a related question out there. What if you are in a relationship that is abuse and afraid to leave, and bullied into it in the first place? Yes, this does happen in the states I think more than we think or want to believe. On an ethical side, what is the answer if a person fears to leave the spouse but cannot function properly emotionally etc because of the abuse. If they are afraid to leave does that also mandate that they be loyal? Where lies the moral question in that respect?

[soundofmusic]

Perhaps this might be a good time and place to throw a related question out there. What if you are in a relationship that is abuse and afraid to leave, and bullied into it in the first place? Yes, this does happen in the states I think more than we think or want to believe. On an ethical side, what is the answer if a person fears to leave the spouse but cannot function properly emotionally etc because of the abuse. If they are afraid to leave does that also mandate that they be loyal? Where lies the moral question in that respect?

If I were being abused; I would be even more afraid to begin another relationship. In this case, my answer is not a matter of morality; but of survival. I think the less ties a person has when they are hoping to get out of a relationship, the better. I would also think that being abused by one man would make me down on any kind of sexual relationship.
What are your thoughts, Isidro; do you think having an affair is wrong in such a situation?

[isidro]

My thoughts? I am constantly surrounded by my own thoughts on the matter. But you are right - it does come to the question of survival. And you are also right in that after such an experience you do not want another relationship except that there is something in the human being, in the natural wiring therein, that makes you want and to some extent need a relationship after a while. Yes, it brings you down, yes, it makes you hate relationships and believe that love itself is nothing but a fraud but if you are strong enough to try to move on and overcome that you do need a relationship to cut your teeth on as you learn. Is it wrong? It comes down to the question of becoming a martyr. The only problem is that you have already been a walking, talking, living, breathing martyr already. Do you surrender to pointless, reckless violence after you have a chance to be saved or do you persist in allowing yourself to die? I do not know. As for myself, the abuse stopped my heart once already. I've already been a martyr. Do I allow it to continue until it stops and doesn't restart? Fear is the antithesis of faith and if it is fear holding someone to a relationship, how moral is the relationship in the first place? Ah, I don't know. Questions, questions, questions....Your ideas?

[soundofmusic]

This has been such a fascinating topic; so many points of view!
I think, as individuals, we often want support when we are in situations that stress our normal "ethical or moral codes". Such rules, though, were made to preserve the family, society and economic structure. Most of us do have some sympathy for people in adverse circumstances; but we are also aware that as our population grows there are more people facing adverse circumstances and in danger of destroying the family and economical units. :crash:


My thoughts? I am constantly surrounded by my own thoughts on the matter. But you are right - it does come to the question of survival. And you are also right in that after such an experience you do not want another relationship except that there is something in the human being, in the natural wiring therein, that makes you want and to some extent need a relationship after a while. Yes, it brings you down, yes, it makes you hate relationships and believe that love itself is nothing but a fraud but if you are strong enough to try to move on and overcome that you do need a relationship to cut your teeth on as you learn. Is it wrong? It comes down to the question of becoming a martyr. The only problem is that you have already been a walking, talking, living, breathing martyr already. Do you surrender to pointless, reckless violence after you have a chance to be saved or do you persist in allowing yourself to die? I do not know. As for myself, the abuse stopped my heart once already. I've already been a martyr. Do I allow it to continue until it stops and doesn't restart? Fear is the antithesis of faith and if it is fear holding someone to a relationship, how moral is the relationship in the first place? Ah, I don't know. Questions, questions, questions....Your ideas?

You have been very brave, Isidro, and of course, sometimes, in order to go forward, we need the support and love of another human being. Only you know when you are ready to "go on with your life". Only you know when you are not in danger of falling in love with someone who has the facade of a supportive and sensitive man; and has an underlying sociopath. I know in my own life; having been brought up with sociopaths, I naturally attract them. Actually, they are usually the only types that I "have physical chemistry" with. If there is a womans group of people who have went through similar abuse; I would try to find support there.
From a religious perspective, though I am not a religious person, I believe that the relationship between a man and woman is sacred; the type of abuse you speak of is an aberation and therefore, I shouldn't think it would be recognized as a "marriage". But, that is for those with greater knowledge of theology than I to say.

[Dark Muse]

Perhaps this might be a good time and place to throw a related question out there. What if you are in a relationship that is abuse and afraid to leave, and bullied into it in the first place? Yes, this does happen in the states I think more than we think or want to believe. On an ethical side, what is the answer if a person fears to leave the spouse but cannot function properly emotionally etc because of the abuse. If they are afraid to leave does that also mandate that they be loyal? Where lies the moral question in that respect?

If they are capable of being unfaithful to such an abusive partner than they are capable of leaving them.

Being in an abusive relationship does not justify being unfaithful particularly when there are other options open. They might have been bullied but they still had the option to say no.

It may not be easy to get out of an abusive relationship, but nonetheless it can be done. So no the answer to their problem is not to be unfaithful just because they are too afraid to get out of the bad relationship.

Their cowardice does not pardon them in the actions they choose to take.

[SleepyWitch]

WHether cheating is acceptable or not, I believe most people are fully capable of loving and being attracted to more than one person so, imo, this is akin to asking "why be friends with so and so if you don't respect them enough to not develop any other friendships".

haven't read the whole thread, so this might have been said before:
I totally agree that most people are capable of loving and being attracted to more than one person. I myself am perfectly capable of being attracted to several people at a time. But there is a difference between feeling attracted to someone and to actually, physically being unfaithful. Who says you have to sleep with each and every person you feel attracted to??? I think this is a question of restraint and self-discipline. But of course these are based on morality and it only works if you agree that infidelity is unacceptable for one reason or another.

[TheFifthElement]

In the same vein, no one is going to say that cheating is ethical, not me nor anyone else, which is why I am as much annoyed with myself for getting upset with this discussion as I am annoyed with the discussion itself, because the question isn't even worth asking.

But I am willing to recognize human frailty and not necessarily condemn those who fail. Now there are sociopathic behaviors that need control over and above sympathy, serial liars and serial cheaters who will never change and prey on others. I've come up against those and try not to think about them so as to not take up target practice-- but not everyone who breaks has that kind of pathology.

Well said Jozanny. There are so many reasons why a person might get involved with someone other than their spouse which have nothing to do with a sociopathic desire to deceive. If the human animal were so two dimensional, there'd be no reason to discuss this subject at all.


I totally agree that most people are capable of loving and being attracted to more than one person. I myself am perfectly capable of being attracted to several people at a time. But there is a difference between feeling attracted to someone and to actually, physically being unfaithful. Who says you have to sleep with each and every person you feel attracted to???

Interesting Sleepy. Throughout the discussion the focus has been on sex as though sex is the most important thing - the barrier you don't cross. If I put that into the context of my relationship with my husband, I'd be far more devastated to find he was in love with someone else albeit that he never touched them or that he was no longer in love with me, than if he had a casual sexual fling. I guess after 13 years of marriage I've come to see sex as something of small significance in the context of the wider relationship. If something happened, say for example my husband or I became paralysed and thus unable to perform sexually, I would still love him. It's lovely, but not critical. Taking that context forward, if my husband had no sexual desire, but I still did might I have casual sex in order to satisfy that desire? I might, and my husband might even tell me that it's okay to do that, I don't know - I think if the situation were reversed that's what I would do, because I love him and just because I can't experience something or don't have the desire to experience something doesn't mean that he shouldn't or should feel guilty about wanting to. Taking it the next step, if I did, and even if I had his blessing, might I hide it from him so he didn't feel as though he had let me down? Possibly. There are so many scenarios like that that I can think of where the morality or otherwise of a particular action falls into shades of grey. On that basis I think that it's impossible to play judge and jury on the subject.

[Haunted]

" Conscience is never subject to outside influence."

Of course it is. Much of what we consider to be wrong is determined by culture and environment. Drinking urine most likely disgusts you, it's normal in many cultures where people believe it has therepeutic properties. You are probably saddened or angered by female genital mutiliation but that's also normal in many cultures, future generations might come to view male genital mutilation as equally wrong but most North Americans currently see nothing wrong with it.

You're responding to conscience with acts that are "disgusting" (drinking urine) or considered "normal". Disgust and normalcy are not concepts of conscience.

Gentlemen: will you care to verify what African_Love claims to be true — that North Americans currently is OK with male genital mutilation?



"For instance, if you kill someone, it's wrong. Whether or not anyone knows about it or if you hurt anyone in the process."

It's wrong because it deprives an individual of pleasure/happiness. Cheating (if one is never caught) does not deprive an individual of happiness or cause them distress.

How can you possibly know the true feeling of someone else? Your subjective evaluation and your presumptions have no objective reality. It's all in your own mind, trying to justify something you guessed you shouldn't be doing.



Imo, all moral rules that extend beyond harm/benefit are meaningless, even disadvantageous (the need to moralize can cause us great distress). Instead of asking 'is this immoral or ethical' we should ask 'will this benefit so and so, will it deprive them of benefit or cause them distress'. If you love someone you will respect them so cheating doesn't have to be 'immoral' to avoid it or disapprove of it. If your partner doesn't respect you, that in itself is the problem rather than their expression of their disrespect. You can't fault them for not respecting you, just find someone who does.

"all moral rules that extend beyond harm/benefit are meaningless"?

Yes. From the mind of a sociopath.

[African_Love]

haven't read the whole thread, so this might have been said before:
I totally agree that most people are capable of loving and being attracted to more than one person. I myself am perfectly capable of being attracted to several people at a time. But there is a difference between feeling attracted to someone and to actually, physically being unfaithful. Who says you have to sleep with each and every person you feel attracted to??? I think this is a question of restraint and self-discipline. But of course these are based on morality and it only works if you agree that infidelity is unacceptable for one reason or another.

I agree that it isn't always appropriate to act on our attraction towards someone, I just think it's arbitrary and meaningless to ask that your partner not act on sexual or romantic feelings (s)he might have for other people when you wouldn't ask them not to have those feelings to begin with. Shouldn't it be the feelings that make you jealous rather than the actions? This is a side issue because I cannot bring myself to respect someone who does not behave monogamously if they've agreed to behave monogamously. This may sound odd since I've been the one arguing that infidelity should not be considered morally wrong but most people have ignored my saying that cheating is indicative of poor character. I'm just not convinced by the arguments that justify cheating from a character standpoint, they are beyond weak to me. I can't help but to feel the deepest contempt for cheaters, it doesn't 'just happen', it necessarily has to be planned out in order to go through the motions of actually having sex with someone.


You're responding to conscience with acts that are "disgusting" (drinking urine) or considered "normal". Disgust and normalcy are not concepts of conscience.

What you find disgusting is strongly correlated with the culture you were raised in. Likewise, what you consider to be immoral also strongly correlates with the culture you were raised in.





How can you possibly know the true feeling of someone else? Your subjective evaluation and your presumptions have no objective reality. It's all in your own mind, trying to justify something you guessed you shouldn't be doing.

I don't know what your argument is here. If finding out that your partner was cheating on you wouldn't cause you distress, why would you ask that they be monogamous rather than having an open relationship?

[SleepyWitch]

Well said Jozanny. There are so many reasons why a person might get involved with someone other than their spouse which have nothing to do with a sociopathic desire to deceive. If the human animal were so two dimensional, there'd be no reason to discuss this subject at all.



Interesting Sleepy. Throughout the discussion the focus has been on sex as though sex is the most important thing - the barrier you don't cross. If I put that into the context of my relationship with my husband, I'd be far more devastated to find he was in love with someone else albeit that he never touched them or that he was no longer in love with me, than if he had a casual sexual fling. I guess after 13 years of marriage I've come to see sex as something of small significance in the context of the wider relationship. If something happened, say for example my husband or I became paralysed and thus unable to perform sexually, I would still love him. It's lovely, but not critical. Taking that context forward, if my husband had no sexual desire, but I still did might I have casual sex in order to satisfy that desire? I might, and my husband might even tell me that it's okay to do that, I don't know - I think if the situation were reversed that's what I would do, because I love him and just because I can't experience something or don't have the desire to experience something doesn't mean that he shouldn't or should feel guilty about wanting to. Taking it the next step, if I did, and even if I had his blessing, might I hide it from him so he didn't feel as though he had let me down? Possibly. There are so many scenarios like that that I can think of where the morality or otherwise of a particular action falls into shades of grey. On that basis I think that it's impossible to play judge and jury on the subject.
if I got paralyzed or wasn't interested in sex anymore, I probably wouldn't mind if my husband found someone else to have sex with. Well, at least that's what I'd like to think. But it might be different if it really came to that.

About romantic feelings etc.. I guess when we feel attracted to someone other than our partner, we often get carried away and overestimate those feelings. I think this a direct outcome of our obsession with "true love" and our believe in "the one". We are so fixated on finding these that the whole idea backfires. I.e. when we have weird feelings for another person, we assume that we must have been mistaken about our partner. Because we believe in "the one", we panic whenever we have undefinable feelings for a third party and assume that this third party must be "the one" and things will get better if we dump our partner and start a new relationship.
I think it's a matter of being honest with yourself and acknowledging that you can feel attracted to lots of people. But what you have to do is differentiate and ask yourself: "If I had a chance to go in the cupboard with X, would I REALLY do it?" and "If I had a chance to have a long term relationship with X, would I want that and would it work." I feel attracted to two guys right now (and my husband calls them my little boyfriends and teases me about them), but I know that if I had a chance to go in a dark corner with them I wouldn't do it and if I could have a relationship with them, it wouldn't work and I couldn't be bothered to commit to them anyway.
Plus, I think there is a difference between sensuality and sex. I think you can experience sensuality with someone without ever touching them, in in many ways this is more interesting than hiding in a dark corner for a quicky :)
As for the emotional component... I don't think anyone should deny their feelings, whether they are sexual, emotional, or both, because that will only escalate the situation. The more you try to deny your feelings to yourself, the more they'll escalate, because you're fighting with yourself and making a mountain out of a molehill. In my experience, if you acknowledge your feelings to yourself, you get used to them over time and it all becomes less dramatic as the novelty wears off. Plus, what sometimes happens is that you start to hate the "third party" out of frustration or because you blame them for the way you feel. This is really unnecessary because it's not their fault and you could be friends with them rather than hating them for allegedly "causing" you to have feelings for them. (* I don't mean "you" as in "you personally", but as in people)

[African_Love]

About romantic feelings etc.. I guess when we feel attracted to someone other than our partner, we often get carried away and overestimate those feelings. I think this a direct outcome of our obsession with "true love" and our believe in "the one". We are so fixated on finding these that the whole idea backfires. I.e. when we have weird feelings for another person, we assume that we must have been mistaken about our partner. Because we believe in "the one", we panic whenever we have undefinable feelings for a third party and assume that this third party must be "the one" and things will get better if we dump our partner and start a new relationship.

This is one of the most intelligent and honest things I've ever read. I don't know how people can seriously deny that you can have feelings for more than one person or why the assumption is always that someone is necessarily dissatisfied with their relationship if they cheat.


As for the emotional component... I don't think anyone should deny their feelings, whether they are sexual, emotional, or both, because that will only escalate the situation. The more you try to deny your feelings to yourself, the more they'll escalate, because you're fighting with yourself and making a mountain out of a molehill.

This is also true.

The only thing I don't really understand about your post is how open you and your partner are with either of you having feelings for other people but presumably, you are not open to the idea of an open relationship. Like I said before (and this is only my view), I think it's arbitrary to accept your partner having feelings for other people but being bothered by their acting on those feelings.

[Poppy]

I guess I was thinking of someone in a committed relationship. My husband and I ARE completely different people after 36 years together but we respect each other and are committed to our marriage and our family. I am lucky that we do love each other and married because we both wanted to grow and change with each other. Our basic selves are the same, we just continue to learn, grow, and change in our outlook on life and social beliefs. But if there was a change in either of us that caused our commitment to weaken or became unbearable to the other, we could/would end our marriage legally. But we both believe that when we took our vows, we were making a lifetime commitment that included respect and faithfulness.

If two people are so committed and full of their love for each other, how could anyone else ever fill that void. Trying to love someone else would not be fair to that person. There never could be the same fulfillment. As my wife and I have discussed before we don't think that marriage ends in the death of one spouse. I think "death do us part" is not the same as death of you or me. Just a humble opinion from a geezer who hasn't been here in awhile and who has not touched his pen for a long time.

[Virgil]

If two people are so committed and full of their love for each other, how could anyone else ever fill that void. Trying to love someone else would not be fair to that person. There never could be the same fulfillment. As my wife and I have discussed before we don't think that marriage ends in the death of one spouse. I think "death do us part" is not the same as death of you or me. Just a humble opinion from a geezer who hasn't been here in awhile and who has not touched his pen for a long time.

Hehehe, well said, and nice to see you back Poppy. :)

[soundofmusic]

If two people are so committed and full of their love for each other, how could anyone else ever fill that void. Trying to love someone else would not be fair to that person. There never could be the same fulfillment. As my wife and I have discussed before we don't think that marriage ends in the death of one spouse. I think "death do us part" is not the same as death of you or me. Just a humble opinion from a geezer who hasn't been here in awhile and who has not touched his pen for a long time.

A very lovely sentiment Poppy; and no one ever fills the void the death of a spouse creates. I know that from experience. While I have chosen not to take what one might classify as a "second choice" there are those who are left so lost without their partner they choose to marry for companionship. As a matter of fact; I often find that those who had the best marriages are the ones who remarry.

[Jozanny]

Since Tiger Woods is now among the tainted, I rest my case-- which is that no one seems to remember that all human beings are fragile. If a billionaire sports figure can sin, and why would he give that trophy wife of his the ammunition to take a good chunk of his fortune?-- then anyone can fall prey to motives and drives which don't always seem to make sense. And Tiger is a squeaky clean young man.

[Virgil]

Yeah, but Tiger is now tarnished, which proves the point that infidelity is immoral. He went from a squeeky clean hero of a young man to a goat. I don't even see any compassion for him out there, and I loved Tiger Woods.

Just to make my point, Tiger Woods jokes are already across the internet. i ran into a few today. Here:


Apparently the police asked Tiger's wife how many times she hit him. She
said "I don't know exactly... but put me down for a 5."

What were Tiger Woods and his wife doing out at 2.30 in the morning?
They went clubbing

Phil Mickelson contacted Tiger's wife to pick up some tips on how to
beat Tiger!

What did Tiger Woods' wife do with the leftover turkey from Thanksgiving
dinner? She made him a club sandwich.

Barack Obama is reportedly going to send an additional fighting force of
35,000 to Afghanistan. But one source says Obama could change his mind
and send 20,000 troops plus Tiger Woods' wife.

After the crash, he ended up with facial cuts. I guess that makes Tiger
a scratch-ed golfer.

Now that he's being followed by the media, Tiger will have to improve
his lie.

Apparently, the only person who can beat Tiger Woods with a golf club is his wife.

After scoring a couple of beautiful birdies earlier on, Tiger finds himself in some serious trouble at the last hole, coming home.

:lol:

[Jozanny]

Yeah, but Tiger is now tarnished, which proves the point that infidelity is immoral. He went from a squeeky clean hero of a young man to a goat. I don't even see any compassion for him out there, and I loved Tiger Woods.

And that is more reactive than an attempt to put your head inside of something, and I always choose to read into something as opposed to making snap judgements. Take Edwards. If I was an obscure Southern Senator whose eldest child had been killed, who was thrust into national prominence and then soundly rejected by my electorate after years of investment in that electorate, and then discovered my spouse was terminal, yes, Virgil, I could seek consolation in another's arms, as I have as a disabled woman, with no apologies as a disabled woman.

I admire Elizabeth, but I also understand how John's emotions could drive him to what he did, his political death knell aside.

Some situations are beyond my ability to grasp, like your former governor, who probably needed psychiatric help, given what I understand about his case, and Tiger, for the moment, is beyond me--but if humans are ultimately machines, we are one hell of a machine, and do not have it as easily as the ants, who make very simple choices with chemical signal guide posts. My debate here is done for those who don't wish to understand the point I am trying to make.

I also think your *immoral* tag is too strong. It may not be right to violate one's marriage obligations, but I do not think Woods is immoral. I don't think Edwards is immoral, and I certainly don't stitch scarlet letters to my breast. The Victorian era ended sometime during Edward's reign, and this early 21st century has ushered in a whole new set of parameters, including, my friend, don't faint, the fading importance of marriage as an economic nucleus. Once same sex couples nationalize their marriage rights completely in the west, then marriage will have increasingly sub-optimal legal importance, and those who feel it is their religious right to commit bigamy will jump on this bandwagon anew. Adultery won't look like much then, and it really doesn't amount to much now, unless it is linked to domestic violence, and domestic violence will probably always be with us.

[Granny5]

If two people are so committed and full of their love for each other, how could anyone else ever fill that void. Trying to love someone else would not be fair to that person. There never could be the same fulfillment. As my wife and I have discussed before we don't think that marriage ends in the death of one spouse. I think "death do us part" is not the same as death of you or me. Just a humble opinion from a geezer who hasn't been here in awhile and who has not touched his pen for a long time.

Some have special relationships, Poppy. If everyone had our marriage and a relationship like our, this question would have never been asked. Thanks for being my geezer.

[wessexgirl]

I also think your *immoral* tag is too strong. It may not be right to violate one's marriage obligations, but I do not think Woods is immoral. I don't think Edwards is immoral, and I certainly don't stitch scarlet letters to my breast. The Victorian era ended sometime during Edward's reign, and this early 21st century has ushered in a whole new set of parameters, including, my friend, don't faint, the fading importance of marriage as an economic nucleus. Once same sex couples nationalize their marriage rights completely in the west, then marriage will have increasingly sub-optimal legal importance, and those who feel it is their religious right to commit bigamy will jump on this bandwagon anew. Adultery won't look like much then, and it really doesn't amount to much now, unless it is linked to domestic violence, and domestic violence will probably always be with us.

I do not know who the politician is that you're talking about, but I do know of Tiger Woods. Why is cheating on your wife not immoral? The Victorian era ended with Victoria, Edward's reign ushered in the Edwardian era, but either way, whatever era we're in, if you choose to marry and make vows, then breaking those vows is immoral. If you want other people, don't marry. Personally I applaud Tiger's wife. Her anger and hurt at being betrayed, as it is a betrayal, must feel all-consuming. I didn't physically attack my ex, but I would so love to have. But revenge is a dish best served cold. He has lost his home and family. I hope Tigers wife takes him for every cent he has. Your assertion that "adultery won't look like much then, and it really doesn't amount to much now" comes from someone who obviously has not experienced the devastation of betrayal, hurt and all its consequent fallout, when someone you ought to be able to trust with your life, throws that relationship into jeopardy by their selfish actions. I have no sympathy with Woods, it's the same old story, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than someone behaving badly and thinking they can get away with it. No amount of trying to justify those actions will work. I'm the world's top golfer, I'm a billionaire, I have a great life, it's all got too much for me, woe is me, I must find women to cheat with....it's the pressure you see.....I don't know if he's said this sort of thing so far, but give him time. I'm tired of hearing a%$*("*!s giving their "woe is me" stories. Draw the line, it's bad behaviour, it's wrong. End of. No-one expects you to stitch scarlet letters to your breast Joz, but please don't try to tell people who have suffered the consequences of adultery, that it doesn't amount to much. Did you tell yourself that at the time, and consider the families of those men who were cheating with you?

[TheFifthElement]

if you choose to marry and make vows, then breaking those vows is immoral.

How far do you take it though? When you marry you vow to love that person. If you stop loving them, is it immoral?

[wessexgirl]

How far do you take it though? When you marry you vow to love that person. If you stop loving them, is it immoral?

Then you do the decent thing and break-up, before you start messing around with other people.

[Poppy]

Then you do the decent thing and break-up, before you start messing around with other people.

Hear, Hear!

Granny and I were discussing this today. How do you fall "out" of love with someone?
Its beyond me or any concept that I have of love.

[SleepyWitch]

Then you do the decent thing and break-up, before you start messing around with other people.

what if you are married and you stop loving your partner (whatever this is supposed to mean) but you DON'T mess around with other people or don't love anyone else, anyway. technically, you wouldn't be unfaithful.
can't say I've been in this situation myself, but I'm sure there must be some couples who have been married for 20/30+ years and who are more like close friends and who are comfortable with that and can't even be bothered arguing about romantic love etc. So should such people get divorced because they don't "love" each other anymore?

[TheFifthElement]

Then you do the decent thing and break-up, before you start messing around with other people.

Which would also be immoral. After all haven't you vowed to stay with that person forever? According to your post breaking a vow is immoral and my question, which you avoided, is how far does that go?


Granny and I were discussing this today. How do you fall "out" of love with someone?
Its beyond me or any concept that I have of love.

People change Poppy. Perhaps they were never in love in the first place, perhaps they thought it was love but it wasn't. Perhaps they forgot that staying in love is not a given, it takes work. Perhaps they assumed that once you've made your vows that's it and stopped making any effort. Sometimes people get used to the routine of each other and call that love and then they experience something else and realise it isn't. It can happen in a multitude of ways. Have you never lost touch with a good friend, or family?

You and Granny5 are lucky, you've sustained your relationship for a long time on a loving basis. Not everyone is so lucky or determined. You'd be surprised how much apathy there is out there.

[wessexgirl]

Which would also be immoral. After all haven't you vowed to stay with that person forever? According to your post breaking a vow is immoral and my question, which you avoided, is how far does that go?

I haven't avoided anything. I think the thread is asking if infidelity is immoral. I stand by that, it is. You can put forward as many hypothetical scenarios as you want, in order to dilute the original question, but if you fall out of love with your partner, do the decent thing and end it before you betray them with someone else. That may "technically" be breaking a vow, but in the long run is much more honourable, and less hurtful for the couple, as at least they haven't had the betrayal of bringing a third person into the equation, before the dust has settled on a break-up. While there may be some grey areas in your outlook, I believe there are some things which have to have a line drawn which you do not cross. Betraying a spouse is one of them.

[Jozanny]

wessex, I have read your posts, and I do not make light of how devastated you must have been on a personal level, but different people make different choices, and sometimes they are able to still live with the person who strays, and yes, I stand by what I posted--you do not know the dynamics of Woods' marital status, none of us do, and I could see, if I had to constantly present my face to the public as the golden boy, that this pressure might become too much of a strain. To me Woods is proving he's human.

I do not believe in vengeance; it never fixes what hurt us in the first place. Hilary Clinton seems able to live with that calculus. She knows what her husband is, but they are more than the sum of their parts, and she values that, and their power together, and I think Master Bubba really cares about her.

Me? I almost married more for appearances sake than anything else, and the romantic visions of an able-bodied man who would have rescued me from the brutal nature of American socialism probably never would have held water. I have been hurt, but I would do what I have done again for the sake of enjoying intimacy, and as for your situation, I hope you've found the right man who considers the privilege of standing by you a joy, but I still cannot apologize for preferring understanding over condemnation.

[TheFifthElement]

I haven't avoided anything.
Actually you did. Back at post 179 I asked a specific question which you still haven't answered. You said that breaking the marriage vow is immoral and I asked how far does that go. What is infidelity? The marriage vow includes a vow to love the other person, to honour them. If you no longer love or honour the person but do not have sex with or enter into a relationship with another person you have still broken your vow which, by your definition, is still immoral. If you fall in love with someone other than your spouse, is this adultery? Even if you never act on it? You have still broken your vow. Now it seems you have said it is 'technically' breaking a vow, but what's the distinction between a 'technical' breach and a breach? Why is it kind of okay to break one part of a vow, but not another? Is it okay to not take seriously the part about 'loving' someone and staying with them forever, but not the part about fidelity?

These are not hypothetical situations, I know people in these situations. Are they immoral? That's my question or rather that's what I'm trying to understand. Is infidelity just about sex? And is it an immoral act to break the marriage vow, or just the part about fidelity?

I'll give you a specific example. I knew a woman once, actually she was a family member. She got married at the age of 19 and she had 4 children with her husband. After a while she became discontented and she left her husband for a short period, but he convinced her to go back and give it another try. So she did, but he never trusted her. Gradually he took her life apart. He took away her access to the bank account on the pretext that she couldn't be trusted with money (money was tight) and instead he gave her £2 a day to cover the cost of her lunch and her bus fare and that was all. If she wanted to buy something she had to ask permission, even though she earned a significant amount of their money working a 48 hour week in a factory. He turned her children against her by always telling them that was a bad mother and she'd abandoned them, and they believed it after all she hardly saw them because she was always working, and when she did see them she was exhausted. She had no respect in the home. He convinced her that she was 'bad' and 'worthless', because she'd left him once and he couldn't trust her anymore. This went on for years. When I found out her situation I tried to help her, but she wouldn't let me. She said she'd put up with it until the children were grown up, and then she'd leave him. Then she met someone and she had an affair, and as a result of this she left her husband. She had a choice, but so did her husband. He could have chosen to honour his vow to love and honour her, but he didn't. After she broke up with him we also discovered that he had attempted to 'convince' her underage younger sister to enter into a sexual relationship with him, but had fortunately failed. The sister hadn't said anything because she was convinced no one would believe her as he always seemed like such a nice guy and everyone liked him. He was a very skilled manipulator.

Ideally she would have found the strength and the courage and the self-belief to get out of the relationship some other way, and I wish she had. But in the end she couldn't. She had no hope and no exit and the affair gave her both of those things. Yes, she was weak and she made mistakes. But is she immoral and does she deserve to be condemned? You see I have difficulty with the notion that we should automatically condemn her, and that her husband is automatically deserving of our sympathy. Because she broke the fidelity vow do you turn a blind eye to the abuse of trust that her husband committed and badge him as the victim? In my view they both did things wrong and they were both victims. It's not a black and white judgement.

Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating infidelity, not in the least bit. But as Jozanny said, I do advocate understanding before blanket condemnation.

[SleepyWitch]

I came across this article about different "styles" of love. Maybe this explains how you can 'love' several people at a time, because you can experience a different style of love with each of them?


The Experience of "Being In Love" Is Not The Same For Everyone

Not everyone experiences love in exactly the same manner.

Research has shown that love comes in several different forms or styles (see, Lee and Regan). For the most part, people experience love as a blend of two or three of the styles listed below. Essentially, people have different notions of what it means to "be in love."

Styles of Love:

Eros – some people experience love with a lot of passion, intimacy and intensity. Love based on Eros has a strong sexual and emotional component. People who experience love this way want to be emotionally and physically close to their romantic partners and they tend to idealize love. Such love is marked by passion as well as compassion (kindness and consideration). Eros is best viewed as romantic, passionate love - the type of love that creates excitement at the beginning of a new relationship.

Ludus – some people experience love as a game to be played with other people’s emotions. The goal or desire is to gain control over a partner through manipulation. People who experience love as Ludus like to have multiple love interests where they are in complete control. Lying, cheating and deception are common for people who experience love as Ludus – it’s all part of the game. For people who experience love as Ludus, it is satisfying to outwit a partner and exploit his or her weak spots (see, husband plays with my heart, who is likely to cheat, lovefraud).

Storge – some people experience love as a gradual and slow process. When love is based on Storge, getting to know someone comes before having intense feelings for that person. Love based on Storge takes time, it requires genuine liking and understanding of a partner, and it develops slowly over time. Love based on Storge is often compared to the love that one has for a friend. In fact, people who experience love as Storge often fall in love with their friends.

Agape – some people experience love as caregiving. Love is the overwhelming desire to want to take care of a partner - a parental or nurturing type of love. Love based on Agape is attentive, caring, compassionate and kind - a more altruistic or selfless type of love.

Mania – some people experience love as being out of control. Love is an overwhelming experience; it turns one’s life upside down and it results in a complete loss of one’s identity. Love based on Mania is crazy, impulsive and needy. People who experience love as Mania fall in love quickly, but their love tends to consume them. Love experienced as Mania also tends to burnout before it gets the chance to mature. Such love is often marked by extreme delusions, feelings of being out of control, rash decisions, and vulnerability. People who experience love as Mania are easily taken advantage of by people who experience love as Ludus.

Pragma – some people take a practical approach to love. Love is not crazy, intense, or out of control. Love is based on common sense and reason. People who experience love as Pragma tend to pick a suitable mate the way most other people make serious life decisions: picking a partner is based on careful consideration and reason. Practical concerns underlie this type of love.

The love styles listed above have also been linked to one’s style of attachment (see, Levy and Davis).

* Eros and Agape are linked to Secure Attachment
* Mania is linked to Anxious Attachment
* Ludus is linked to Dismissing Attachment

www.truthaboutdeception.com/relational_maintenance/public/love_styles.html

[Granny5]

Sleepy, Based on Poppy and my relationship, I have to say that our relationship is a mixture of several of the different types of love you list. We have had from the beginning a Eros type of love, very exciting and emotional and passionate. But we also have elements of agape and mania in our relationship. But, since we are both pretty pragmatic, we would not have married if we had not felt that each would be a good partner and parent. We would have not married believing that our marriage would fail. We both love others in ways that do not involve romance. I love my children, my brothers, my cousins, my friends. But it's not the same as loving my husband. We've both worked hard at making our love last and our relationship stronger every day. It's just not enough to love someone and expect it to last. Trust and belief in each other is a must to keep growing. We both believe that infidelity would betray our trust in each other and would possibly do damage that couldn't be repaired. Respect for each other, our vows, and our family just won't allow for others entering into our relationship in that way.

[TheFifthElement]

Sleepy, that's a really interesting website. There's a lot of good stuff in there. I agree that there are different types of love, I think we all know deep down that there are. I could say categorically that I currently love three men: one is my husband, another is my son, and another is a friend I've known for a good few years. Romantically I love my husband the most, but I'd kick my hubby into touch if he threatened my son, so do I love my son more than my husband? I love my friend, but then I wouldn't choose him over my husband. Is it a matter of quantification, or preference? I don't really know the answer.

[JuniperWoolf]

I have a question that might have been asked, but I haven't been through the whole thread:

Is it cheating if you have permission from your partner?


I'd have to agree, though I am unsure how I stand on morals, I tend to run my life by what is considered proper etiquette and manner, and, on those grounds, infidelity is certainly ill mannered.

:lol: Oh man, I love you JBI.

[Dorian Gray]

Some people actually doubt cheating is bad? Okaaaay.

[TheFifthElement]

It's just not enough to love someone and expect it to last.
Wise words Granny5 :)

[1n50mn14]

Is it cheating if you have permission from your partner?

That depends on how you got that permission. I was pretty much TOLD going into my current relationship (which started when I was fifteen) that it was going to be an open relationship. I was very meek and accepted that, but there were always hints. I told him more than once, in roundabout ways, I didn't like it, and I think my attitude and hint dropping should have given it away. Anyway, I grew up eventually and said, 'This can't happen anymore,'

but in that case, I would consider it still cheating, as he has admitted NOW that he knew how I felt the entire time, and just kept going to extort that admission from me that I hated it.

[The Comedian]

Is it cheating if you have permission from your partner?

I don't think so. Cheating implies a betrayal of trust. If you and your partner have given the green light to other, um, entertainments, then neither one of you are cheating. You're both just being honest and adventurous.

[soundofmusic]

I don't think so. Cheating implies a betrayal of trust. If you and your partner have given the green light to other, um, entertainments, then neither one of you are cheating. You're both just being honest and adventurous.

I wonder what the longest time a marriage has ever lasted after both partners, or one partner has been given the green light? ;)

[Jazz_]

Moral - "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character" - rather than, "Not causing harm or depriving happiness". I think your definition of morality is slightly different from the majority (which is fine, since morals are very subjective), but I can see why people need to reply ;)

Trying to justify cheating by saying "They can't be hurt if they never know" does not work - something does not become moral just because it goes unnoticed. If you steal from a wealthy person, and they never notice, is it then moral? You have not caused anyone harm, but your actions are still immoral regardless of perceived "harm".

Cheating may not always cause harm, but it is immoral. If you have committed to a relationship you are obliged to fulfill that commitment - if you can no longer do that you have a responsibility to end the relationship. It may be possible to love or be attracted to two (or more) people at once, but this does not make it moral and/or respectful to have relationships with all of them at once (without their knowledge).

However, I don't think it is immoral to "cheat" with permission though - as this defies the definition of cheating... as long as both partners are aware/okay with it I see nothing wrong ;)

[JBI]

Moral - "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character" - rather than, "Not causing harm or depriving happiness". I think your definition of morality is slightly different from the majority (which is fine, since morals are very subjective), but I can see why people need to reply ;)

Trying to justify cheating by saying "They can't be hurt if they never know" does not work - something does not become moral just because it goes unnoticed. If you steal from a wealthy person, and they never notice, is it then moral? You have not caused anyone harm, but your actions are still immoral regardless of perceived "harm".

Cheating may not always cause harm, but it is immoral. If you have committed to a relationship you are obliged to fulfill that commitment - if you can no longer do that you have a responsibility to end the relationship. It may be possible to love or be attracted to two (or more) people at once, but this does not make it moral and/or respectful to have relationships with all of them at once (without their knowledge).

However, I don't think it is immoral to "cheat" with permission though - as this defies the definition of cheating... as long as both partners are aware/okay with it I see nothing wrong ;)

One would think though, the ability for cultures to accept infidelity as a collapse of a relationship, and not a crime though is something progressive. When it comes to moralizing, one runs into trouble when they try to label all "infidelity" as wrong, or whatever.

Think about it this way - when marriage laws are lax, and people are marrying who they want, and divorcing people whenever they feel like it, then one can make an easy judgment as such - but things complicate when you apply the diagram to history, or other circumstances.

For instance, the feminist movement did a lot of work at understanding the power of a woman in a relationship, and what infidelity has meant over time. So, for instance, historically infidelity was essentially justified for any male - king, to peasant - that is, in a Western frame, and in other frames, such as Japanese, Chinese, Islamic, and before the 10th century (though rarely) Jewish history, as well as elsewhere, such as India, polygamy, in the sense of males having more than one partner was widespread. In that sense, the moralizing seems to have been one directional.

In a more contemporary frame, heading into the "modern era", one can think of infidelity as balanced off by concepts of femininity - as in, women are either married are worthless, are either chaste or whores, etc. From a historical perspective infidelity was essentially still a crime of women, rather than men.

So when the modern era comes in, and things get messy, it is fun to start to moralize, but that hardly seems to take into account historical nuance. Cultural expectations still collide with personal wants, to the point where people would rather cheat than get divorced, or whatever.

If one thinks gender doesn't play a role, that is hardly true also - at a young age, conditioning seems to esteem males who are notorious sexually for either sleeping with as many girls as possible, or boasting about it, and infidelity in that sense is taken as commendable.

In contrast, from my experiences growing up, the exact opposite seems to occur amongst females - the whole virgin-whore paradigm is still in play, and the double standard is still exemplified.

So in one sense, we can go on moralizing, but in another, one could argue that infidelity could be interpreted as a form of sexual liberation - at least in near-contemporary historical frames. If one is peaking at literature, for instance, classic novels seem laced with these ideas, especially French novels.

I would argue that Therese Raquin's actions in having an affair would work toward a form of sexual liberation. In contrast, Zola's ending to the novel would suggest a keeping with patriarchal standards, in that he still maintains the binary.


That is why before I mentioned it as something that has to do with mannerisms, and etiquette rather than morals. It is immoral is perhaps the worst rational to apply to anything, in that it assumes itself universal meanwhile not justifying how it itself has essentialized what is moral within a particular experience.

To dismiss things toward being moral or immoral or whatever makes no sense - experience doesn't work on dated philosophical terms. One is merely using a hypothetical situation to deny a sort of expression that is given across the board to men for thousands of years, and still continues to this day.

[The Comedian]

I wonder what the longest time a marriage has ever lasted after both partners, or one partner has been given the green light? ;)

I suspect it wouldn't be too long before the marriage met with a red light.

[soundofmusic]

I suspect it wouldn't be too long before the marriage met with a red light.

Yes, I think you're right on. The "marriage of convenience" is not something that people seem to do well with in this century.

[JuniperWoolf]

So in one sense, we can go on moralizing, but in another, one could argue that infidelity could be interpreted as a form of sexual liberation - at least in near-contemporary historical frames. If one is peaking at literature, for instance, classic novels seem laced with these ideas, especially French novels.

I'm glad that you said that, because I've been thinking about this idea (guiltily) ever since I read Lady Chatterley's Lover a couple of years ago, but I've never heard it expressed by anyone else. This issue warrants more contemplation...

[Jazz_]

If one thinks gender doesn't play a role, that is hardly true also - at a young age, conditioning seems to esteem males who are notorious sexually for either sleeping with as many girls as possible, or boasting about it, and infidelity in that sense is taken as commendable.

In contrast, from my experiences growing up, the exact opposite seems to occur amongst females - the whole virgin-whore paradigm is still in play, and the double standard is still exemplified.

So in one sense, we can go on moralizing, but in another, one could argue that infidelity could be interpreted as a form of sexual liberation - at least in near-contemporary historical frames. If one is peaking at literature, for instance, classic novels seem laced with these ideas, especially French novels.


I don't know when/where you grew up, but recently the view of males who "sleep with as many girls as possible" is hardly positive - while some experience is still generally preferred, most young females are put off by someone with a history of "sleeping around". (It is admittedly still more acceptable than a female doing the same, but definitely not admired).

When speaking of classic novels, you must remember the social context they where written in - a time when sexual liberation was needed, much greater sexual freedom exists today - we don't need infidelity to liberate us. The right exists (at least in most countries) for people to divorce/separate/end relationships - and the presence of this right removes the need for infidelity as a tool for liberation...

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't know when/where you grew up, but recently the view of males who "sleep with as many girls as possible" is hardly positive.

JBI and I are from the same country, and I was raised with the same stereotypes. Of course I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure that the virgin/whore dichotomy is global (from film, television, books, word-of-mouth, etc.). Men who sleep with multiple partners gain prestige (viddy this Wiki page of the American television show "Keys to the VIP," but try not to vomit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keys_to_the_VIP), whereas women who do so lose prestige. I find it odd that you don't agree. Where are you from?

[BienvenuJDC]

JBI and I are from the same country, and I was raised with the same stereotypes. Of course I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure that the virgin/whore dichotomy is global (from film, television, books, word-of-mouth, etc.). Men who sleep with multiple partners gain prestige (viddy this Wiki page of the American television show "Keys to the VIP," but try not to vomit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keys_to_the_VIP), whereas women who do so lose prestige. I find it odd that you don't agree. Where are you from?

I think that it's an inaccurate stereotype. I think that some guys have such goals, but it's wrong for both genders.

[JBI]

I think that it's an inaccurate stereotype. I think that some guys have such goals, but it's wrong for both genders.

Nobody said it was right, but I can't help but feel my assessment at least on a surface level to be correct.

[np6399]

Your definition of morals is a very consequentialist perspective. I don't want to sound pretentious so will break it down as-

You seem to view morals as an instrument to maximise pleasure in the world and minimise pain. Whilst this has its values there is no real way to quantify pleasure and pain in the long run because there is no way to predict outcomes. Thus it is based on a very fleeting feeling.

The contrasting perspective is deontological which says don't treat people as a means to an end.

I believe morals are constructed out of guilt-aversion and instruction from superiors. Thus one man's morals will never equate with anothers.

In summary- if you can rationalise cheating on your partner then you could argue around it but speaking personally- my morals are more to do with cause (i.e. right action) than effect.

peace

[JBI]

Your definition of morals is a very consequentialist perspective. I don't want to sound pretentious so will break it down as-

You seem to view morals as an instrument to maximise pleasure in the world and minimise pain. Whilst this has its values there is no real way to quantify pleasure and pain in the long run because there is no way to predict outcomes. Thus it is based on a very fleeting feeling.

The contrasting perspective is deontological which says don't treat people as a means to an end.

I believe morals are constructed out of guilt-aversion and instruction from superiors. Thus one man's morals will never equate with anothers.

In summary- if you can rationalise cheating on your partner then you could argue around it but speaking personally- my morals are more to do with cause (i.e. right action) than effect.

peace

When being surly I think it best to identify who "you" is.

[Jozanny]

JBI--your idea about infidelity and sexual liberation is interesting, perhaps worth further exploration on my part, thematically; trapped as I was in my personal circumstances when I had my affairs, I did feel liberated, but especially as a disabled woman, and maybe that is why I was drawn to the subversive nature of it. Mmm.

Could you assist me with interpreting Raphael's religious motifs too? ;)

[JBI]

JBI--your idea about infidelity and sexual liberation is interesting, perhaps worth further exploration on my part, thematically; trapped as I was in my personal circumstances when I had my affairs, I did feel liberated, but especially as a disabled woman, and maybe that is why I was drawn to the subversive nature of it. Mmm.

Could you assist me with interpreting Raphael's religious motifs too? ;)

The theory isn't really mine - I just adapted it from feminist theory that tries to suggest lesbianism as liberation from confines of patriarchy and subversion of identity.

As for Raphael's symbolism, you're better off asking an art expert.

[Jazz_]

JBI and I are from the same country, and I was raised with the same stereotypes. Of course I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure that the virgin/whore dichotomy is global (from film, television, books, word-of-mouth, etc.). Men who sleep with multiple partners gain prestige (viddy this Wiki page of the American television show "Keys to the VIP," but try not to vomit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keys_to_the_VIP), whereas women who do so lose prestige. I find it odd that you don't agree. Where are you from?

I'm from Australia (and just finished high school, so am speaking from a "young" perspective)... I believe the "prestige" men gain is very one-sided, that is, they may be admired by other men - but not by women (I'm only speaking with the views of people I know - I can't speak globally). The opinions that have come out here may be some indication of the general opinion of men who sleep around... people believe they are admired by the majority while they themselves don't admire them (but the majority think this way). Therefore most people believe they are held in high esteem by everybody else when in fact they are not. That came out a little clumsily - but I hope you can make some sense of it ;)

I agree that the view of women who do the same is much worse than men, and that this is wrong - but in my experience men don't escape the negative views either.

[Jozanny]

The theory isn't really mine - I just adapted it from feminist theory that tries to suggest lesbianism as liberation from confines of patriarchy and subversion of identity.

As for Raphael's symbolism, you're better off asking an art expert.

I did, but our resident art expert seems to have reigned in on liberality of late. I will do what I can, of course, but I cannot go view Raphael and glean crumbs from a curator before my proposal deadline (sigh). The life of a cursed writer...

Seriously, it offered me another perspective, seeing its liberating aspects, and it is appreciated, especially for my groping tangents in essay mode.

[JBI]

I did, but our resident art expert seems to have reigned in on liberality of late. I will do what I can, of course, but I cannot go view Raphael and glean crumbs from a curator before my proposal deadline (sigh). The life of a cursed writer...

Seriously, it offered me another perspective, seeing its liberating aspects, and it is appreciated, especially for my groping tangents in essay mode.

Feel free to footnote. Seriously though, I think you can find far more radical stuff in contemporary gender theory, and post-structuralist criticism of institutions of marriage in general.

[Shannanigan]

That depends on how you got that permission. I was pretty much TOLD going into my current relationship (which started when I was fifteen) that it was going to be an open relationship. I was very meek and accepted that, but there were always hints. I told him more than once, in roundabout ways, I didn't like it, and I think my attitude and hint dropping should have given it away. Anyway, I grew up eventually and said, 'This can't happen anymore,'

By agreeing to be in that relationship on those terms, you gave that person permission to act as if in an "open" relationship. You agreed to those terms, so technically, he wasn't "cheating," but I'm glad that you did eventually realized that it wasn't for you and spoke up, and even happier that it sounds as if your needs were met. I hope your partner is equally happy to be meeting those needs now :).

"Cheat: 1. to decieve by trickery, swindle 2. to act dishonestly. 3. to elude; escape. 4. to be sexually unfaithful"

So, if I give my partner permission to be with other people, I am not being decieved or swindled, he/she is ot acting dishonestly or eluding/escaping me, and I do not consider him/her sexually unfaithful because I gave him/her permission to perform these acts.

Of course, if permission is not clearly given and there is not a mutual acknowledgement and acceptance of the terms of the relationship, then cheating (becoming sexually involved with other people WITHOUT permission) is still, in my opinion, completely wrong.


I wonder what the longest time a marriage has ever lasted after both partners, or one partner has been given the green light? ;)

You'd be very, very surprised. I suggest researching a little into "polyamory".

[wlz]

Dennis BRUTUS!

[BienvenuJDC]

Can infidelity only occur physically?

[wlz]

Is beastiality considered an act of infideltiy? Just last night I saw a man...

[BienvenuJDC]

Is beastiality considered an act of infideltiy? Just last night I saw a man...

In my opinion...THAT without a doubt crosses the line...
:ack2:

[papayahed]

Can infidelity only occur physically?

No. One can become emotionally involved with someone over the internet.


Is beastiality considered an act of infideltiy? Just last night I saw a man...

Only if the man was in a relationship but besides that that's just not right on several levels.

[BienvenuJDC]

No. One can become emotionally involved with someone over the internet.

Yes that is true, but when does a friendship cross the line? We are emotionally involved with people on many different levels.

[papayahed]

Yes that is true, but when does a friendship cross the line? We are emotionally involved with people on many different levels.

I don't know, I think that's for each one of us to decided, deep down we all know if we're doing wrong.

I think if an emotional involvement rivals the emotional relationship between you and a partner or if you are telling stuff to the internet person rather then a partner it's a safe bet there's trouble brewing.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't know, I think that's for each one of us to decided, deep down we all know if we're doing wrong.

I think if an emotional involvement rivals the emotional relationship between you and a partner or if you are telling stuff to the internet person rather then a partner it's a safe bet there's trouble brewing.

Words to live by...

[Shannanigan]

I don't know, I think that's for each one of us to decided, deep down we all know if we're doing wrong.

If what you mean is that each one of us has our own definitions of both physical and emotional infidelity, then I totally agree with you, which is why I think every serious couple should sit down at some point and talk about what each of them consider infidelity. It's an interesting convo, imo, and you may be suprised to find that you have different definitions of the word.

[optimisticnad]

I'm really encouraged by the outcome of the vote. With all the moral relativism that goes on in today's world, and especially on lit net, I would have thought the outcome would be different. :)

:banana::banana:

Agreed.

What bizarre questions we seem to be getting. Remember the incest one?!

Cheating/Infidelity is morally wrong - for all the reasons already given. Welldone! And needless to say disrespectful too. You're not being true to yourself, or to the people you are cheating. Yes yes yes, plenty of heartbreaking scenarios, the 'what ifs' but thats beside the point! My god if we all kept changing our principles everytime the context and situation was a little 'off' we'd be in a far worse place than we already are!

Now I have to go and teach 13 year old about effective informative leaflets!

[applepie]

Can infidelity only occur physically?

Not at all. In some ways it is the mental that is far more damaging. I would be more hurt by my husband being in love with another woman that I would be if he had slept with a prostitute. I think both are immoral and show a level of disrespect, but it would be much easier to forgive something based solely on physical attraction where there was no emotional involvement.

[Scheherazade]

Now I have to go and teach 13 year old about effective informative leaflets!Trying teaching that to a bunch of 30+ years olds! :p


I think both are immoral and show a level of disrespect, but it would be much easier to forgive something based solely on physical attraction where there was no emotional involvement.How very interesting, Meg. For me, it would be just the opposite. Even though I would be devastated equally in both cases, I could try to be understanding if my partner fell in love with someone else and wanted to pursue that relationship. I don't think I would like to stand in the way of their happiness together.

However, if that person risked what we had for a one night stand or for something purely physical (and probably temporary), I don't think I could ever bring myself forgive or respect that person anymore simply because there was no emotional involvement in the second relationship.

I think Shan is very right that we all look at things differently and have different expectations and definitions especially when it comes to relationships. :)

[applepie]

How very interesting, Meg. For me, it would be just the opposite. Even though I would be devastated equally in both cases, I could try to be understanding if my partner fell in love with someone else and wanted to pursue that relationship. I don't think I would like to stand in the way of their happiness together.

However, if that person risked what we had for a one night stand or for something purely physical (and probably temporary), I don't think I could ever bring myself forgive or respect that person anymore simply because there was no emotional involvemeent in the second relationship.


I think part of it came from the military lifestyle. I spent seven years as a Navy spouse. During the time, I saw (well rather heard of later) many MANY men have one night stands in port when they were gone for six months at a time. I guess you get sort of conditioned into it being a possibility and it created a certain amount of disregard for it. Keeping that in mind however, I would be less forgiving now without the long separations. We've been out for going on two years, and if he were to have a one night stand I would be less likely to forgive it.

[optimisticnad]

Trying teaching that to a bunch of 30+ years olds! :p

Really? Tell me more. Is this what you 'do'? How do you do it or go about it? I'm dead interested in the differences. I think my 13 year olds are more 'fun', they have so much life and spark in them and every generation seems to come up with new and innovative ways to wind the teacher up. But they didn't expect this one to be quite so insane, it puzzeles them.

[Shannanigan]

Trying teaching that to a bunch of 30+ years olds! :p

How very interesting, Meg. For me, it would be just the opposite. Even though I would be devastated equally in both cases, I could try to be understanding if my partner fell in love with someone else and wanted to pursue that relationship. I don't think I would like to stand in the way of their happiness together.

However, if that person risked what we had for a one night stand or for something purely physical (and probably temporary), I don't think I could ever bring myself forgive or respect that person anymore simply because there was no emotional involvement in the second relationship.

I think Shan is very right that we all look at things differently and have different expectations and definitions especially when it comes to relationships. :)

So...it's the fact that your partner is capable of becoming physically active with someone else without having feelings for them that bothers you?

I find THAT interesting...because I come across many more people willing to forgive a one-night stand simply because of the fact that it is temporary and is not as emotionally "deep" as your relationship, and therefore "not a real threat" to your relationship. "The spark will die, the sex will become bland, and he'll come back to me," is what I tend to hear from women whose men are being unfaithful.

But, again, everyone's different. :)

...I think I even read a study that said women tend to be more hurt by emotional closeness, and men more hurt by physical acts, but I can't remember where I read it, and obviously, there are always exceptions to rules.

[blazeofglory]

So...it's the fact that your partner is capable of becoming physically active with someone else without having feelings for them that bothers you?

I find THAT interesting...because I come across many more people willing to forgive a one-night stand simply because of the fact that it is temporary and is not as emotionally "deep" as your relationship, and therefore "not a real threat" to your relationship. "The spark will die, the sex will become bland, and he'll come back to me," is what I tend to hear from women whose men are being unfaithful.

But, again, everyone's different. :)

...I think I even read a study that said women tend to be more hurt by emotional closeness, and men more hurt by physical acts, but I can't remember where I read it, and obviously, there are always exceptions to rules.

This is a very interesting discussion and it has raised the number of issues we always want discussed and debated.

In fact physical relationships with others in some cultures are things intolerable to their spouses, and in others it is tolerable and understandable. I have seen men having two wives in the same house. One night he sleeps with one wife and another night with another wife. Despite the fact that they sleep under the same roof there is perfect understanding and they do not fight over this fact.


Of course physical relationships breed emotional relationships and having an emotional relationship with one person and having a physical one with another is something that is not compatible

[billl]

I think that, if we are going to be faithful/trustworthy to our partner in a relationship, then we would be expected to make decisions that take into account their feelings and our respect for them.

However, I don't think it is reasonable to look at our inner feelings and emotions as things that we should censor outright. It might be worth considering why we might be becoming more and more fond of some co-worker or neighbor, or an old flame, etc. But, on the other hand, those feelings might eventually fade, or might blossom into something and demand a change of some sort in our relationship. But really, if there is no actual relationship going on, if it is just a yearning or feelings of emotional connection, then it is basically a case of humans having freedom of thought, of being able to explore ideas.

Joining in physical union with another person is, I think, something else. It is very definitely an action and a choice. If the relationship is based on an understanding (or even an oath) that physical sexual expression of love was something that was to remain between the partners exclusively, then cheating would be a step beyond fantasy and the consideration of what else might or might not be.

Although this whole question of emotional infidelity is not so simple, as it can lead to other types of infidelity. If some of the "emotional infidelity" concerns are based around "cheating" in terms of a partner's decision to simply spend time with a new person, or to put some new person's interests ahead of their spouse's, then the spouse would be right to be upset more and more, according to how long and how serious these sorts of things became. There would seem to be a problem, in a way it might be like a fantasy inching towards reality, step by step. It seems like there'd be shades of gray, and people might ignore it too long, or become concerned too soon, (or maybe weather the storm in an appropriate manner), according to different situations and different temperments.

But I really hope that those who are saying that they think emotional infidelity is worse than physical infidelity aren't saying that a partner is required to censor their thoughts and musings, and take them just as seriously as the actions they actually do commit. Yes, our imagination is a powerful 'thing' (perhaps even dangerous at times), but it has its uses too. We imagine many things without ultimately choosing to make them reality, and I think that is for the best.

[Scheherazade]

Really? Tell me more. Is this what you 'do'? How do you do it or go about it? I'm dead interested in the differences. I think my 13 year olds are more 'fun', they have so much life and spark in them and every generation seems to come up with new and innovative ways to wind the teacher up. But they didn't expect this one to be quite so insane, it puzzeles them.Don't want to hijack this thread so, if you are interested in discussing this further, please either PM me or post in the Teaching section :)
I think part of it came from the military lifestyle. I spent seven years as a Navy spouse. During the time, I saw (well rather heard of later) many MANY men have one night stands in port when they were gone for six months at a time. I understand that there are different circumstances when one needs to re-evaluate where they stand on certain issues, Meg. :)

Just wondering, when your husband were gone, were you or would you be tempted to have one night stands? Or would those Navy men be understanding towards their own wives'/partners' one night stands during the time they were gone?
So...it's the fact that your partner is capable of becoming physically active with someone else without having feelings for them that bothers you? (To begin with, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we are all different and, also, we would act differently under different circumstances. :))

No, not at all... What bothers me is that for the sake of temporary physical excitement or temptation, one should betray or risk the emotional one. Physical at the expense of emotional...

Having said that I am assuming that one is in a dedicated and exclusive relationship.

[OrphanPip]

No, not at all... What bothers me is that for the sake of temporary physical excitement or temptation, one should betray or risk the emotional one. Physical at the expense of emotional...

Having said that I am assuming that one is in a dedicated and exclusive relationship.

I feel the same as you Sheh. It is understandable, yet upsetting, for a partner to develop feelings for other people that are beyond their control. However, choosing to betray the trust of a partner merely for a physical experience just reeks of a lack of respect for their partner and what their relationship means.

[applepie]

Just wondering, when your husband were gone, were you or would you be tempted to have one night stands? Or would those Navy men be understanding towards their own wives'/partners' one night stands during the time they were gone?

I suppose it depended on the relationship. I would have been more likely to forgive, but I can't promise I would. By nature I'm your monogamous relationship type of girl. The good news is that my husband is as well, so there was no wandering on our part. There were lots of other like us where it may have destroyed their marriage if any infidelity occured.

I did see couples, though, that they thought nothing of having another person on the side while they were separated. I guess you would call them open relationships, but it was only acceptable while separated. Finally you had the third group. This one I never really got because often both partners were unfaithful, but then then they each had the nerve to be angry with the other. I guess it was the case where they kind of believed in monogamy, but neither partner was willing to adhere to it.

[Scheherazade]

From the OP:
Up until recently, I would have said that infidelity is both immoral and disrespectful. Then I adopted the view that it was disrespectful but not immoral (if it could be guaranteed that one's partner would never find out about it) and now I'm not sure it's even that much (disrespectful).

...

I feel that it's tacky to lie to someone you care about but I can't actually articulate why it is disrespectful or why honesty is a moral virtue in circumstances where lying wouldn't alleviate suffering or cause pleasure/happiness. I just don't see how you could lie to someone and be truly intimate with them. If nothing else, I think cheating is morally irresponsible for the simple fact that you cannot guarantee your partner will never find out and it wouldn't be worth the risk of causing them distress.

[Propter W.]

In my opinion it's not immoral. I'm not sure it's disrespectful either.

[mrv]

I think it's stupid and/or pathetic. I don't judge things from the moral perspective so I can't say if it is immoral. Disrespectful...it might be.
I can't go with any of the options given in the poll. :out:

[kiki1982]

The two questions you ask are not compatible...

The one is about infedilty alone. Is it wrong? It depends what you have agreed with your partner. If you have agreed that doing it with another once in a while is ok, then infidelity is not wrong. If you haven't agreed upon that, then it is wrong, I would say, yes. Mind you, fidelity, I don't think, can be forced upon two people who choose together not to be entirely respectful of that. Not even a church marriage should imply for them two that they have to be enirely faithful to each other. You have agreed between yourselves to be faithful to the other, yes, but faithfulness is more than just 'that'.

Cheating implies that firstly one doesn't know that the other is doing it with another, which isn't fair, and secondly that it is not allowed. So, then, I would say it is wrong. Whether it is immoral is another matter. Disrespectful, yes.

[The Comedian]

I think it's stupid and/or pathetic. I don't judge things from the moral perspective so I can't say if it is immoral. Disrespectful...it might be.
I can't go with any of the options given in the poll. :out:

:-) Well, if infidelity is stupid, pathetic and possibly disrespectful, then you've pretty much said it's immoral without sayin' so.

[mrv]

:-) Well, if infidelity is stupid, pathetic and possibly disrespectful, then you've pretty much said it's immoral without sayin' so.


Is being stupid and pathetic immoral? :skep:

Disrespect of a stupid and pathetic person is not something I'd be bothered about.

Morality does not stand for anything specific for me.

So, I don't think I have managed to say anything I did not say. That's just your own way perceiving it. :rolleyes: