Is infidelity wrong?

[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.