Is it time to do away with the concept of Infidelity/cheating?

[Just a Guy]

Hi Folks, I had initiated a thread about the trivialization of marriage by people with and outside the ambit of marriage and there were some meaningful responses on that thread. I found that while there were some people including me, who believed fully in the concept of marriage, there were others who though accepting that marriage was a valid idea and believed in it, felt that there could be different opinions of what was acceptable to others. For instance there were some some who thought that open marriages were completely acceptable if some one was comfortable with it.

 

Anyway, this debate raised a thought in my mind that if the concept of infidelity/ cheating was done away with then the very basis of hurt feelings and alienation would be done away with in one fell swoop. What I am suggesting is that while there are those of us who can come to a mutual decision with our SOs' to remain monogamous and true to each other, there can be others who can decide that they will have a primary relationship with an SO but that they will be free to be with others as and when the fancy strikes them. They may or may not inform their SOs' about this liaison although as a matter basic courtesy they may do so. However their telling or not telling will not be a cause of friction between the two primary partners. The question of affairs will be taken care of. Of course in a mutually agreed monogamous union, affairs, infidelity and cheating will still be relevant because the nature of the relationship is such. For all other relationships this would not be a factor and there would, correspondingly, not be any heartburn.

 

I guess this sounds radical but then one needs radical solutions for the large number of hurt SOs' who are the victims of infidelity /affairs. I do not know if I have been sufficiently clear in putting forth this view but if people have some doubt I guess I can clarify these. Warm Wishes to all.

[autumnnight]

I think this is inadvisable and impossible. The fundamental problems with cheating are:

 

The spouse/SO who is supposed to love only you is giving themselves away to someone else

 

Lying/deceit

 

No matter what we call or do not call it, it will always hurt people when their relationship is no longer special and the person they love deceives them.

 

That does seem to be a popular notion these days, however. It makes some people uncomfortable/cramps their style to have to live by this or that moral code, so the answer - rather than have some character and boundaries - is to just do away with the code. "People are gonna do it anyway, let's just make it okay." What a sad testament to society.

[central]

Lying and deceit will remain problems no matter what form of relationship or marriage you adopt for yourself. However, there is far less need or motivation for those if you have agreed to an open relationship model - there is seldom anything to be gained from lying when there is no penalty for being honest and acting with mutual knowledge and consent.

 

An increasing number of people are embracing ethically open relationships, and thereby greatly reducing the incidence and harm of cheating and lying in their relationships. By doing so (if they can emotionally accept it) they turn a problem into a benefit.

[understand50]

Just another name for a "open" marriage.

 

I have no issue with a couple deciding together for a "open" marriage of relationship, I just wish other would respect my wife and I's choice in how we live our life. Most couples want a "good" marriage, where they stay true to each other, if you want something else, find a mate that agrees with you and go to it. No one is stopping you. I think that in the end you will find it a lot harder then you think to maintain, but nothing tried nothing gained. It is your life.

 

I wish you luck.

[casey.lives]

what about the infrastructure ? How will people live?? In bachelor apartments hopping around like some Star Trek ship?

[autumnnight]

Lying and deceit will remain problems no matter what form of relationship or marriage you adopt for yourself. However, there is far less need or motivation for those if you have agreed to an open relationship model - there is seldom anything to be gained from lying when there is no penalty for being honest and acting with mutual knowledge and consent.

 

An increasing number of people are embracing ethically open relationships, and thereby greatly reducing the incidence and harm of cheating and lying in their relationships. By doing so (if they can emotionally accept it) they turn a problem into a benefit.

 

This has always interested me from a religious standpoint. What makes adultery adultery? Is it the actual sleeping with another person, or is it the lying and deceit?

 

I'm sorry, OP, if that is out in left field, but I always believed that the reason it was adultery was because it was outside the marriage, so lying or not, it is still wrong. But I get the idea some people believe that going outside the marriage is okay if it is honest.

[central]

This has always interested me from a religious standpoint. What makes adultery adultery? Is it the actual sleeping with another person, or is it the lying and deceit?

 

I'm sorry, OP, if that is out in left field, but I always believed that the reason it was adultery was because it was outside the marriage, so lying or not, it is still wrong. But I get the idea some people believe that going outside the marriage is okay if it is honest.

 

Infidelity is a violation of a couple's assumed or stated contract regarding emotional and/or sexual exclusivity.

 

Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

 

Infidelity is wrong by definition because it violates an agreement. Adultery is often (incorrectly) used interchangeably with infidelity, but adultery isn't necessarily wrong. You can agree to have sex with others - it's still adultery (by definition), but not infidelity.

[Gloria25]

IMO, people who are "married" yet live separate lives is not some new concept...thing is I think people are trying to make it more mainstream and that worries me.

 

Like the debate over gay marriage recently? My thing is/was, if gays want to get married - call it a "civil union" and to not associate it with "marriage" because a "marriage" has certain cultural, religious, etc aspects of it that IMO, are not the same as a "civil union".

 

I mean, I've seen it all. Married couples: living in different states; who haven't had sex in years; just staying together for kids; live under the same roof, but are like strangers and/or roommates; open couples where both of them are cheating; one partner who knows the other is cheating, but could care less....

 

Married people are funny, they are like salt/pepper shakers. Sometimes what works for "them" wouldn't work for others...My thing is don't call it a "marriage" - call it a "civil union", "partnership" or something else.

 

Me, personally, I wouldn't want to be in an "open" marriage - knowingly. What's the point of that? Now, if I married someone and poop happens (i.e. I get a medical issue preventing me from having sex, they are gay, they prefer work over family/kids) and we had kids - I'd prefer we be kind to each other and stay together to raise the kids instead of break up the home.

 

But, I could not "knowingly" tell my husband "let's sleep around". I could see myself saying - ok, I'm not providing you with what you need, so if you're gonna sleep around, I don't wanna know and just wanna keep this civil until the kids are up and out.

 

Yes, I've been the OW, so while I can see there are cases where someone steps out of a marriage cuz their needs aren't getting met - I don't see it the same way as people just saying "let's have an open marriage and boink around". I think there's a difference.

[Got it]

I think an issue with this is most people, when they marry want one type of marriage, but over time it changes, but they aren't cluing in the other party. Why? Because those are conversations that may end in dealbreakers which wasn't where they were wanting to go. So they follow the path to cheating that they were going to follow.

 

Also, they may feel it is okay for them to have other relationships but they do not want their spouse to do so. So a decision like this makes it consensual and parable. So to keep the scales tipped in their favor they say nothing.

 

Or they want the spouse and someone else, but know their spouse will never agree to it. So even at the point of marrying will keep "separate but equal" paths in their lives because they literally want their cake and to eat it too.

 

So no matter what is done people will still choose to roll the dice because playing the odds seems far more rewarding than having to deal with the crossroads initially.

[Gloria25]

I think an issue with this is most people, when they marry want one type of marriage, but over time it changes, but they aren't cluing in the other party. Why? Because those are conversations that may end in dealbreakers which wasn't where they were wanting to go. So they follow the path to cheating that they were going to follow.

 

Also, they may feel it is okay for them to have other relationships but they do not want their spouse to do so. So a decision like this makes it consensual and parable. So to keep the scales tipped in their favor they say nothing.

 

Or they want the spouse and someone else, but know their spouse will never agree to it. So even at the point of marrying will keep "separate but equal" paths in their lives because they literally want their cake and to eat it too.

 

So no matter what is done people will still choose to roll the dice because playing the odds seems far more rewarding than having to deal with the crossroads initially.

 

Excellent summary....

[GoBlue]

IMO, people who are "married" yet live separate lives is not some new concept...thing is I think people are trying to make it more mainstream and that worries me.

 

Like the debate over gay marriage recently? My thing is/was, if gays want to get married - call it a "civil union" and to not associate it with "marriage" because a "marriage" has certain cultural, religious, etc aspects of it that IMO, are not the same as a "civil union".

 

I mean, I've seen it all. Married couples: living in different states; who haven't had sex in years; just staying together for kids; live under the same roof, but are like strangers and/or roommates; open couples where both of them are cheating; one partner who knows the other is cheating, but could care less....

 

 

This is some insightful observations. As a former Pastor who is now divorced (not my choice), I have always welcomed open and honest dialogue about human interaction and the significance of religion on who we are. I recently had an opportunity to share a conversation with an openly lesbian woman on why I do not believe in same-sex marriage. I simply stated that I do not think it is a healthy thing for any society whether you have religious beliefs or not. There is a reason that traditional one-man-one-woman relationships have been protected and legalized by every civilization that has existed, those base family units maintain society and actually cause it to grow. That's why they receive tax benefits, special rights, and preferences because without them every society would cease to exist. I view "open marriages," "partnerships," "adulterous relationships" and every other problematic take on marriage the same way.

 

I cannot separate my belief in God from how I view life and relationships. I honestly believe marriage should be "one man and one woman" and I also believe that it is supposed to be a loving and God honoring union. I was raised by a mother and father who "stayed together" because of "the kids." In my opinion this is just as much a perversion of marriage as anything else because it did not produce a secure atmosphere for my sister and I, and it created all kinds of problems. Why do we as human beings always think that the key to happiness is having something other than what we already have? Why is it so hard to have an open and honest conversation listing the benefits of our own position without people getting angry at you and saying that you are a "hater" because you don't agree with them? The one thing I do know for sure, every single one of us gets to choose how we live, but we do not get to choose the consequences of those choices. This is one of the many reasons why it is unrealistic to do "away with the concept of Infidelity/cheating."

[seren]

I think that if two people, married or otherwise agree to have an open marriage that's their business. As long as no one else gets hurt in the process. I think everyone is entitled to truth and that informed choice should be a given for everyone, it allows us to live an authentic life, without it and with either believing the relationship is exclusive is not only deceitful, it denies the other of choice.

 

As for gay marriage, Hoorah! for that, about time.

[mrldii]

This has always interested me from a religious standpoint. What makes adultery adultery? Is it the actual sleeping with another person, or is it the lying and deceit?...

 

I watched an interesting show on the History Channel (around Easter, I believe) that investigated the how-fores and why-fores of the 10 Commandments and how they came to be.

 

Interestingly enough, every single one of them was borne out of the need to establish property rights - something enslaved and wandering Jews, who'd never owned land before, needed to be taught.

 

The "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" had little to do with lust and carnal doings...it had to do with the fact that each adult male Jew was given land when they settled, and that a man's land was given to his male heir(s) when he died. Women - wives and daughters - could NOT own nor inherit land.

 

Because the land was finite and could only be passed on to one's sons, it became extremely important that your sons were, in fact, your sons...not the bastard offspring of another man.

[anduina]

Why not allow people to define marriage as they see fit, whether monogamous, open, hetero or LGBT? What other people choose to do within their marriages, really doesn't impact on anyone else.

[Tayla]

Why not allow people to define marriage as they see fit, whether monogamous, open, hetero or LGBT? What other people choose to do within their marriages, really doesn't impact on anyone else.

 

I would agree with the anything goes concept, yet from a social stance, the institution of marriage has its placed in a social and civilized culture. The break down of any unit in society creates chaos. There are realistic expectations amongst humans.

[Tayla]

I watched an interesting show on the History Channel (around Easter, I believe) that investigated the how-fores and why-fores of the 10 Commandments and how they came to be.

 

Interestingly enough, every single one of them was borne out of the need to establish property rights - something enslaved and wandering Jews, who'd never owned land before, needed to be taught.

 

The "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" had little to do with lust and carnal doings...it had to do with the fact that each adult male Jew was given land when they settled, and that a man's land was given to his male heir(s) when he died. Women - wives and daughters - could NOT own nor inherit land.

 

Because the land was finite and could only be passed on to one's sons, it became extremely important that your sons were, in fact, your sons...not the bastard offspring of another man.

 

thought God mandated the commandments? (Being serious here)

 

Now I come to find out it was man himself creating these laws to abide by?

I seriously did not know this...*sad*, it changes everything. Half feel deceived ...

[mrldii]

thought God mandated the commandments? (Being serious here)

 

Now I come to find out it was man himself creating these laws to abide by?

I seriously did not know this...*sad*, it changes everything. Half feel deceived ...

 

 

Ahhhh...no reason to feel deceived. They can still be God's mandates, if you'd like...His instructions to teach His children how property is handled, since they'd never owned property before...

[Arieswoman]

I support traditional marriage and always have done.

 

What Are the Social Benefits of Marriage? | For Your Marriage

 

Articles: The Case for Traditional Marriage

 

Marriage is a legal contract that is supported in law by having very clear rules about what happens if the contract is broken by, say, adultery or unreasonable behaviour.

If we start having a situation where couples that marry can re-write their own definition of marriage how will this be enforced? Will they draw up their own contracts? If they do, the lawyers will have a field day and make millions. Then there would be arguments about whether or not the contract had been broken and millions spent in litigation. The courts would be tied up for months hearing complex contract law cases, not to mention the cost to the litigants.

 

Marriage should not be redefined, as doing so would create a very unstable society.

[Got it]

I support traditional marriage and always have done.

 

What Are the Social Benefits of Marriage? | For Your Marriage

 

Articles: The Case for Traditional Marriage

 

Marriage is a legal contract that is supported in law by having very clear rules about what happens if the contract is broken by, say, adultery or unreasonable behaviour.

If we start having a situation where couples that marry can re-write their own definition of marriage how will this be enforced? Will they draw up their own contracts? If they do, the lawyers will have a field day and make millions. Then there would be arguments about whether or not the contract had been broken and millions spent in litigation. The courts would be tied up for months hearing complex contract law cases, not to mention the cost to the litigants.

 

Marriage should not be redefined, as doing so would create a very unstable society.

 

People are already doing that. People are defining, within their own marriages what is acceptable and what isn't. So some allow open marriages, geographically separated marriages, etc. It is unsuccessful when one of the two parties either violates the terms of the couple's agreement of wants to void the agreement.

 

Traditional marriage, if you want to actually look at traditional, was about property rights and nothing to do with love. It was about what was best for the family in the big picture, and not the familial unit of marriage. Traditionally, also, women had no rights and were considered property as well.

 

Viva la tradition.

[Just a Guy]

Hi Folks, I see many people have not really read my OP properly and have reacted in various ways which are not in consonance with what I had in mind. I had said that those who wish to continue with traditional, monogamous marriages should continue to do so. There would be a mutual agreement between the two partners to remain monogamous and exclusive to each other. Others who did not wish to be monogamous could decide on a partner with whom they would have a primary relationship but they would not have to be sexually exclusive to each other. The union did not have to be a traditional marriage. It could simply be a live in relationship. Partners in such a relationship could have other sexual partners without their primary partner getting offended or jealous. Such extra relational link ups would not be cheating because the concept of infidelity or cheating would have ceased to exist for such relationships. For the traditional marriages infidelity/ cheating would still be applicable but hopefully, because there was mutual agreement to remain exclusive to each other, such partners would not stray. I hope this clarifies things. I was NOT talking about marriage as I had finished with that in my previous thread

[Trimmer]

For the traditional marriages infidelity/ cheating would still be applicable but hopefully, because there was mutual agreement to remain exclusive to each other, such partners would not stray.

People have been hoping this for a very long time - with the best of intentions on both sides - and look how well it's been working.

 

For those who choose the traditional, exclusive marriage path in your concept, what is it about their mutual agreement that makes it any different from what couples have been doing (and often failing) for years?

[Rejected Rosebud]

You can't do away with a "concept" but nobody says that you HAVE to be in a monogamous relationship, just find other people who also don't want to be in a monogamous relationship and you're golden!!! :bunny:

[Arieswoman]

GotIt post #19

 

People are already doing that. People are defining, within their own marriages what is acceptable and what isn't. So some allow open marriages, geographically separated marriages, etc. It is unsuccessful when one of the two parties either violates the terms of the couple's agreement of wants to void the agreement.

 

I really don't understand why these people get married in the first place?

 

When people get married they make promises in front of friends and family ( and if it is in a church in front of God) they also sign a register which is a legally binding contract. Now, if they then want to go away and redefine the rules, that doesn't really say a great deal about their ability to keep a promise, does it?

 

In addition, there must be some people out there who have an awful lot of time on their hands. When I was married to my first husband I didn't have time to cheat (even if I wanted to) because I was too busy working f/t, keeping the house in order etc.

Now I am with my second husband I don't work f/t any more but I still don't have time to screw about!

Edited July 31, 2015 by Arieswoman

[central]

I really don't understand why these people get married in the first place?

 

Mostly for the same reasons anyone marries: love, financial benefits, companionship, having and raising children.

[jen1447]

Anyway, this debate raised a thought in my mind that if the concept of infidelity/ cheating was done away with then the very basis of hurt feelings and alienation would be done away with in one fell swoop. What I am suggesting is that while there are those of us who can come to a mutual decision with our SOs' to remain monogamous and true to each other, there can be others who can decide that they will have a primary relationship with an SO but that they will be free to be with others as and when the fancy strikes them. They may or may not inform their SOs' about this liaison although as a matter basic courtesy they may do so. However their telling or not telling will not be a cause of friction between the two primary partners. The question of affairs will be taken care of. Of course in a mutually agreed monogamous union, affairs, infidelity and cheating will still be relevant because the nature of the relationship is such. For all other relationships this would not be a factor and there would, correspondingly, not be any heartburn.

 

I guess this sounds radical but then one needs radical solutions for the large number of hurt SOs' who are the victims of infidelity /affairs. I do not know if I have been sufficiently clear in putting forth this view but if people have some doubt I guess I can clarify these. Warm Wishes to all.

 

I guess I don't really follow you. What do you mean by "done away with?" If it's just an agreement that sex outside the relationship is allowed, that already exists in the form of open relationships. If you're suggesting some sort of 'redefining cheating/infidelity so they're not cheating/infidelity,' I don't understand that - seems like an arbitrary (and thus meaningless) categorization.