Adultery

[Ad Nihilo]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

[Ashmoria]

are you talking about married couples or dating couples?

[Ad Nihilo]

It's more like questioning the idea of a "couple". In both, we treat our significant other as marked territory. It's just that in marriage the situation is a bit more accentuated.

[Imsogone]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

[Rambhutan]

It's about honesty; people move on, but don't lie about it.

[Caninope]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

This. When someone cheats, they've violated the other party's trust.

[Ad Nihilo]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

As you can see, I understand that. But why do we assume the faithfulness? What's the big deal about "being faithful" if not one huge egotrip on both sides?

[Dyakovo]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

/\ This.

[Caninope]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

As you can see, I understand that. But why do we assume the faithfulness? What's the big deal about "being faithful" if not one huge egotrip on both sides?

What's the big deal about hoping your friends won't stab you in the back, besides a big egotrip?

[Kaputer]

Don't adulter lets go the Iranian way and stone anyone who does it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

Very well put. If the couple has agreed to be monogamous and do not keep the agreement by having sex with other people, then that is a violation of an established promise (contract) and therefore wrong. If the couple agreed, however, to have an open relationship, then that's something else.

I think it extends even to those who are not legally married but have agreed to stay monogamous.

[Ad Nihilo]

What's the big deal about hoping your friends won't stab you in the back, besides a big egotrip?

Again, the question is why is it such a horrible betrayal? Surely, if you love the person, you would like her to be happy. And if someone else can make her happy for an evening, while you're not there, what's the big deal?

[The Batorys]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

I see nothing wrong with adultery IF, and this is a HUGE "if," it's consented to by all parties. I'm absolutely fine with open relationships.

I have a huge problem with cheating because it's incredibly dishonest and inconsiderate of the feelings of someone whose emotional well-being is supposed to be of enormous importance to the faithless partner.

[Fartsniffage]

What's the big deal about hoping your friends won't stab you in the back, besides a big egotrip?

Again, the question is why is it such a horrible betrayal? Surely, if you love the person, you would like her to be happy. And if someone else can make her happy for an evening, while you're not there, what's the big deal?

If that has been discussed and agreed beforehand then fine. If not if is a betrayal of trust.

[Ashmoria]

It's more like questioning the idea of a "couple". In both, we treat our significant other as marked territory. It's just that in marriage the situation is a bit more accentuated.

no its not

in a dating couple the expectation of fidelity is a test. when it is violated its an indication that (if fidelity is what you are looking for) you are not suited to a long term relationship with this person. s/he has just declared that s/he is not interested in keeping the deal with you.

in a married couple (whether formally or informally married) you have violated the FAMILY you have established by risking the integrity of that marriage with adultery (if fidelity is part of your agreement. although its risky whether or not you are in that agreement). you are spending money and affection outside of your primary relationship and are risking further problems of perhaps leading your affections outside of the family entirely (risking divorce) or of ending up with a child conceived with someone outside of that family--again draining the family of emotional and financial resources.

it is wrong to expect human nature to change because you find it illogical. it is the rare person who doesnt care if their beloved is sexually/emotionally involved with another.

[Twisted twister]

Its wrong because it trades real love for lust and kinky sex

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Its wrong because it trades real love for lust and kinky sex

Lolwhat?

[Ashmoria]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

As you can see, I understand that. But why do we assume the faithfulness? What's the big deal about "being faithful" if not one huge egotrip on both sides?

its human.

[Ad Nihilo]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

Very well put. If the couple has agreed to be monogamous and do not keep the agreement by having sex with other people, then that is a violation of an established promise (contract) and therefore wrong. If the couple agreed, however, to have an open relationship, then that's something else.

I think it extends even to those who are not legally married but have agreed to stay monogamous.

No, by all means, I agree. See the bolded part. But that contract is usually implicit, because that is the cultural norm for a "relationship". My problem is that the assumption of loyalty goes very unquestioned. So why do we do it?

[Imsogone]

What's the big deal about hoping your friends won't stab you in the back, besides a big egotrip?

Again, the question is why is it such a horrible betrayal? Surely, if you love the person, you would like her to be happy. And if someone else can make her happy for an evening, while you're not there, what's the big deal?

That would indicate that faithfulness is not part of the contract, implied or explicit. It's all about contracts, written and unwritten. If you agree that fidelity is not part of the contract, fine, but if fidelity is part of the contract, then infidelity is a breach of that contract.

[JJ Place]

No, anything consensual is perfectly fine; the problem is only between the cheating partner and his or her other partner.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I've seen in other threads (e.g. Hammurab's ethics comparison thread) a lot of people taking an issue with pre-marital sex, but I would like to extend the discussion to adultery in general.

Can someone explain to me why adultery is "wrong" in a way that makes no reference to the usual way in which we treat people we care about (boy/girlfriends, marriage partners etc.) as some sort of property? My contention is that in our culture, when we talk to loved ones about "I'm yours"/"you're mine" and so on, it's almost as if we mark our turf (essentially territorial pissing), and we take huge issue with the act of trespassing on that turf. And that's basically all that "loyalty" is all about. And this mentality is simply the subdued form of the old meaning and institutional forms of marriage - which as a legal fact, treated the woman as the private property of the man (in Britain, for example, this was the case till about 1850).

The case where I understand the anxiety about cheating is when there is an implicit assumption within a couple that their "being in a relationship" means exclusive sexual access to each other, as per the cultural norm. So if you do cheat, then you are hurting that person by consciously disappointing their expectations. But my question is rather aimed at the general cultural assumption of monogamy.

And a more specific case, in the example of pre-marital sex, where neither of the parties concerned are in another relationship, what is the problem? I am hoping for moral reasons, rather than theological ramblings, if at all possible.

Adultery is wrong when it violates a perceived social contract or a written contract (i.e. marriage) where the two parties agree (either implicitly or explicitly) to be faithful to each other. It has nothing to do with sex, it has everything to do with keeping one's word, either implied or explicit.

Very well put. If the couple has agreed to be monogamous and do not keep the agreement by having sex with other people, then that is a violation of an established promise (contract) and therefore wrong. If the couple agreed, however, to have an open relationship, then that's something else.

I think it extends even to those who are not legally married but have agreed to stay monogamous.

No, by all means, I agree. See the bolded part. But that contract is usually implicit, because that is the cultural norm for a "relationship". My problem is that the assumption of loyalty goes very unquestioned. So why do we do it?

Oh, no question about it. It is the norm, not a healthy one, but agreed, it is the norm.
Could you please clarify the question. Do what? Adultery or not question the loyalty issues that may exist?

[Great Nepal]

Its wrong and should be illegal with punishment of life imprisonment without bail. It destroys family and also violets the trust of other which was agreed either by written or social way.

[Jello Biafra]

Monogamy represents a willingness to make sacrifices for the relationship. It is not the only one that can be made, nor necessarily the most important one, but without some sort of willingness to make sacrifices, the relationship won't last.

[Ashmoria]

No, by all means, I agree. See the bolded part. But that contract is usually implicit, because that is the cultural norm for a "relationship". My problem is that the assumption of loyalty goes very unquestioned. So why do we do it?

we do it because we are not naturally sharers.

we DO consider that we "own" our committed partner. we arent willing to let him/her have that intense experience with someone else, its OURS.

why would i want a man who was off with other women instead of with me?