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

August 6, 2015

Hi Central, Great! But just look out for the fork in the road. You and some unsuspecting partner might just be blindsided by by emotions overtaking your ethical resolutions and you may end up falling madly in love. It has happened with folks and unfortunately human resolutions are not cast in steel!

It's possible, even though I think it's unlikely. But that's the beauty of polyamory - I can do this, and also continue to be in love with my current partner. We can just add someone to our family, rather than replacing anyone.

August 6, 2015

Hi Central, Point noted. I guess Polyamory is a different ball game than say swinging or following the Hotwife kink. Polyamory according to what I understand of it involves having a romantic relationship with two different partners. One may be the primary partner who one returns to but the other partner is also an important part of one's life. I believe one can go on vacations or a cruise or some such with one's secondary partner as opposed to swinging where one just spends the evening at a club or the partner's house or a hotel and then get back to your primary partner. In the mean time your primary partner is also with the other person's SO or some one else. In polyamory relationships people sometimes visit the other partner and his or her SO and exchange partners while they stay with them. The period of stay can be an extended one. Correct me if I am wrong. Regards.

August 6, 2015

Some common misconceptions there -

- doesn't have to be limited to two partners

- doesn't have to be primary/secondary

- partners are generally not shared between the partners of partners

Some ppl seem to think a poly R is one where forex three ppl are all romantic together. That can be, but not necessarily (and actually pretty uncommon ime).

I have 3 GFs and a BF, and while they all know each other very well, none of them are in romantic Rs w/each other. Some have other partners.

August 7, 2015

Hi Jen1447, Re your polyamory post I will defer to your obvious greater informed knowledge and personal experience on the subject. Whatever little knowledge I have about Polyamory was gleaned from a forum devoted to the subject on another website. I remember reading an account by some one

who along with his wife had just returned from a sojourn with some friends of theirs who were their partners in Polysmory. While with their friends they simply switched partners for the duration of their stay. After a stay of a few weeks they returned home and resumed their normal relationship with their spouse as did the other couple. They w

Would alternate periodically with stays at each others homes. I also read an account where a wife gifted her husband and his girlfriend(Someone else's wife) a vacation abroad at a tourist destination. The wife had her own boyfriend unrelated to her husband's girlfriend.

The husband's girlfriend's spouse had his own girlfriend and was happy that his wife was getting to go on a vacation for which he did not have to pay!! Quite a convoluted situation if you ask me. Thank God I have no such inclinations.

By the way I will add something to what I had to say in my last post in a seperate one. Cheers!

August 7, 2015

central post #49,

Thanks for that reply.

If you can juggle all that then you both must have superb time-management skills. ( or loads of money so you can farm out all life's mundane tasks to others !

I certainly couldn't do it (even if I wanted to) because there just aren't enough hours in a day to cope with career, hobbies, kids, pets, holidays, elderly relatives and all the other activities that are part of life and take up time, without introducing other parties into the mix.

August 7, 2015

Every time I see this thread title, the more sarcastic side of me says "why not?" Isn't that what we do with every moral absolute we believe cramps our style? Just declare it to no longer be an absolute?

I think I will declare the speed limit NOT to be 55 on the way home......

August 7, 2015

Some common misconceptions there -

- doesn't have to be limited to two partners
- doesn't have to be primary/secondary
- partners are generally not shared between the partners of partners

Some ppl seem to think a poly R is one where forex three ppl are all romantic together. That can be, but not necessarily (and actually pretty uncommon ime).

I have 3 GFs and a BF, and while they all know each other very well, none of them are in romantic Rs w/each other. Some have other partners.

Were these temporary dalliances romantic or just physical? If physical, that's not polyamory, just open marriages/relationships. Romance is a requirement for it to be poly - multiple romantic relationships.

By way of example, I'm both poly and open - I have my 4 relationships, but they're also all open and I can have sex with other people (women).

August 8, 2015

Hi Jen1447, These examples were from a polyamory site I browsed a while ago. All the people were in long term romantic relationships with people other than their SOs' of course with their full knowledge and consent. I also read an account by a single woman who was romantically involved with a married man again with the knowledge and consent of his wife. It was a heart rending account because the man took ill with some serious incurable disease and the hospital authorities did not permit her to visit him in the ICU because she was not a close family member or related to him in any way. She was beside her self with grief but could do nothing and before he passed away he conveyed a message of love to her through his wife. Both women were left grieving for him. It was a sad story. Hope that clears any doubt in the matter.

August 8, 2015

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.

Open marriages and all sorts of non monogamous arrangements exist already, but what you suggest appears to be a change in people's basic perception of marriage and infidelity.

So, for instance, I get married but I can sleep with all and sundry and my husband just goes, "What's for tea dear? I think after tea I will go and look up Bill's wife, literally, ho, ho, ho" and I say "Have a great time dear, I think I'll do a bit of cruising around down-town and see if I can pick up a toyboy, don't wait up."

Everyone is happy, no jealousy, no insecurity, no problem.

Unfortunately human beings tend to be jealous and insecure, we have fragile egos, we like some level of control and we tend not to be particularly tolerant either.

I guess even in consenting open marriages and non monogamous relationships there will be a lot of turbulence going on beneath the surface, no matter how comfortable all appear to be superficially.

It is human nature.

As most humans, even cheaters sometimes, are fundamentally intolerant of sharing sexual partners, then that often leads to covering up, deception and lies, to "keep the peace" and we are then back to betrayal and hurt again.

August 8, 2015

central post #49,
Thanks for that reply.

If you can juggle all that then you both must have superb time-management skills. ( or loads of money so you can farm out all life's mundane tasks to others !

I certainly couldn't do it (even if I wanted to) because there just aren't enough hours in a day to cope with career, hobbies, kids, pets, holidays, elderly relatives and all the other activities that are part of life and take up time, without introducing other parties into the mix.

It's actually much easier than you'd think. First of all, right now we're not in poly relationships, so there is far less time investment. Our past poly relationship did take more time, and we did have kids and pets at home.

Now, we have neither kids nor pets at home, and don't live near any family. Our time is largely our own aside from jobs and chores.

August 8, 2015

Every time I see this thread title, the more sarcastic side of me says "why not?" Isn't that what we do with every moral absolute we believe cramps our style? Just declare it to no longer be an absolute?

I think I will declare the speed limit NOT to be 55 on the way home......

What things are moral absolutes? I'm having a hard time thinking of any that don't have exceptions, so they are not absolutes.

BTW, if your area is anything like mine, you must be hated if you observe the 55 MPH speed limit. I routinely go a little over, but am also routinely passed by the vast majority of other drivers.

Anyway, IMO, morals are often not ethical. I make a distinction between morality and ethics, though the definitions are the same. To me, morals are derived from a particular worldview - often religious - that is used to justify unethical views, discrimination, and hatred. To me truly moral and ethical, the position must be logically and fairly defensible without recourse to anything religious, divine, decreed, or ideologically based (unless the ideology is also logically and fairly defensible).

August 8, 2015

Unfortunately human beings tend to be jealous and insecure, we have fragile egos, we like some level of control and we tend not to be particularly tolerant either.

I guess even in consenting open marriages and non monogamous relationships there will be a lot of turbulence going on beneath the surface, no matter how comfortable all appear to be superficially.
It is human nature.

You are right, but at the same time wrong. Jealousy is sometimes a problem, but it is often a learned and excessive reaction. It can be - to some extent - unlearned, and can usually be well-managed. Different people can also have very different levels of jealousy, so for some it barely even registers and as such isn't an issue. Of course, how your partner(s) behave and communicate, and how well they observe any boundaries you jointly establish, will affect how much jealousy you may experience. Loving and caring partners will be supportive and reassuring, accept that you may sometimes have insecurities, and help you work through them. The benefits of doing so are well worth it, IF you can do so. Not everyone can, or should, in which case they should simply avoid relationships where jealousy or other negative feelings are triggered.

And basically, jealousy is about fear. Fear of losing something that is comforting or precious, or that you may feel entitled to (whether or not that's true).

For example, my wife has always had a polyamorous nature. She has to be truly provoked or neglected to feel any kind of jealousy. I would never do either, and good communication ensures we never even get close to that.

So, contrary to what you may think, in may poly and open relationships there is little or no turbulence below the surface. Human nature is more diverse and adaptable than you may think.

August 8, 2015

OK, Central, I guess that some people are just wired differently than others.

I don't have a problem with that as long as people are totally honest about what they want in respect to relationships.

August 8, 2015

I was in an open marriage.

It worked very well. Half the mystique of cheating is the fact that you can't... or aren't supposed to be doing it.

With full permission, most other people become a LOT less exciting to look at or fantasize about.

I would strongly suggest that emotional affairs be off limits though. Little, meaningless physical flings are no big deal, but emotional attachments are not a good idea.

During my marriage, I had outside physical activity just a handful of times. My wife never did. Never found anyone that "did it" for her.

August 8, 2015

What things are moral absolutes? I'm having a hard time thinking of any that don't have exceptions, so they are not absolutes.

BTW, if your area is anything like mine, you must be hated if you observe the 55 MPH speed limit. I routinely go a little over, but am also routinely passed by the vast majority of other drivers.

Anyway, IMO, morals are often not ethical. I make a distinction between morality and ethics, though the definitions are the same. To me, morals are derived from a particular worldview - often religious - that is used to justify unethical views, discrimination, and hatred. To me truly moral and ethical, the position must be logically and fairly defensible without recourse to anything religious, divine, decreed, or ideologically based (unless the ideology is also logically and fairly defensible).

I actually dontvdriv 55. Of course, if I get stopped, I'll take the ticket.

Some people believe all morality is relative. I do not. I cannot think of a single exception to an affair being wrong.

That's just me.

August 8, 2015

I actually dontvdriv 55. Of course, if I get stopped, I'll take the ticket.

Some people believe all morality is relative. I do not. I cannot think of a single exception to an affair being wrong.

That's just me.

If by affair you mean clandestine cheating, then I agree - but I suppose there could be scenarios where it is less wrong.

August 9, 2015

Hi Jen1447, As I said earlier, I would like to add something to my last post. I think one of the reasons why concepts like Infidelity, Cheating or exclusivity in long term relationships are so deeply embedded in our psyches' is that these were mandated very early on due to religious direction. For instance The Ten Commandments laid down a code of conduct to be followed unflinchingly by every person of the Jewish faith who placed his/her complete and unquestioning faith in the religious leaders of the time, in this case, Moses. One of the commandments was "Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife". Note that the edict said 'Thy neighbour's wife". It did not say Thy neighbour's husband". Thus the idea that a woman was her husband's property was created and fostered down the generations. Thus a woman was 'Owned' by her husband and no other man had access to her. A woman caught in adultery was to be stoned to death for bringing disrepute to her husband and often the husband would be one of the men involved in stoning her. Such a practice further welded the notion that adultery was a Sin of the greatest magnitude and was punishable by death. It also established the factor of exclusivity in the minds of people. Initially it was the woman who had to be exclusively the property of her husband. However as time went by and the idea got diluted it started applying to men also. It became a two way street.

The concept of ownership and exclusivity led to the concept of infidelity and cheating and these concepts became so ingrained in our subconscious minds that they became second nature for us. If you look at the animal kingdom you will find that there is no such concept of infidelity. A male of most species can mate with any female of the same species and there are no red flags raised and waved by other males. Yes there may be a fight between two males to determines the right to mate with a particular female and the male which wins gets that right. This competitiveness at that basic level has probably given rise to the emotion of jealousy. I suppose Nature was playing it's part here because it wanted to ensure that the most fit and strong male passed on it's genes to the next generation. Humans are but one step removed from animals and we share a lot with them in terms of physical attributes, especially primates. So I guess it is not too radical to think that the early humans were not constrained by concepts of ownership, exclusivity, and infidelity/cheating. It is only after a certain degree of intelligence and refinement developed in humans over millenia, that these concepts emerged and with the advent of our spiritual awakening religious leaders popped up, who, to control the general population by psychologically manipulating them, came up with the idea of imposing these rigid concepts so as to keep their flock together. Of course, humans have been rebelling ever since and end up doing what came naturally to them in their animal state as time went by. Human sexuality is explosive. One cannot bottle it up and if one tries to do so then like an erupting volcano it will spill over in the most unlikely of places and times.

I guess you get my general drift. Of course there will be many who will pick holes in what I have had to say and I have no argument with them. In the final analysis, it is what you yourself believe that carries the day for you. Ironically, I myself am a proponent of monogamy and the "One woman, man" concept. Whatever I have had to say here seems quite logical to me but then I do not want to practice what I am preaching here because I choose not to. In the end I will say that if what I have proposed here is to some extent possible, then infidelity and cheating as concepts can be done away with gradually so that the World will be free of them and the pain and hurt they cause. My apologies to Autumn Night if I have stepped on her toes! Warm wishes.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Just a Guy

August 9, 2015

I was in an open marriage.

It worked very well. Half the mystique of cheating is the fact that you can't... or aren't supposed to be doing it.

With full permission, most other people become a LOT less exciting to look at or fantasize about.

I would strongly suggest that emotional affairs be off limits though. Little, meaningless physical flings are no big deal, but emotional attachments are not a good idea.

During my marriage, I had outside physical activity just a handful of times. My wife never did. Never found anyone that "did it" for her.

Did it work out though? You're single now right? Do you think that, over time, that perhaps this open stuff just got to be too much for others? Is it also possible that in the aftermath, women can sense that one is polyamarous and it sets their alarms off?

Just curious.

Edited August 9, 2015 by fireflywy

August 9, 2015

Did it work out though? You're single now right? Do you think that, over time, that perhaps this open stuff just got to be too much for others? Is it also possible that in the aftermath, women can sense that one is polyamarous and it sets their alarms off?

Just curious.

Na. The open marriage aspect had nothing to do with divorce.

It was several diagnosed mental illnesses flaring up that did it in (just when I thought we had beaten them).

So... the open marriage was easy. We were emotionally committed and physically open, though we very rarely took advantage of it.

I almost always had better at home.

August 9, 2015

JustAGuy post #68

One of the commandments was "Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife".

^^^ this, and No.7 (Thou shalt not commit adultery) were put there for a very good reason.

In biblical times there was no contraception available so if a woman "played away" she would eventually get pregnant.

If she was unmarried then the family bore the cost of looking after her and her illigitimate child. She would also be worth less in the marriage stakes and the family might be stuck with looking after her for longer than they had planned - a bit like grown up children today who "fail to launch".

If she was married then she would be giving her husband another man's child to raise, which wasn't a very sporting thing to do. It would also effectively mess up the bloodlines of the family.

These instructions were set against a background of a society that was poor and where most people were hard pushed to eke out a living in a hot country with few resources. What they didn't want was extraneous mouths to feed.

Nowadays these instructions are still valid. Adultery rips at the fabric of society because it tears apart marriages and families which are the building blocks of society. God’s law in general, and the 7th commandment in particular, is held up as the standard for Christian behavior.

You only have to look at all the posts on this forum to see how many problems it causes

August 9, 2015

If by affair you mean clandestine cheating, then I agree - but I suppose there could be scenarios where it is less wrong.

And this is where it gets murky for some people. Is it still "adultery" if everyone knows? I have gleaned from reading posts that the big thing that really hurts is all the lying and hiding. So is it infidelity if it is agreed to beforehand?

I'm only asking in theory. I know that for me, an open marriage would be out of the question. I'd scratch her eyes out.

August 10, 2015

autumnight,

Is it still "adultery" if everyone knows?

Yes. Just because people know, or the parties have agreed that it doesn't matter, doesn't change the definition.

adultery

əˈdʌlt(ə)ri/Submit

noun

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.

"she was committing adultery with a much younger man"

synonyms: unfaithfulness, infidelity, falseness, disloyalty, unchastity, cuckoldry, extramarital sex, extramarital relations;

So is it infidelity if it is agreed to beforehand?

Yes - see above.

People can make whatever rules they like about their own relationships but when there is no legal framework to set these against, then as you say, this is when things can get murky and undifferentiated.

August 10, 2015

Hi Arieswoman, Thanks for your comments on my post. What you have written has, in fact, proved my point. You see these Commandments and others were dictated for the clergy to exercise control over their flock and keep them disciplined. As I said in my post homo sapiens were not always civilized. In the wild there were no rules or commandments to guide them, keep them in control or otherwise discipline them. It was every one for himself/herself. Any male could impregnate any female the only condition being that he would probably have to fight for the right to do so with another young, mature male and win. This was nature's way of ensuring survival of the fittest and to ensure that the best genes were passed on to the future generation. Once the human race was more developed and civilized, and a spiritual awakening occurred, the high priests/ clergy ensured that their position in society as religious leaders was ensured and cemented, by bringing in such laws which they would administer and adjudicate. So the natural sex that humans used to have when wild or should I say, unsophisticated, was replaced by a controlled and rigid system where the clergy would officiate and decide what was right and what was wrong. Such a system may have had it's uses and value, but human nature always rebelled against it. That is why prostitution is known as the oldest profession in the world. It probably originated at about the same time as these Ten Commandments were being dictated to Moses when God spoke to him.

The other point that you made about blood lines was more for the sake of protecting property and wealth, which in my opinion, was a rather materialistic reason to prevent "Adultery". Again, all this was directed entirely against women. A man could still go out and have his fun and, if he so wished and could afford it, have more than one wife or concubines. Have you ever heard of women from that era having more than one husband or male concubines? I think it was a very Patriarchal and unjust system that existed and which introduced these laws. Unfortunately there were no feminist at the time to stand up and protest.

God has made all creatures including hardened criminals and homosexuals/ lesbians, way wards and whatever. Who are we to stand in judgement of those who do not follow the norms that we would like them to or which they find oppressive. In spite of all these laws and Commandments being in place, people still go out and fornicate with those who are not their spouses and divorces still take place and people still get hurt. The times are changing and people are shrugging off the oppressive controls that religion has imposed on them. Good Roman Catholic girls are having abortions even though the Church frowns upon it. Those who have been brought up in strict religious families are going out and having illicit sex and affairs and so on. As I said in my previous post, human sexuality is explosive and one cannot put a lid on it. If one does then it will erupt like a volcano at a time and place of it's own choosing. I guess the time has come for all of us to be more open,liberal, compassionate and understanding of the actions of others as long as it does not physically harm some other person and does not deprive that person of something that rightfully belongs to him/her. Warm wishes.

August 10, 2015

And this is where it gets murky for some people. Is it still "adultery" if everyone knows? I have gleaned from reading posts that the big thing that really hurts is all the lying and hiding. So is it infidelity if it is agreed to beforehand?

I'm only asking in theory. I know that for me, an open marriage would be out of the question. I'd scratch her eyes out.

By definition, it is still adultery, but not infidelity if everyone knows and approves.

Adultery is often used interchangeably with infidelity, but they are different. Adultery - technically - does not include a value judgment.

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

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

As I said, they may be used interchangeably, but the definitions are quite different. They CAN be essentially the same if the adultery isn't consensual.

Edited August 10, 2015 by central

August 10, 2015

To be technical, clergy did not write the commandments to keep members disciplined. God inspired them for our good and protection. Follow them, don't folloe, but it's a bit hypocritical to denigrate those of us who value them while posting about tolerance for other viewpoints.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

central

Just a Guy

jen1447

Just a Guy

Arieswoman

autumnnight

jen1447

Just a Guy

elaine567

central

central

central

Arieswoman

loveweary11

autumnnight

central

Just a Guy

fireflywy

loveweary11

Arieswoman

autumnnight

Arieswoman

Just a Guy

central

autumnnight

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...