Aside from the moral/ethical issues, one of the main benefits of monogamy is its effectiveness in controlling the spread of disease, by essentially trapping the disease in the two-person relationship. Polygamy is just as much a reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa as any other factor - the whole "I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and so on..."-type exponentially increasing risk of exposure.
While true in one sense, I think people have this mistaken perception that polygamists/those who "sleep around" are less careful than those in a one-on-one relationship. Chance always plays a factor, sure, but polygamy or sleeping with multiple partners doesn't necessarily increase anything, and such individuals are as likely to use measures to prevent spreading or contracting STDs as people who restrict themselves to one sexual mate.
I'm not suggesting that you hold that perception, just making a point.
What's your take on? Are there merits? Do you have a strict disdain for all who are unfaithful to their partners or is it something that doesn't really bother you?
Wouldn't do it, but wouldn't have anything close to disdain to those who might do it. Not the nicest way to end a relationship, but whatever, I'm not the nice police. Ya know? (they do exist, it's not a joke)
Aside from the moral/ethical issues, one of the main benefits of monogamy is its effectiveness in controlling the spread of disease, by essentially trapping the disease in the two-person relationship. Polygamy is just as much a reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa as any other factor - the whole "I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and so on..."-type exponentially increasing risk of exposure.
Sounds like a good reason not to sleep with anyone unless you've both gotten tested. A reason which doesn't go away when the relationship is being entered by two people instead of six.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I have absolutely no right to stop anyone from cheating. But I wouldn't do it, and if I was involved with someone and they did I'd parse it as a break-up.
I'm more or less the same way. If I enter into a strictly monogomous relationship, it is under the pretense that I am only going to be having sex with my partner, and vice versa. If we establish ahead of time that it's okay to go out every now and again and bang a random stranger just to get our rocks off so long as we check in beforehand, I'm cool with that, too.
As for whether or not I'm capable of cheating, I'd say yes. Would I cheat is another question all together, and one I'm sorry to say I don't have a sure answer to.
i really think it's largely about trust. it's typically implied when two people enter a relationship that sleeping with other people is not ok, and that both parties aren't going to do it, unless it was agreed that sleeping with others are ok. so when someone does cheat on their boyfriend or girlfriend, it's really a type of lying and a betrayal of trust.
there are two ways to deal with it when someone cheats on you: the right way and the wrong way. while it isn't necessarily wrong to break up with someone for it, there should at least be some kind of dialouge there. you can't just be like "fuck you, stupid," and not let the person explain themselves. another wrong thing to do would be to exact some sort of revenge on the persons involved. anger at because lied to is natural, but your significant other is not your property, so don't start beating people as if they stole something of yours. much better to have a discussion of why it happened (maybe it's partly your fault) and see if you can mend the relationship.
Aside from the moral/ethical issues, one of the main benefits of monogamy is its effectiveness in controlling the spread of disease, by essentially trapping the disease in the two-person relationship. Polygamy is just as much a reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa as any other factor - the whole "I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and so on..."-type exponentially increasing risk of exposure.
While true in one sense, I think people have this mistaken perception that polygamists/those who "sleep around" are less careful than those in a one-on-one relationship. Chance always plays a factor, sure, but polygamy or sleeping with multiple partners doesn't necessarily increase anything, and such individuals are as likely to use measures to prevent spreading or contracting STDs as people who restrict themselves to one sexual mate.
I'm not suggesting that you hold that perception, just making a point.
Exactly. There are plenty of "monogamous" people who have serial relationships - they're only fucking one person at any given time, but it seems like every three weeks there's a new guy/girl on their arm. Or there are the people who engage in long-term monogamous relationships, but in between each long-term partner they party and sleep around. By the time they finally settle down they may have had a few dozen sexual partners, despite identifying as "monogamous." And, to contrast, there are plenty of polyamorous people (who, by the way, would get really pissed off if you called them "polygamous," just FYI) who only have extracurricular activities once a year or less. And then there are the rare folks who are in stable closed three-way or four-way arrangements.
In my experience I've found that people who identify as polyamorous are just as likely to be responsible and selective about their partners as people who identify as monogamous.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Assuming there's a "one" out there is probably a more important belief to get rid of though.
Yes. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that there is only one person right for you in the entire world. I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that one person can fulfill all of your emotional needs. I think a lot of people spend a lot of time and energy trying to resolve the dissonance between what their partner can provide and what they want out of a relationship. Eventually you either settle on a level of dissatisfaction you can tolerate, or you break up (or sabotage the relationship so your partner breaks up with you), or you agree to open the relationship up to the possibility of finding some emotional fulfillment from other people.
I see a lot of people start new relationships trying to believe that this person is going to be the one; this person is going to be their future spouse and parent of their kids. They won't bother to get into a relationship unless that relationship has lifelong potential. Personally, I don't grok that - a relationship can be fulfilling and meaningful even if you know it isn't going to last a lifetime.
I dont want to patronise anyone... But if you fall into the "Hey, chill out, its just sex - no big deal" camp
I genuinely feel sorry for you. You have NO IDEA what you're missing.
Having 'just physical' sex with one person doesn't mean you can't have intimate, emotional bonding with another. I know that for most people it isn't possible to do both at the same time, but some people don't experience jealousy or possessiveness the same way.
Besides, there's a huge grey area between emotionally intimacy and purely physical sex. I don't think I've ever had a purely physical experience. Like I said above, you can have a meaningful and fulfilling connection with somebody even if you know that after a few months, or a week, or even a single night you'll never see that person again. It might not be as deep as a long-term relationship, but that doesn't make the experience [emotionally|mentally|spiritually] worthless.
That isn't exactly the best devil's advocacy. "You're able to do whatever you want" implies that neither party minds that you're not faithful as well as implies that you yourself will never find yourself choosing one person over another. I think it's safe to say that most people would end up giving priority to one of their partners that they feel a better click with. It's all downhill to monogamy from there.
No, it's not "downhill to monogamy." It's called having a 'primary' and many poly people do. Many poly people still have the drive to have long-term, emotionally intimate partnerships. They still like living with a single partner; they still might want to get married and have kids. They just recognize that their primary gets priority, and this needs to be understood by anybody involved in their extramarital activities.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I've changed my views on this a lot in the past few years, from a very open stance to a 'monogamy for me' stance. Partly in light of going down both roads and finding out what is best for me personally - not that I would recommend that, sometimes peoples mistakes should be taken as warning signs for others.
I used to think that a person had an unlimited supply of love, and that loving someone else in no way detracted from one's feelings for another. Thus one can love multiple people and not suffer any inherently ill effects.
As it turns out, I found that although one may have an unlimited capacity for love, one has a very limited and finite amount of time and attention. At it's higher levels, love is not just an experience, but an investment, taking time and attention to cultivate and grow properly. Time and attention spent on other people comes at an opportunity cost to another, and sexual gratification poured into another person is that same sex not poured into the one you've decided to give a priority to.
If one can think of a relationship as a team, as a confined environment wherein all effort combines and interacts with each other in order to serve common goals, then one can visualize sex drives, positive actions and communication as types of pressure and energy held within this shared and closed off universe. If you poke holes into that enclosed space, it does indeed relieve some of the pressure, but at a cost of the energy contained within that relationship as a whole.
Relationships need that emotional and sexual energy to set the guiding principles of that relationship in constant forward motion. Without it, the framework still exists, but the forward momentum is lost. Without enough energy to continue moving forward, to continue accomplishing things together as a single unit, the framework itself begins to stagnate and decay, eventually self-destructing as there is no purpose to its own continuation.
Relationships exist to synergize the energy between people to accomplish things, and if that synergy is comprimised, the relationship becomes less effective, and so other opportunites for emotional investment become more appealing and more viable as a means of progressing through one's life. If a lack of commitment becomes a habit, then it will be harder and harder to find people willing to invest in you and to find others worthy of investing in. This ends up in people jumping from relationship to relationship, sucking the life out of the original investment and then moving on when that new energy is gone.
I wouldn't have a serious problem if my girlfriend cheated on me... as long as she came up to me and admitted it afterwards. The fact that she went and had sex with another man would not bother me at all; I'm not a jealous person, emotionally or otherwise. I would accept that she had her reasons (emotional or physical), and I would respect that, and further respect the fact that she was honest about it.
Ironically, I think this would make her much less likely to cheat on me (because I am basically removing the temptation factor, like, the way people want what they can't have, i.e. forbidden sex). At least, it was like that with my ex. She told me she didn't feel like having sex with other guys because she knew that, if she wanted to, she could. It wasn't exciting, or something. I can't remember what she said exactly but it made sense to me at the time.
I wouldn't expect her to hold me to the same standards however; I wouldn't use my stance on the issue as an excuse to cheat on her.
As it turns out, I found that although one may have an unlimited capacity for love, one has a very limited and finite amount of time and attention.
This is absolutely true, and is probably my biggest complaint about Dossie Easton (the co-author of The Ethical Slut which is a good book on open relationships). She likes to talk about the limitless human capacity for love. I understand what she's trying to say, but there are just some days I don't have a limitless capacity for love. Some days I only have a limitless capacity for curling up on the couch with a beer and a blanket and a copy of Paper Mario.
So, yeah, people have a finite amount of time and energy. However, you could apply this to any number of extramarital activities. While I'm at the gym I'm not investing time in my relationship. While I'm at work I'm not investing time into my relationship. And I think everybody knows somebody whose relationship was destroyed because one partner spent all their time at work/school/etc. and not enough with their partner. "She had a life once, but she forgot to feed it and it died." You have to find a balance - investing too much time and energy into a relationship is suffocating and self-destructive, and investing too little is cold and neglectful. Time & energy issues have to be managed no matter what your lifestyle is.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Aside from the moral/ethical issues, one of the main benefits of monogamy is its effectiveness in controlling the spread of disease, by essentially trapping the disease in the two-person relationship. Polygamy is just as much a reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa as any other factor - the whole "I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and so on..."-type exponentially increasing risk of exposure.
While true in one sense, I think people have this mistaken perception that polygamists/those who "sleep around" are less careful than those in a one-on-one relationship. Chance always plays a factor, sure, but polygamy or sleeping with multiple partners doesn't necessarily increase anything, and such individuals are as likely to use measures to prevent spreading or contracting STDs as people who restrict themselves to one sexual mate.
I'm not suggesting that you hold that perception, just making a point.
Your point is well taken. Let's assume for now that monogamous and polygamous people both have equal rates of condom usage, condom failure, etc.
Sounds like a good reason not to sleep with anyone unless you've both gotten tested. A reason which doesn't go away when the relationship is being entered by two people instead of six.
I was thinking more about behavior on a societal level than an individual one. An individual polygamist might not be at much more risk than a monogamist in a mostly monogamous society, especially if each of one's partners are monogamous themselves. However, living in a society of intertwining polygamy can impact an individual's risk, even if they themselves are monogamous.
A monogamous person (A) with HIV can only infect one other person (B) at a time. In oder for a third person (C) to become infected the first (A-B) relationship has to end and a second (A-C or B-C) relationship has to begin. A polygamous person can infect a third (C) or fourth (D) person at the same time as the A-B relationship is going on. Since these are multiple relationships there are repeated opportunities for the infected person (A) to infect one of his partners, as opposed to the singular opportunity for infection of non-relationship promiscuity, eg a one night stand.
The danger is not simply in the possession of multiple sex partners, but in how they concurrently overlap. A polygamous person with 5 partners AIDS can infect 5 others. If those 5 others are polygamous themselves, then they can each infect 5 others at a time. The simple difference in time between when a monogamous person can infect a new partner and when a polygamous person can could be the difference in recognizing telltale symptoms of infection and acting to prevent their spread to one's partners.
I'm not trying to say that serial monogamy is equally as effective as say, condoms in preventing widespread infection, just that it is more effective in doing so than a society-wide system of polygamy. Here's some links that might explain it better than I did.
As it turns out, I found that although one may have an unlimited capacity for love, one has a very limited and finite amount of time and attention.
This is absolutely true, and is probably my biggest complaint about Dossie Easton (the co-author of The Ethical Slut which is a good book on open relationships). She likes to talk about the limitless human capacity for love. I understand what she's trying to say, but there are just some days I don't have a limitless capacity for love. Some days I only have a limitless capacity for curling up on the couch with a beer and a blanket and a copy of Paper Mario.
So, yeah, people have a finite amount of time and energy. However, you could apply this to any number of extramarital activities. While I'm at the gym I'm not investing time in my relationship. While I'm at work I'm not investing time into my relationship. And I think everybody knows somebody whose relationship was destroyed because one partner spent all their time at work/school/etc. and not enough with their partner. "She had a life once, but she forgot to feed it and it died." You have to find a balance - investing too much time and energy into a relationship is suffocating and self-destructive, and investing too little is cold and neglectful. Time & energy issues have to be managed no matter what your lifestyle is.
Definately. I think a lot of people forget that just because they aren't sleeping around, they can still make mistakes and put time and attention into things in a relationship killing way. 'WoW killed my marriage' threads for example, or 'golf widows', etc. I think sex tends to be at the top of the 'things you can use to mess up your life' list because it is so very stimulating. Your brain actually rewires itself to suit whomever you're boning. I find studies on next-gen gaming very interesting, because maps of brain activity are now starting to show that our entertainment has become so advanced and sensually engaging it can actually outperform real-life things like socialization and sexual relationships.
You definately need time apart, the difference in veiwpoints is what makes two people stronger than two on thier own. As long as these things are being undertaken as a way to improve the big picture, you can have a lot of freedom and additional opportunities granted to you that would otherwise not be availible. If one partner spends too much time doing things that only relate to them and their needs, then I think it hurts everyone.
I don't know. I find the "preventing the spread of diseases" argument in support of monogamy pretty retarded.
I am going to take every possible precaution I can take in order to minimize my chances of catching an STD. Not sleeping around is not one of them, because that kind of logic comes very close to that of abstinence and I strongly oppose it.
I don't know. I find the "preventing the spread of diseases" argument in support of monogamy pretty retarded.
I am going to take every possible precaution I can take in order to minimize my chances of catching an STD. Not sleeping around is not one of them, because that kind of logic comes very close to that of abstinence and I strongly oppose it.
I think the general argument is that you are subjecting yourself to a larger pool of possibly-infected people. I understand that perspective, but when you take measures to prevent the spreading of STDs, the difference in chance of catching an STD whether you have one partner or ten partners is negligible. It's just that if you have ten partners it's more likely that at least one has an STD. Still, proper care and getting tested first - as VC suggested - more or less nips that in the bud.
I don't know. I find the "preventing the spread of diseases" argument in support of monogamy pretty retarded.
I am going to take every possible precaution I can take in order to minimize my chances of catching an STD. Not sleeping around is not one of them, because that kind of logic comes very close to that of abstinence and I strongly oppose it.
I think the general argument is that you are subjecting yourself to a larger pool of possibly-infected people. I understand that perspective, but when you take measures to prevent the spreading of STDs, the difference in chance of catching an STD whether you have one partner or ten partners is negligible. It's just that if you have ten partners it's more likely that at least one has an STD. Still, proper care and getting tested first - as VC suggested - more or less nips that in the bud.
I think it would be interesting if we had any research comparing the spread of STDs in polygamous cultures to that in monogamous cultures.
I find it hard to believe that in Sub-Saharan Africa people take every possible precaution short of abstinence to prevent the spread of STDs.
I mean, it was my understanding that they fuck monkeys over there*, which isn't exactly a smart thing to do.
*
just kidding
That's what I meant: an experiment where the both the control group and the experiment group use protections and are regularly tested, but the only difference is that one group is monogamous and the other polygamous.
I thought the point was that monogamy developed to limit the spread of STDs, not is used now for that purpose.
Was medical science up to the point where we even recognized STDs as such a couple thousand years BC?
Dunno if you'd call it science, but the health professionals in several cultures of the time (1000 to 700 BC) were aware that sleeping around was adverse to one's health. I beleive it is this knowledge that eventually translated itself into monogamy=good, rampant whorism=bad. Up until fairly recently pologamy was cool, as long as it was commited in its own way. Those inside could sleep with each other, but not anyone from outside the circle. A nice blend of variety and safety if the new entries are always virginal and the commited are always faithful.
Oddly enough I think cheating in marriage is awful, and i'm a misogynistic pig. I'm not sure why I still see the sanctity in that. Hell, even in a partnership I think the act is deplorable.
Oddly enough I think cheating in marriage is awful, and i'm a misogynistic pig. I'm not sure why I still see the sanctity in that. Hell, even in a partnership I think the act is deplorable.
That actually makes perfect sense. Funny thing about misogynists. I mean they do tend to be the ones who think it's okay to kill anyone involved in an act of infidelity. Essentially it boils down to being a matter of theft, to them. And being a misogynist doesn't mean you're tolerant of thieves.
I dont want to patronise anyone... But if you fall into the "Hey, chill out, its just sex - no big deal" camp... I genuinely feel sorry for you. You have NO IDEA what you're missing. Honestly.
Huh.
I generally feel a great swell of pity towards any relationship fragile enough to be made or broken based solely on something as superficial as the use (or lack thereof) of one's wobbly bits.
But, to get some specifics: what exactly is it that you think the "its no big deal" camp is missing? Am I to understand that one is incapable of experiencing emotionally-bonding sex if one is capable of experiencing no-strings-attached, just-for-fun sex?
Dunno if you'd call it science, but the health professionals in several cultures of the time (1000 to 700 BC) were aware that sleeping around was adverse to one's health. I beleive it is this knowledge that eventually translated itself into monogamy=good, rampant whorism=bad. Up until fairly recently pologamy was cool, as long as it was commited in its own way. Those inside could sleep with each other, but not anyone from outside the circle. A nice blend of variety and safety if the new entries are always virginal and the commited are always faithful.
Er, until how long ago and where and which health professionals? Cause if you took a look into a few other nonwestern cultures around the world you would see a very different view. Many take it as a good thing in fact. I can't remember their names off the top of my head, but there was an Native American group that fully expects everyone in the community to sleep with everyone else at some point, then there's an African community where before marriage it's encouraged to sleep around in order to develop bonds and discover what one likes.
When I met my current girlfriend she had been married for about five months. Her relationship with the other guy had been going on for almost three years - they met through an online community. I like to think it was a marriage of convenience - she'd say there's more to it to that, but it was certainly a situation of 'get married or go back to your home country.'
Her home life was pretty crappy. He worked long hours in video game development and spent all his time at home in front of the computer. She pretty much did the same, though with a part-time job that barely passed the time. When I came in, they were obviously friends, but I didn't see any love there. They'd eat out at the same places, never leave for anything other than visiting their parents - I think the only time they took a holiday together was their honeymoon.
We clicked, as you might have been able to guess. We began spending more and more time together - while I was honestly good friends with them both, more and more I found myself visiting for her sake. We chatted online a lot, I came to stay whenever I had an opportunity. We fell in love. It was strange - he was an element, but at the same time, he was not.
I'm not proud of the fact that we grew so close, and spent the time that we did together, before she told him what was going on. It's a stage of my life that I look back to and shudder a bit - there are memories back there that I have to dig really deep for, because I've locked them out. We had no idea what was going to happen. We prayed for the day we could just be a normal couple - I visit her place with a bottle of wine and a DVD, we spend the night relaxed together with somewhere to sleep. That just wasn't an option at that stage of the relationship. The huge social stigma of breaking up a marriage in its first year meant it didn't happen until the last possible moment.
He was crushed, I'm sure. Betrayed, devestated - what we did was horrible. But she got carried away in love where there was none previously. The times we spent together then were some of the happiest of our lives. It involved a great deal of mental effort to block out the context we were in - but still, incredibly happy times.
We're still together, and recently we realised our relationship has outlasted the one she had with her husband. We still love each other deeply, trust each other inherantly, and most importantly enjoy our time together, every day.
So the question: Was it worth it? Did we do the wrong thing? Am I a reprehensable character?
I understand that other things could have been done to save the feelings of the other guy, but at the time we were far too caught up in what we had found together to manage the time to deal with someone else. In a relationship where communication was at a bare minimum already, the idea of voicing the fact that someone better had come along was probably a daunting thing for her. We asked each other to stop many times, but it just didn't come to pass. It ballooned up to the point it had to pop.
I'm not proud of how our relationship started, but I'm glad it happened.
As such I always like to look deeper at questions of infidelity. What was the bond that was broken? Can a genuine "affair" spring up in circumstances where love is already present, or is it more likely to be the result of a loveless marriage? Is it just sex, or are they trying to become satisfied with their lives on a deeper level? Is a relationship that breeds infidelity going to last anyway?
Dunno if you'd call it science, but the health professionals in several cultures of the time (1000 to 700 BC) were aware that sleeping around was adverse to one's health. I beleive it is this knowledge that eventually translated itself into monogamy=good, rampant whorism=bad. Up until fairly recently pologamy was cool, as long as it was commited in its own way. Those inside could sleep with each other, but not anyone from outside the circle. A nice blend of variety and safety if the new entries are always virginal and the commited are always faithful.
Er, until how long ago and where and which health professionals? Cause if you took a look into a few other nonwestern cultures around the world you would see a very different view. Many take it as a good thing in fact. I can't remember their names off the top of my head, but there was an Native American group that fully expects everyone in the community to sleep with everyone else at some point, then there's an African community where before marriage it's encouraged to sleep around in order to develop bonds and discover what one likes.
Actually, it's pretty common in subsaharan Africa for men to sleep around; they look at sex much in the same way they look at food - it's a biological drive that you might as well spice up with some variety.
And polygamy isn't always about getting your freak on in an epidemiologically-isolated arrangement as Sarcastro implied; it's often about property rights and protecting your family lineage. Like in much of subsaharan Africa, where young bachelors have to pay (in some cases quite hefty) brideprices to the parents of young women for the privilege of marriage, buying lots of wives is basically an investment. While expensive at first, having a small harem of women as breeding stock basically guarantees that you'll produce lots of beautiful daughters to be purchased by the next generation of young men, thereby setting up a nice little retirement nest egg.
Anyway, the historical development of monogamy among various cultures is not something I know a whole lot about, sadly. Maybe in cultures where monogamy became established as the norm there was historical awareness of STDs. I'm willing to believe that as far as the Western world goes, because of the importance the early Ibrahimian religions placed on hygiene and preventing the spread of disease, but it's still something I'd really like to know more about.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So the question: Was it worth it? Did we do the wrong thing? Am I a reprehensable character?
She took a vow to be loving and faithful to him. You didn't.
I'm not saying it's not a fucked-up start to the relationship, or that everyone should actively try to subvert people's marriages... but I don't think anyone outside of a married couple has any particular responsibility to hold anyone else's marriage together.
When I met my current girlfriend she had been married for about five months. Her relationship with the other guy had been going on for almost three years - they met through an online community. I like to think it was a marriage of convenience - she'd say there's more to it to that, but it was certainly a situation of 'get married or go back to your home country.'
Her home life was pretty crappy. He worked long hours in video game development and spent all his time at home in front of the computer. She pretty much did the same, though with a part-time job that barely passed the time. When I came in, they were obviously friends, but I didn't see any love there. They'd eat out at the same places, never leave for anything other than visiting their parents - I think the only time they took a holiday together was their honeymoon.
We clicked, as you might have been able to guess. We began spending more and more time together - while I was honestly good friends with them both, more and more I found myself visiting for her sake. We chatted online a lot, I came to stay whenever I had an opportunity. We fell in love. It was strange - he was an element, but at the same time, he was not.
I'm not proud of the fact that we grew so close, and spent the time that we did together, before she told him what was going on. It's a stage of my life that I look back to and shudder a bit - there are memories back there that I have to dig really deep for, because I've locked them out. We had no idea what was going to happen. We prayed for the day we could just be a normal couple - I visit her place with a bottle of wine and a DVD, we spend the night relaxed together with somewhere to sleep. That just wasn't an option at that stage of the relationship. The huge social stigma of breaking up a marriage in its first year meant it didn't happen until the last possible moment.
He was crushed, I'm sure. Betrayed, devestated - what we did was horrible. But she got carried away in love where there was none previously. The times we spent together then were some of the happiest of our lives. It involved a great deal of mental effort to block out the context we were in - but still, incredibly happy times.
We're still together, and recently we realised our relationship has outlasted the one she had with her husband. We still love each other deeply, trust each other inherantly, and most importantly enjoy our time together, every day.
So the question: Was it worth it? Did we do the wrong thing? Am I a reprehensable character?
I understand that other things could have been done to save the feelings of the other guy, but at the time we were far too caught up in what we had found together to manage the time to deal with someone else. In a relationship where communication was at a bare minimum already, the idea of voicing the fact that someone better had come along was probably a daunting thing for her. We asked each other to stop many times, but it just didn't come to pass. It ballooned up to the point it had to pop.
I'm not proud of how our relationship started, but I'm glad it happened.
As such I always like to look deeper at questions of infidelity. What was the bond that was broken? Can a genuine "affair" spring up in circumstances where love is already present, or is it more likely to be the result of a loveless marriage? Is it just sex, or are they trying to become satisfied with their lives on a deeper level? Is a relationship that breeds infidelity going to last anyway?
Ultimately, I feel that people love who they love and that trumps morality. But I'm a witless romantic, so I'm not sure anything I say matters here.
So the question: Was it worth it? Did we do the wrong thing? Am I a reprehensable character?
She took a vow to be loving and faithful to him. You didn't.
I'm not saying it's not a fucked-up start to the relationship, or that everyone should actively try to subvert people's marriages... but I don't think anyone outside of a married couple has any particular responsibility to hold anyone else's marriage together.
So is my girlfriend a reprehensible character, then? Wanna step outside and say that? *wink*
Ultimately, I feel that people love who they love and that trumps morality. But I'm a witless romantic, so I'm not sure anything I say matters here.
True enough, but are you confident you withhold judgement of a person who has cheated for long enough to consider whether or not it was commited out of love?
bsjezz on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
She took a vow to be loving and faithful to him. You didn't.
I'm not saying it's not a fucked-up start to the relationship, or that everyone should actively try to subvert people's marriages... but I don't think anyone outside of a married couple has any particular responsibility to hold anyone else's marriage together.
Do you have a responsibility to keep anyone else's sobriety together? Because I certainly think it would be reprehensible to give an alcoholic the bottle. But hey man, not your problem, right?
Facilitating bad behavior is bad behavior.
Regardless, it sounds like the marriage was bad, bsjezz and his girl are both happy now, and hopefully the guy's moved on to someone who he can have a real life with. Things turned out for the better.
She took a vow to be loving and faithful to him. You didn't.
I'm not saying it's not a fucked-up start to the relationship, or that everyone should actively try to subvert people's marriages... but I don't think anyone outside of a married couple has any particular responsibility to hold anyone else's marriage together.
Do you have a responsibility to keep anyone else's sobriety together? Because I certainly think it would be reprehensible to give an alcoholic the bottle. But hey man, not your problem, right?
Facilitating bad behavior is bad behavior.
Regardless, it sounds like the marriage was bad, bsjezz and his girl are both happy now, and hopefully the guy's moved on to someone who he can have a real life with. Things turned out for the better.
I agree with this.
Another anecdote that I think illustrates what MrMister is saying: one of my best friends just dumped his fiance a few days before the wedding. A couple times prior in the relationship she'd get drunk and do something to deliberately sabotage herself because she had problems with self-esteem and intimacy. She'd also had a history of alcoholism and poor impulse control prior to getting together with my friend. Well, she was getting pre-wedding jitters; one of her coworkers who had been unsuccessfully trying to pursue her for quite some time found her on a day she was particularly vulnerable and feeling particularly bad about herself, took her out, got her drunk, and they had sex. As far as I'm concerned this guy took advantage of my friend's fiance during a period of personal instability - in many ways analogous to encouraging an alcoholic to drink. As far as I'm concerned, that's fucked up, and not just because it was my friend who got fucked over. Yeah, my friend's ex-fiance bears the brunt of the responsibility - after all, she ultimately could have told her coworker to piss off rather than going to a bar with him - but I feel fully justified in having contempt for her and her coworker both.
Anyway, back to bsjezz: bsjezz's girlfriend could probably have done better by breaking up with her ex sooner, but I'm not going to judge her decision as it sounds like she may have been staying with the guy out of concern for his domestic residency status. Overall the situation bsjezz describes is as forgivable an example of cheating as I could come up with.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Do you have a responsibility to keep anyone else's sobriety together? Because I certainly think it would be reprehensible to give an alcoholic the bottle. But hey man, not your problem, right?
Isn't a marriage a commitment of two people to each other? Or is it actually a social contract, a bond by which the rest of us have to help enforce? (Additionally, I'm not sure comparing a medical condition like alcoholism to something like a sexual liason is a really useful comparion... doesn't really seem to translate well. People don't die on the speeding front bumber of a broken marriage, but they tend to against the front of an alcoholic's car.)
Yeah, my friend's ex-fiance bears the brunt of the responsibility - after all, she ultimately could have told her coworker to piss off rather than going to a bar with him - but I feel fully justified in having contempt for her and her coworker both.
I don't know that I could go that far. There's a lot that maybe you don't know. What if he didn't know she was engaged? What if he thought she told him she called it off to be with him, or what if he suspected as much but was too elated to confirm? I don't think I could really blame him for not asking, especially if she were really hot.
So is my girlfriend a reprehensible character, then? Wanna step outside and say that? *wink*
Hah.
No, I honestly don't see any of the people in the example as really "reprehensible". All I'm saying is that she had an arrangement that she went back on. I don't actually have an opinion about whether or not going back on that was a bad thing, though.
Dunno if you'd call it science, but the health professionals in several cultures of the time (1000 to 700 BC) were aware that sleeping around was adverse to one's health. I beleive it is this knowledge that eventually translated itself into monogamy=good, rampant whorism=bad. Up until fairly recently pologamy was cool, as long as it was commited in its own way. Those inside could sleep with each other, but not anyone from outside the circle. A nice blend of variety and safety if the new entries are always virginal and the commited are always faithful.
Er, until how long ago and where and which health professionals? Cause if you took a look into a few other nonwestern cultures around the world you would see a very different view. Many take it as a good thing in fact. I can't remember their names off the top of my head, but there was an Native American group that fully expects everyone in the community to sleep with everyone else at some point, then there's an African community where before marriage it's encouraged to sleep around in order to develop bonds and discover what one likes.
Actually, it's pretty common in subsaharan Africa for men to sleep around; they look at sex much in the same way they look at food - it's a biological drive that you might as well spice up with some variety.
And polygamy isn't always about getting your freak on in an epidemiologically-isolated arrangement as Sarcastro implied; it's often about property rights and protecting your family lineage. Like in much of subsaharan Africa, where young bachelors have to pay (in some cases quite hefty) brideprices to the parents of young women for the privilege of marriage, buying lots of wives is basically an investment. While expensive at first, having a small harem of women as breeding stock basically guarantees that you'll produce lots of beautiful daughters to be purchased by the next generation of young men, thereby setting up a nice little retirement nest egg.
Anyway, the historical development of monogamy among various cultures is not something I know a whole lot about, sadly. Maybe in cultures where monogamy became established as the norm there was historical awareness of STDs. I'm willing to believe that as far as the Western world goes, because of the importance the early Ibrahimian religions placed on hygiene and preventing the spread of disease, but it's still something I'd really like to know more about.
I'd agree with this, I was thinking specifically of Islam and Ibrahimian faiths, which stressed being sexually careful in a number of ways. Maybe that little cradle of the world had a problem it got under control early. It's interesting today to compare these cultural viewpoints with global STD troublespots.
Great point as well Quid, polygamy has different supporting reasons in different cultures as well, and they have developed the means of dealing with these situations in a manner beneficial to themselves and thier surroundings.
Posts
While true in one sense, I think people have this mistaken perception that polygamists/those who "sleep around" are less careful than those in a one-on-one relationship. Chance always plays a factor, sure, but polygamy or sleeping with multiple partners doesn't necessarily increase anything, and such individuals are as likely to use measures to prevent spreading or contracting STDs as people who restrict themselves to one sexual mate.
I'm not suggesting that you hold that perception, just making a point.
Wouldn't do it, but wouldn't have anything close to disdain to those who might do it. Not the nicest way to end a relationship, but whatever, I'm not the nice police. Ya know? (they do exist, it's not a joke)
Sounds like a good reason not to sleep with anyone unless you've both gotten tested. A reason which doesn't go away when the relationship is being entered by two people instead of six.
As for whether or not I'm capable of cheating, I'd say yes. Would I cheat is another question all together, and one I'm sorry to say I don't have a sure answer to.
there are two ways to deal with it when someone cheats on you: the right way and the wrong way. while it isn't necessarily wrong to break up with someone for it, there should at least be some kind of dialouge there. you can't just be like "fuck you, stupid," and not let the person explain themselves. another wrong thing to do would be to exact some sort of revenge on the persons involved. anger at because lied to is natural, but your significant other is not your property, so don't start beating people as if they stole something of yours. much better to have a discussion of why it happened (maybe it's partly your fault) and see if you can mend the relationship.
Exactly. There are plenty of "monogamous" people who have serial relationships - they're only fucking one person at any given time, but it seems like every three weeks there's a new guy/girl on their arm. Or there are the people who engage in long-term monogamous relationships, but in between each long-term partner they party and sleep around. By the time they finally settle down they may have had a few dozen sexual partners, despite identifying as "monogamous." And, to contrast, there are plenty of polyamorous people (who, by the way, would get really pissed off if you called them "polygamous," just FYI) who only have extracurricular activities once a year or less. And then there are the rare folks who are in stable closed three-way or four-way arrangements.
In my experience I've found that people who identify as polyamorous are just as likely to be responsible and selective about their partners as people who identify as monogamous.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that there is only one person right for you in the entire world. I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that one person can fulfill all of your emotional needs. I think a lot of people spend a lot of time and energy trying to resolve the dissonance between what their partner can provide and what they want out of a relationship. Eventually you either settle on a level of dissatisfaction you can tolerate, or you break up (or sabotage the relationship so your partner breaks up with you), or you agree to open the relationship up to the possibility of finding some emotional fulfillment from other people.
I see a lot of people start new relationships trying to believe that this person is going to be the one; this person is going to be their future spouse and parent of their kids. They won't bother to get into a relationship unless that relationship has lifelong potential. Personally, I don't grok that - a relationship can be fulfilling and meaningful even if you know it isn't going to last a lifetime.
Having 'just physical' sex with one person doesn't mean you can't have intimate, emotional bonding with another. I know that for most people it isn't possible to do both at the same time, but some people don't experience jealousy or possessiveness the same way.
Besides, there's a huge grey area between emotionally intimacy and purely physical sex. I don't think I've ever had a purely physical experience. Like I said above, you can have a meaningful and fulfilling connection with somebody even if you know that after a few months, or a week, or even a single night you'll never see that person again. It might not be as deep as a long-term relationship, but that doesn't make the experience [emotionally|mentally|spiritually] worthless.
No, it's not "downhill to monogamy." It's called having a 'primary' and many poly people do. Many poly people still have the drive to have long-term, emotionally intimate partnerships. They still like living with a single partner; they still might want to get married and have kids. They just recognize that their primary gets priority, and this needs to be understood by anybody involved in their extramarital activities.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I've changed my views on this a lot in the past few years, from a very open stance to a 'monogamy for me' stance. Partly in light of going down both roads and finding out what is best for me personally - not that I would recommend that, sometimes peoples mistakes should be taken as warning signs for others.
I used to think that a person had an unlimited supply of love, and that loving someone else in no way detracted from one's feelings for another. Thus one can love multiple people and not suffer any inherently ill effects.
As it turns out, I found that although one may have an unlimited capacity for love, one has a very limited and finite amount of time and attention. At it's higher levels, love is not just an experience, but an investment, taking time and attention to cultivate and grow properly. Time and attention spent on other people comes at an opportunity cost to another, and sexual gratification poured into another person is that same sex not poured into the one you've decided to give a priority to.
If one can think of a relationship as a team, as a confined environment wherein all effort combines and interacts with each other in order to serve common goals, then one can visualize sex drives, positive actions and communication as types of pressure and energy held within this shared and closed off universe. If you poke holes into that enclosed space, it does indeed relieve some of the pressure, but at a cost of the energy contained within that relationship as a whole.
Relationships need that emotional and sexual energy to set the guiding principles of that relationship in constant forward motion. Without it, the framework still exists, but the forward momentum is lost. Without enough energy to continue moving forward, to continue accomplishing things together as a single unit, the framework itself begins to stagnate and decay, eventually self-destructing as there is no purpose to its own continuation.
Relationships exist to synergize the energy between people to accomplish things, and if that synergy is comprimised, the relationship becomes less effective, and so other opportunites for emotional investment become more appealing and more viable as a means of progressing through one's life. If a lack of commitment becomes a habit, then it will be harder and harder to find people willing to invest in you and to find others worthy of investing in. This ends up in people jumping from relationship to relationship, sucking the life out of the original investment and then moving on when that new energy is gone.
Ironically, I think this would make her much less likely to cheat on me (because I am basically removing the temptation factor, like, the way people want what they can't have, i.e. forbidden sex). At least, it was like that with my ex. She told me she didn't feel like having sex with other guys because she knew that, if she wanted to, she could. It wasn't exciting, or something. I can't remember what she said exactly but it made sense to me at the time.
I wouldn't expect her to hold me to the same standards however; I wouldn't use my stance on the issue as an excuse to cheat on her.
This is absolutely true, and is probably my biggest complaint about Dossie Easton (the co-author of The Ethical Slut which is a good book on open relationships). She likes to talk about the limitless human capacity for love. I understand what she's trying to say, but there are just some days I don't have a limitless capacity for love. Some days I only have a limitless capacity for curling up on the couch with a beer and a blanket and a copy of Paper Mario.
So, yeah, people have a finite amount of time and energy. However, you could apply this to any number of extramarital activities. While I'm at the gym I'm not investing time in my relationship. While I'm at work I'm not investing time into my relationship. And I think everybody knows somebody whose relationship was destroyed because one partner spent all their time at work/school/etc. and not enough with their partner. "She had a life once, but she forgot to feed it and it died." You have to find a balance - investing too much time and energy into a relationship is suffocating and self-destructive, and investing too little is cold and neglectful. Time & energy issues have to be managed no matter what your lifestyle is.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Your point is well taken. Let's assume for now that monogamous and polygamous people both have equal rates of condom usage, condom failure, etc.
I was thinking more about behavior on a societal level than an individual one. An individual polygamist might not be at much more risk than a monogamist in a mostly monogamous society, especially if each of one's partners are monogamous themselves. However, living in a society of intertwining polygamy can impact an individual's risk, even if they themselves are monogamous.
A monogamous person (A) with HIV can only infect one other person (B) at a time. In oder for a third person (C) to become infected the first (A-B) relationship has to end and a second (A-C or B-C) relationship has to begin. A polygamous person can infect a third (C) or fourth (D) person at the same time as the A-B relationship is going on. Since these are multiple relationships there are repeated opportunities for the infected person (A) to infect one of his partners, as opposed to the singular opportunity for infection of non-relationship promiscuity, eg a one night stand.
The danger is not simply in the possession of multiple sex partners, but in how they concurrently overlap. A polygamous person with 5 partners AIDS can infect 5 others. If those 5 others are polygamous themselves, then they can each infect 5 others at a time. The simple difference in time between when a monogamous person can infect a new partner and when a polygamous person can could be the difference in recognizing telltale symptoms of infection and acting to prevent their spread to one's partners.
I'm not trying to say that serial monogamy is equally as effective as say, condoms in preventing widespread infection, just that it is more effective in doing so than a society-wide system of polygamy. Here's some links that might explain it better than I did.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060501.html
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/News/abcfactsheet.html
Definately. I think a lot of people forget that just because they aren't sleeping around, they can still make mistakes and put time and attention into things in a relationship killing way. 'WoW killed my marriage' threads for example, or 'golf widows', etc. I think sex tends to be at the top of the 'things you can use to mess up your life' list because it is so very stimulating. Your brain actually rewires itself to suit whomever you're boning. I find studies on next-gen gaming very interesting, because maps of brain activity are now starting to show that our entertainment has become so advanced and sensually engaging it can actually outperform real-life things like socialization and sexual relationships.
You definately need time apart, the difference in veiwpoints is what makes two people stronger than two on thier own. As long as these things are being undertaken as a way to improve the big picture, you can have a lot of freedom and additional opportunities granted to you that would otherwise not be availible. If one partner spends too much time doing things that only relate to them and their needs, then I think it hurts everyone.
I am going to take every possible precaution I can take in order to minimize my chances of catching an STD. Not sleeping around is not one of them, because that kind of logic comes very close to that of abstinence and I strongly oppose it.
I think the general argument is that you are subjecting yourself to a larger pool of possibly-infected people. I understand that perspective, but when you take measures to prevent the spreading of STDs, the difference in chance of catching an STD whether you have one partner or ten partners is negligible. It's just that if you have ten partners it's more likely that at least one has an STD. Still, proper care and getting tested first - as VC suggested - more or less nips that in the bud.
I think it would be interesting if we had any research comparing the spread of STDs in polygamous cultures to that in monogamous cultures.
I find it hard to believe that in Sub-Saharan Africa people take every possible precaution short of abstinence to prevent the spread of STDs.
I mean, it was my understanding that they fuck monkeys over there*, which isn't exactly a smart thing to do.
*
That's what I meant: an experiment where the both the control group and the experiment group use protections and are regularly tested, but the only difference is that one group is monogamous and the other polygamous.
Heh, you know, that's a good point. Sleeping with a polygamist might actually lower your chance of contracting an STD. ;-)
Was medical science up to the point where we even recognized STDs as such a couple thousand years BC?
To Craigslist I go.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
And polygamy in subsaharan Africa is not even remotely similar to open relationships in the first world.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Dunno if you'd call it science, but the health professionals in several cultures of the time (1000 to 700 BC) were aware that sleeping around was adverse to one's health. I beleive it is this knowledge that eventually translated itself into monogamy=good, rampant whorism=bad. Up until fairly recently pologamy was cool, as long as it was commited in its own way. Those inside could sleep with each other, but not anyone from outside the circle. A nice blend of variety and safety if the new entries are always virginal and the commited are always faithful.
That actually makes perfect sense. Funny thing about misogynists. I mean they do tend to be the ones who think it's okay to kill anyone involved in an act of infidelity. Essentially it boils down to being a matter of theft, to them. And being a misogynist doesn't mean you're tolerant of thieves.
The rest is all details.
猿も木から落ちる
Huh.
I generally feel a great swell of pity towards any relationship fragile enough to be made or broken based solely on something as superficial as the use (or lack thereof) of one's wobbly bits.
But, to get some specifics: what exactly is it that you think the "its no big deal" camp is missing? Am I to understand that one is incapable of experiencing emotionally-bonding sex if one is capable of experiencing no-strings-attached, just-for-fun sex?
When I met my current girlfriend she had been married for about five months. Her relationship with the other guy had been going on for almost three years - they met through an online community. I like to think it was a marriage of convenience - she'd say there's more to it to that, but it was certainly a situation of 'get married or go back to your home country.'
Her home life was pretty crappy. He worked long hours in video game development and spent all his time at home in front of the computer. She pretty much did the same, though with a part-time job that barely passed the time. When I came in, they were obviously friends, but I didn't see any love there. They'd eat out at the same places, never leave for anything other than visiting their parents - I think the only time they took a holiday together was their honeymoon.
We clicked, as you might have been able to guess. We began spending more and more time together - while I was honestly good friends with them both, more and more I found myself visiting for her sake. We chatted online a lot, I came to stay whenever I had an opportunity. We fell in love. It was strange - he was an element, but at the same time, he was not.
I'm not proud of the fact that we grew so close, and spent the time that we did together, before she told him what was going on. It's a stage of my life that I look back to and shudder a bit - there are memories back there that I have to dig really deep for, because I've locked them out. We had no idea what was going to happen. We prayed for the day we could just be a normal couple - I visit her place with a bottle of wine and a DVD, we spend the night relaxed together with somewhere to sleep. That just wasn't an option at that stage of the relationship. The huge social stigma of breaking up a marriage in its first year meant it didn't happen until the last possible moment.
He was crushed, I'm sure. Betrayed, devestated - what we did was horrible. But she got carried away in love where there was none previously. The times we spent together then were some of the happiest of our lives. It involved a great deal of mental effort to block out the context we were in - but still, incredibly happy times.
We're still together, and recently we realised our relationship has outlasted the one she had with her husband. We still love each other deeply, trust each other inherantly, and most importantly enjoy our time together, every day.
So the question: Was it worth it? Did we do the wrong thing? Am I a reprehensable character?
I understand that other things could have been done to save the feelings of the other guy, but at the time we were far too caught up in what we had found together to manage the time to deal with someone else. In a relationship where communication was at a bare minimum already, the idea of voicing the fact that someone better had come along was probably a daunting thing for her. We asked each other to stop many times, but it just didn't come to pass. It ballooned up to the point it had to pop.
I'm not proud of how our relationship started, but I'm glad it happened.
As such I always like to look deeper at questions of infidelity. What was the bond that was broken? Can a genuine "affair" spring up in circumstances where love is already present, or is it more likely to be the result of a loveless marriage? Is it just sex, or are they trying to become satisfied with their lives on a deeper level? Is a relationship that breeds infidelity going to last anyway?
Actually, it's pretty common in subsaharan Africa for men to sleep around; they look at sex much in the same way they look at food - it's a biological drive that you might as well spice up with some variety.
And polygamy isn't always about getting your freak on in an epidemiologically-isolated arrangement as Sarcastro implied; it's often about property rights and protecting your family lineage. Like in much of subsaharan Africa, where young bachelors have to pay (in some cases quite hefty) brideprices to the parents of young women for the privilege of marriage, buying lots of wives is basically an investment. While expensive at first, having a small harem of women as breeding stock basically guarantees that you'll produce lots of beautiful daughters to be purchased by the next generation of young men, thereby setting up a nice little retirement nest egg.
Anyway, the historical development of monogamy among various cultures is not something I know a whole lot about, sadly. Maybe in cultures where monogamy became established as the norm there was historical awareness of STDs. I'm willing to believe that as far as the Western world goes, because of the importance the early Ibrahimian religions placed on hygiene and preventing the spread of disease, but it's still something I'd really like to know more about.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
She took a vow to be loving and faithful to him. You didn't.
I'm not saying it's not a fucked-up start to the relationship, or that everyone should actively try to subvert people's marriages... but I don't think anyone outside of a married couple has any particular responsibility to hold anyone else's marriage together.
Ultimately, I feel that people love who they love and that trumps morality. But I'm a witless romantic, so I'm not sure anything I say matters here.
So is my girlfriend a reprehensible character, then? Wanna step outside and say that? *wink*
True enough, but are you confident you withhold judgement of a person who has cheated for long enough to consider whether or not it was commited out of love?
Do you have a responsibility to keep anyone else's sobriety together? Because I certainly think it would be reprehensible to give an alcoholic the bottle. But hey man, not your problem, right?
Facilitating bad behavior is bad behavior.
Regardless, it sounds like the marriage was bad, bsjezz and his girl are both happy now, and hopefully the guy's moved on to someone who he can have a real life with. Things turned out for the better.
I agree with this.
Another anecdote that I think illustrates what MrMister is saying: one of my best friends just dumped his fiance a few days before the wedding. A couple times prior in the relationship she'd get drunk and do something to deliberately sabotage herself because she had problems with self-esteem and intimacy. She'd also had a history of alcoholism and poor impulse control prior to getting together with my friend. Well, she was getting pre-wedding jitters; one of her coworkers who had been unsuccessfully trying to pursue her for quite some time found her on a day she was particularly vulnerable and feeling particularly bad about herself, took her out, got her drunk, and they had sex. As far as I'm concerned this guy took advantage of my friend's fiance during a period of personal instability - in many ways analogous to encouraging an alcoholic to drink. As far as I'm concerned, that's fucked up, and not just because it was my friend who got fucked over. Yeah, my friend's ex-fiance bears the brunt of the responsibility - after all, she ultimately could have told her coworker to piss off rather than going to a bar with him - but I feel fully justified in having contempt for her and her coworker both.
Anyway, back to bsjezz: bsjezz's girlfriend could probably have done better by breaking up with her ex sooner, but I'm not going to judge her decision as it sounds like she may have been staying with the guy out of concern for his domestic residency status. Overall the situation bsjezz describes is as forgivable an example of cheating as I could come up with.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Isn't a marriage a commitment of two people to each other? Or is it actually a social contract, a bond by which the rest of us have to help enforce? (Additionally, I'm not sure comparing a medical condition like alcoholism to something like a sexual liason is a really useful comparion... doesn't really seem to translate well. People don't die on the speeding front bumber of a broken marriage, but they tend to against the front of an alcoholic's car.)
I don't know that I could go that far. There's a lot that maybe you don't know. What if he didn't know she was engaged? What if he thought she told him she called it off to be with him, or what if he suspected as much but was too elated to confirm? I don't think I could really blame him for not asking, especially if she were really hot.
Hah.
No, I honestly don't see any of the people in the example as really "reprehensible". All I'm saying is that she had an arrangement that she went back on. I don't actually have an opinion about whether or not going back on that was a bad thing, though.
I'd agree with this, I was thinking specifically of Islam and Ibrahimian faiths, which stressed being sexually careful in a number of ways. Maybe that little cradle of the world had a problem it got under control early. It's interesting today to compare these cultural viewpoints with global STD troublespots.
Great point as well Quid, polygamy has different supporting reasons in different cultures as well, and they have developed the means of dealing with these situations in a manner beneficial to themselves and thier surroundings.