Is infidelity wrong?

[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.

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

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!

[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

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.