Wrong to Cheat on Partner?

[Koldo]

Well "emotional infidelity" if such a term exists, seems to be apparent.

In masturbation?
Not really.

 

[Magic Man]

Well "emotional infidelity" if such a term exists, seems to be apparent.

Not in my view. Emotional infidelity to me is much more than just fantasizing about someone else. We're only human, and we have strong sexual desires.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, all I know is this - I'm a sensual woman who loves intimacy. I've been in two marriages which were unhappy (though now I am married to a great guy in a very happy marriage). I've been married for a total of 27 years of my life and never once, even in the least fulfilled and most miserable years of failing marriages, been unfaithful. I have never cheated on anyone - and I'm glad I don't have to add that to other mistakes I've made in my life.

I'm not saying - obviously - that marriages and long term, committed relationships don't fail. But I have always believed that a clean exit is best.

 

[Vendetta]

Not in my view. Emotional infidelity to me is much more than just fantasizing about someone else. We're only human, and we have strong sexual desires.

Well "only human" seems to be an excuse to validate fantasizing about someone else. Similarly a cheater may use the excuse "I have needs" to validate infidelity in a non-sexual relationship.

 

[Vendetta]

In masturbation?
Not really.

How so?

 

[Koldo]

How so?

You are doing the whole thing by yourself. You are interacting with a thing that exists only in your head.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

What? You have a really distorted view of things. :sarcastic
There is clearly a lot of difference.

Is it really so hard to believe? The goal of nearly every living creature is to survive and reproduce. Nothing else matters. The constant drive to satisfy these two goals of life is as basic as life itself.

Then break up with the person and move on. The point is that you should bring it up. If the other person is OK with it, then great. If not, and they don't want to be with you if you want to sleep with other people, then they need to be given that option.

For all intents and purposes, this makes sense. But why is breaking up and then picking another partner necessarily better? Is this not culture that has imposed this value on us? I'm not saying that cheating is automatically okay, but rather that these morals are partially, if not totally, social constructs.

I want to clarify before I respond. By "serial monogamist" do you mean someone who starts a relationship with one person and breaks up with them after a while and moves on to someone else and keeps repeating that? If so, you could call that sleeping around, if the person does it enough. But it's not cheating in any sense.

Now one also shouldn't just keep breaking up with people to sleep with other people. That shows a lack of respect and an inability to take a relationship seriously, that is, if it's a consistent thing.

I don't think talking strictly in a biological sense is helpful. In a biological sense, nothing is morally wrong.

In a sense, yes. But we cannot deny biology's role in this, or any other human behavior. Otherwise we lose sight of the driving mechanisms of the behaviors.

If I'm hearing you right, I agree that how often one must change partners to consider it as serial monogamy, is subjective. But I believe that in quite a few cases, polyamory is a much better lifestyle than repeatedly dumping and finding one partner at a time. Strong resistance from society is what degrades polyamory into cheating: If someone *needs* multiple partners to be satisfied, but society imposes these artificial mores that doing so is "bad," then that breeds an environment that encourages cheating. Repression of sexuality is being and has been tried, and it fails miserably, time after time. That, in my opinion, is the real culprit of cheating, not people who can't "choose" to control their innate desires.

 

[Magic Man]

Well "only human" seems to be an excuse to validate fantasizing about someone else.

It's not an excuse. It's an explanation. You can only expect so much out of a human. You can expect your partner not to actually sleep with someone else, and you can expect them not to treat someone else as their partner. But you can't expect them not to look at other attractive people or to dream or fantasize about them.

Similarly a cheater may use the excuse "I have needs" to validate infidelity in a non-sexual relationship.

I'm sure they might. However, there is no excuse for infidelity. If the relationship is non-sexual, then bring it up to your partner. Don't just go out and sleep with other people. I think of it kind of like conflict resolution. Discussing the problem in a reasonable way should always be the first step. Sometimes that won't solve the conflict, and further steps, like physical fighting might be necessary, but you at least have to start with the calm discussion.

 

[Oneatatime]

If you cheat on your spouse or partner, they never find out, and you don't contract any diseases, etc, is it wrong? Why?

Is there any case that it isn't wrong? Is there any case that it can be beneficial?

Its a violation of trust if the other person is under the expectation that both parties in the relationship are going to be loyal to one another. If you aren't happy with your current relationship and want to be with someone else or on your own then have the guts to be honest with the other person rather than dallying around behind their back.

 

[Magic Man]

For all intents and purposes, this makes sense. But why is breaking up and then picking another partner necessarily better?

Because in human relations, making your partner aware of the situation and giving them a chance to react is the best way to interact. You probably don't want your partner to just sneak around behind your back, right? Wouldn't you rather them tell you they're not happy and they want to sleep with other people instead?

Is this not culture that has imposed this value on us? I'm not saying that cheating is automatically okay, but rather that these morals are partially, if not totally, social constructs.

Of course they're social constructs. We're talking about human interaction. Humans tend not to like their possessions being taken away without their consent. They don't like trusting someone to do something and then having that person break that trust. It's not just one culture, but all of humanity. There are exceptions here and there, but pretty much every culture holds these values. And all morals are social constructs.

In a sense, yes. But we cannot deny biology's role in this, or any other human behavior. Otherwise we lose sight of the driving mechanisms of the behaviors.

I'm not denying biology's role. What I'm saying is that, even if you feel the biological need to sleep with more than one person, you need to make that clear to your partners. Your biological needs are not sufficient validation for sleeping with other people without telling your partner.

If I'm hearing you right, I agree that how often one must change partners to consider it as serial monogamy, is subjective. But I believe that in quite a few cases, polyamory is a much better lifestyle than repeatedly dumping and finding one partner at a time.

I don't disagree, but with polyamory everyone has to consent to it. If you're a person who often feels the need to sleep with different people or just have more than one partner at a time, then you need to find other people who are willing to have a relationship that allows you to do that.

Strong resistance from society is what degrades polyamory into cheating: If someone *needs* multiple partners to be satisfied, but society imposes these artificial mores that doing so is "bad," then that breeds an environment that encourages cheating. Repression of sexuality is being and has been tried, and it fails miserably, time after time. That, in my opinion, is the real culprit of cheating, not people who can't "choose" to control their innate desires.

Polyamory is not cheating. Cheating is being in a committed relationship with one person where there is an agreement to not sleep with other people, but then sleeping with other people anyway. Polyamory is having an intimate relationship with more than one person. Generally in polyamory all people in the relationships understand what's going on and participate voluntarily.

It may very well be that as society progresses we move away from the traditional two-person relationship, or at least the traditional lifelong two-person relationship. Maybe more people will choose polyamory or just choose to have several different long-term relationships (people are already doing that, I guess). However, currently most people like having one partner, and there's nothing wrong with that. If a person doesn't like that, he or she needs to find a partner or partners who also don't like it, and are OK with polyamory. I don't think blaming cheating (sleeping with other people despite an agreement with one person to not sleep with anyone else) on sexual repression is correct. Even if you want to sleep with other people, you always have the option to at least discuss it with your partner first. Just going through with it without doing that is what makes it cheating.

 

[Badran]

you always have the option to at least discuss it with your partner first. Just going through with it without doing that is what makes it cheating.

Not trying to be repetitive, but just making sure i didn't misunderstand you the first time. This rule of course doesn't apply literally always, right?

I mean it does, except for at least the two cases we agreed upon, right?

 

[Magic Man]

Not trying to be repetitive, but just making sure i didn't misunderstand you the first time. This rule of course doesn't apply literally always, right?

I mean it does, except for at least the two cases we agreed upon, right?

Yes, in extreme situations like your partner being in a coma and in situations where you have been relieved of your responsibility due to the actions of your partner, it does not apply.

 

[Badran]

Yes, in extreme situations like your partner being in a coma and in situations where you have been relieved of your responsibility due to the actions of your partner, it does not apply.

Because here (and particularly the second example) the promise can be justly broken and not telling the partner can be justified, thanks.

Just trying to understand & reinforce the point, because this has been my point the entire thread, i hope you didn't mind my repeated question.

 

[Magic Man]

Because here (and particularly the second example) the promise can be justly broken and not telling the partner can be justified, thanks.

Just trying to understand & reinforce the point, because this has been my point the entire thread, i hope you didn't mind my repeated question.

I'm not sure I'd call it breaking the promise in those cases. I think the agreement between two committed people is that they'll be faithful as long as the other person does their part in the relationship (not abusing their partner, etc.) and to a reasonable degree - meaning if the other person is presumed dead (in a case like war), is actually dead or in a long-term coma, the promise ends.

Everyone pretty much agrees that the death of one partner frees the living partner from their promise (unless the promise specifically included even after death, obviously). I think other things like long-term comas act the same way as death there.

 

[Badran]

I'm not sure I'd call it breaking the promise in those cases. I think the agreement between two committed people is that they'll be faithful as long as the other person does their part in the relationship (not abusing their partner, etc.) and to a reasonable degree - meaning if the other person is presumed dead (in a case like war), is actually dead or in a long-term coma, the promise ends.

Everyone pretty much agrees that the death of one partner frees the living partner from their promise (unless the promise specifically included even after death, obviously). I think other things like long-term comas act the same way as death there.

Basically i thought of this in the terms of that if the grounds the promise has been made upon changes, the promise can be broken. So i guess we could say indeed that the promise no longer applies in the first place if such criteria is met.

As in its not breaking the promise in the sense that its violating the agreement, as the promise no longer applies due to the change that has occurred.

 

[Koldo]

Is it really so hard to believe? The goal of nearly every living creature is to survive and reproduce. Nothing else matters. The constant drive to satisfy these two goals of life is as basic as life itself.

It is still completely flawed to compare sex, as nearly equal, to eating.
I am afraid I just can't explain it any further without pointing out the obvious.

 

[confusedius]

Its a violation of trust if the other person is under the expectation that both parties in the relationship are going to be loyal to one another. If you aren't happy with your current relationship and want to be with someone else or on your own then have the guts to be honest with the other person rather than dallying around behind their back.

Certainly a lofty position, and one I once strongly adhered to.

The result was that my friends who went "dallying around" are still happily married, while I took a financial, emotional and social bath by having the "guts to be honest"...

james

 

[Songbird]

Certainly a lofty position, and one I once strongly adhered to.

The result was that my friends who went "dallying around" are still happily married, while I took a financial, emotional and social bath by having the "guts to be honest"...

james

Hi, James.

I'm glad you posted that perspective. I thought of posting a long comment about the aftermath of people who choose your route versus the route your friends took, and various studies, and how we (Americans) freak out about affairs to an extreme, in my opinion. But I sort of lost motivation. It's hard to explain the details in a forum. Since you posted this, I have a renewed interest.

First, I've never had an affair. I wasn't going to divulge personal details, but I don't want people to think I'm making excuses for my situation. So I'm saying it plainly. Second, after walking through some friends' journeys, researching the complex nature of affairs and sexuality, and going through my own experiences (which again don't include extramarital affairs), I've concluded that in general affairs are not as big of a deal on their own merit. The factors that compel people to have them are often stronger than the moral codes which are supposed to motivate us to not have them. It's not as simple as telling your partner you're thinking about sleeping with someone else, and then everyone can move ahead cleanly with all the needed information.

In thinking about this issue for several years, I realized I wouldn't be that upset if my husband had an affair. In weighing all the factors that make our marriage intimate, him sleeping with another woman wouldn't devastate me, wouldn't end our marriage, and wouldn't be insurmountable.

I have more thoughts, but I need to get out the door.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, if it's not that big a deal to you, you should both know that on the front end. In that case - it's just not that big a deal.

In the marriages cited which fell apart after an affair - apparently it WAS a big deal to at least ONE partner.

That's what makes it "cheating!" When you partner up with someone, you need to be sure you both share the same values and expectations - on many things, but ESPECIALLY on monogamy.

It would be a huge deal to me - and to my husband. An absolute deal killer. We knew that going into this marriage and if we are ever unhappy or dissatisfied enough to need to look outside the marriage for something more, we will get divorced first. I can assure you that I absolutely will not share my husband or my bed with another woman - NO WAY. I would rather take a financial hit than do so.

That's my choice. And I speak from experience. I was living in an absolutely gorgeous historical home, with my husband who owned a real estate brokerage, in a town that I loved, doing a job (real estate) that I loved. My husband cheated on me. I divorced him, sold the house (too much house for one woman to keep up), took my share of the business and quit real estate, and moved out of that town. All of that was very difficult - and I had to rebuild my life entirely. But that was a better choice to me than living with a cheating, unfaithful, lying husband.

And I am SO glad I did it. My life now is far better than it was before. Everything I thought I lost has come back to me - new and improved.

 

[confusedius]

Hi, Songbird & Hi, Kathryn!

I think the complexity of the issue is astounding, especially in view of the fact that one is generally making a lifetime decision based upon what they see early on. Few in business, politics, science, etc. would be so, shall we say, brave.

I could discuss this with gusto, but to keep a bit closer to the OP, what I would like to understand is, how do we define "cheating"? Is is just sexual and, if so, why does infidelity get a bigger bite of the apple?

Caveat: I fully support the concept that life will bring us the unexpected, and the "contract" requires going along for that ride. Things happen, people get sick, or have an accident, and we work together through those potholes.

That given, is a svelte young bride not also "cheating" when, in the next ten years, they eat themselves into obesity that few men would find sexually attractive? Is the courteous young groom not "cheating" when, in the next ten years, whenever they hear "play ball" they leave their spouse to effectively live alone and without sexual interplay?

Absenting that which is thrust upon us by fate, is not EVERY situation where we are not getting what we were lead to believe we would not cheating?

Complex indeed.

james