Is infidelity wrong?

[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.