Is infidelity wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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. :)

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by African_Love

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.

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?

[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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundofmusic

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

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.

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.