Why exactly should infidelity be considered wrong?

[MoonWater]

People have a tendency to just accept that infidelity is wrong but I thought it would be interesting to explore why it should be considered wrong. Now many of you are likely thinking that obviously it's wrong because it hurts your spouse/partner, it hurts their trust in you. But that just leaves the question of why does it hurt their feelings and trust? It's your body, you have every right to decide who you do and don't have sex with(assuming of course the other party is consenting) so why should a spouse or partner feel betrayed if you have sex with another person? And what gives your spouse or partner the right to demand that you have sex only with them and no one else? After all, it's your body.

Now you may bring up the idea of the risk of disease or pregnancy but with proper protection and blood tests the risks of that can be greatly minimized or even eliminated. So what other reasons could there be assuming those precautions are taken? Can it truly be said that infidelity is objectively morally wrong? And if so why?

A couple of notes: I use the term infidelity cause I can't think of a better word. Fornication doesn't quite fit cause you can do that without having multiple sexual partners. Also I put this in general debates because I want to debate this from a non-religious perspective. Obviously when religion gets involved you can come up with all kinds of reasons but I want to focus on this issue without religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the other party consents, then I wouldn't consider it infidelity.
But infidelity is wrong because the rancy rapscallion violates a highly valued agreement with his wife, & even puts her at risk for disease.
(The perp is always male....a woman would never cheat.) My assumed premise is that one should honor one's agreements.

 

[Sunstone]

I think feelings of hurt and betrayal are instinctual reactions to infidelity. They probably evolved in us because they had some positive effect on the number of offspring we had.

As for whether they are justified, I think that's as complex a question as any. Sometimes we benefit from things that repulse us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Pretty much as Revoltingest already said...(now I feel dirty...)

Not so worried about the disease part, it's more the breaking a covenant thing. And I try to live by do unto others.

If you're question is also why do I not want my wife to cheat on me? As in, why have this mutual understanding?

Hmmm...harder to explain.

1) It seems to me to be the most stable relationship model
2) Confuses the kids less.
3) It's actually kinda nice to have someone who relies on you, and that you can rely on.
4) I'm old school, but not ancient school.

 

[MoonWater]

If the other party consents, then I wouldn't consider it infidelity.
But infidelity is wrong because the rancy rapscallion violates a highly valued agreement with his wife, & even puts her at risk for disease.
(The perp is always male....a woman would never cheat.) My assumed premise is that one should honor one's agreements.

I already addressed the issue of disease in the OP. As for the agreement argument that for one assumes they officially made such an agreement and ignores the question of what gives a partner the right to either request or demand such an agreement to begin with as a condition of the partnership.

 

[MoonWater]

Pretty much as Revoltingest already said...(now I feel dirty...)

Not so worried about the disease part, it's more the breaking a covenant thing. And I try to live by do unto others.

If you're question is also why do I not want my wife to cheat on me? As in, why have this mutual understanding?

Hmmm...harder to explain.

1) It seems to me to be the most stable relationship model
2) Confuses the kids less.
3) It's actually kinda nice to have someone who relies on you, and that you can rely on.
4) I'm old school, but not ancient school.

1) how so?
2) why would it confuse the kids?
3) why should you or your partner be seen as any less reliable simply because you or your partner had sex with another person?

 

[BSM1]

I have said this before: one thing that separates us from animals (especially in this case) is vows we take. We promise to do this or be that. We promise to remain faithful to one person. We give our word, and we are only as good as our word. Many of us have the inclination to hump like feral cats. Some of us even have the opportunity. But there are things more important in this life then sexual conquest. If you promise to "forsake all others", do so. If you feel that you can't live without chasing tail then release the other person in your life from these vows so the pain you cause will be short-lived and not last a life time. Just sayin'...

 

[Revoltingest]

I already addressed the issue of disease in the OP. As for the agreement argument that for one assumes they officially made such an agreement and ignores the question of what gives a partner the right to either request or demand such an agreement to begin with as a condition of the partnership.

Presuming the agreement is entered into voluntarily by both parties, they owe each other that which was promised.
To violate such trust leads to discord.....expensive discord....divorce lawyers, alimony, child support payments, etc.

 

[MoonWater]

I have said this before: one thing that separates us from animals (especially in this case) is vows we take. We promise to do this or be that. We promise to remain faithful to one person. We give our word, and we are only as good as our word. Many of us have the inclination to hump like feral cats. Some of us even have the opportunity. But there are things more important in this life then sexual conquest. If you promise to "forsake all others", do so. If you feel that you can't live without chasing tail then release the other person in your life from these vows so the pain you cause will be short-lived and not last a life time. Just sayin'...

but why should such vows be taken in the first place?

Sure if you make a promise you should endeavor to keep it but that's a different matter. If no such vow is explicitly taken then what's the problem? And why should the saying of such a vow be the default or be considered a requirement for a relationship.

 

[MoonWater]

Presuming the agreement is entered into voluntarily by both parties, they owe each other that which was promised.
To violate such trust leads to discord.....expensive discord....divorce lawyers, alimony, child support payments, etc.

Yes presuming there is an agreement to monogamy made by explicitly by both parties such promises should be kept. But what if no agreement in that regard is specifically stated? Does the other member of the party have any real moral right to get upset if their partner has sex with another person?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes presuming there is an agreement to monogamy made by explicitly by both parties such promises should be kept. But what if no agreement in that regard is specifically stated? Does the other member of the party have any real moral right to get upset if their partner has sex with another person?

If there is no agreement then it wouldn't be infidelity.
It would be called being "popular".

 

[Alceste]

Yes presuming there is an agreement to monogamy made by explicitly by both parties such promises should be kept. But what if no agreement in that regard is specifically stated? Does the other member of the party have any real moral right to get upset if their partner has sex with another person?

If you've been completely clear with your partner from the beginning that you're not cut out for monogamy, then no, they haven't really got a "moral right" to be angry. That doesn't mean they won't be angry though. We owe it to ourselves and our partners to communicate our boundaries and expectations clearly in a committed relationship. If you can only be happy in a poly relationship, you simply need to find a poly partner. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is constructing a pretense of monogamy by deception or simple omission, then screwing around behind your partner's back. We all have the moral right to make an informed decision on who we want to be with, with all the facts on hand. Deception is a relationship killer. That's true whether it's a polyamorous nature you are concealing or a gambling or drug problem, or being a secret Justin Bieber fan.

 

[Meow Mix]

People have a tendency to just accept that infidelity is wrong but I thought it would be interesting to explore why it should be considered wrong. Now many of you are likely thinking that obviously it's wrong because it hurts your spouse/partner, it hurts their trust in you. But that just leaves the question of why does it hurt their feelings and trust? It's your body, you have every right to decide who you do and don't have sex with(assuming of course the other party is consenting) so why should a spouse or partner feel betrayed if you have sex with another person? And what gives your spouse or partner the right to demand that you have sex only with them and no one else? After all, it's your body.

Now you may bring up the idea of the risk of disease or pregnancy but with proper protection and blood tests the risks of that can be greatly minimized or even eliminated. So what other reasons could there be assuming those precautions are taken? Can it truly be said that infidelity is objectively morally wrong? And if so why?

A couple of notes: I use the term infidelity cause I can't think of a better word. Fornication doesn't quite fit cause you can do that without having multiple sexual partners. Also I put this in general debates because I want to debate this from a non-religious perspective. Obviously when religion gets involved you can come up with all kinds of reasons but I want to focus on this issue without religion.

When you enter a relationship, usually you're implicitly entering a mutual contract of exclusivity in terms of sexual activity. More and more this is less of an unspoken thing and something that's negotiated between partners (and indeed, many partners choose to engage in different agreements on an exclusivity spectrum: fully open relationships, swingers, able to sleep with others but only with partner permission, etc.)

The answer to your question, though, is that nearly all of the time if a partner is going to object to you having sex with someone else, it's more about the fact that you've broken an implicit contract with them that they believed the two of you had.

 

[Meow Mix]

I already addressed the issue of disease in the OP. As for the agreement argument that for one assumes they officially made such an agreement and ignores the question of what gives a partner the right to either request or demand such an agreement to begin with as a condition of the partnership.

Partners have the right to demand anything they please as terms of partnership. If I refuse to date someone unless they wear green underwear every day for me, I have every right to do so -- and they have every right to accept or to decline.

The question about whether or not people SHOULD be assuming there's an implicit clause for sexual exclusiveness in every partnership is more shaky. It would be smart to assume that, if it isn't communicated about, the partner is probably expecting such a thing simply because of the culture. A better idea would be to communicate with any potential partner just what the partnership entails.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes presuming there is an agreement to monogamy made by explicitly by both parties such promises should be kept. But what if no agreement in that regard is specifically stated? Does the other member of the party have any real moral right to get upset if their partner has sex with another person?

Moral right? I don't understand what morality and rights have to do with anything here. People feel what they feel: it's a response to a situation. I don't think we should ever ask if someone has a "moral right" to an emotional response to any situation. Questioning the legitimacy of someone's emotional response and putting it down in this fashion reminds me strongly of the callousness of sociopaths.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes presuming there is an agreement to monogamy made by explicitly by both parties such promises should be kept. But what if no agreement in that regard is specifically stated? Does the other member of the party have any real moral right to get upset if their partner has sex with another person?

To an extent, yes -- this is because it's a societal expectation to a degree (at least for the time being, this is rapidly changing). Think of it as someone being a little peeved that the person in front of them didn't hold the door for them and it slammed in their face: there is at least an implicit expectation that is denied; and though technically no mutually agreed contracts are violated, it still ends up with the person who failed to hold the door or acknowledge the person behind them being rude.

So, one can enter a relationship with someone and, after both have declared they're "official" or whatever, mess around with someone else and then claim that it was never agreed upon to be sexually exclusive -- then they'd be correct (that it was never agreed upon), but they'd still be rude and insensitive since they had every reason to suspect the partner had at least an IMPLICIT assumption there was sexual exclusivity involved in being "official," and the cheater had to knowingly dismiss that high probability.

 

[Me Myself]

I already addressed the issue of disease in the OP. As for the agreement argument that for one assumes they officially made such an agreement and ignores the question of what gives a partner the right to either request or demand such an agreement to begin with as a condition of the partnership.

They can make whatever demand as condition of partnership than they want. Obviously, while either paty may make such condition, neier party is forced to pretend to agree.

If you know x clausule is so deeply important for our partner, and you agree to it, then you must own it when y break it. If you dont agree with x clause. You say that before hand, and leave clear that you have no reason on respecting it, then e issue is different.

Then what would come into consideration is cost vs benefit. If for some reason my partner felt absolutely incredibly deeply emotionally necessary that I never say blue three times in a row when I am in her presence, and I do that anyways, I am the ultimate a** le

Of course when it comes to fidelity, partners are usually well motivated by their sex drives to break the agreement (which is very different than the prior exale), yet deep emotional conections based mostly IMO on our culture make us be really deeply hurt when they breach such agreement of sexual exclusivity (exceptions to that with the cases of people who not only agree to have an open relatipnship, but feel emotional comfort reasonable enough with the idea to keep it going without it hurting their relationship. )

 

[Me Myself]

To an extent, yes -- this is because it's a societal expectation to a degree (at least for the time being, this is rapidly changing). Think of it as someone being a little peeved that the person in front of them didn't hold the door for them and it slammed in their face: there is at least an implicit expectation that is denied; and though technically no mutually agreed contracts are violated, it still ends up with the person who failed to hold the door or acknowledge the person behind them being rude.

So, one can enter a relationship with someone and, after both have declared they're "official" or whatever, mess around with someone else and then claim that it was never agreed upon to be sexually exclusive -- then they'd be correct (that it was never agreed upon), but they'd still be rude and insensitive since they had every reason to suspect the partner had at least an IMPLICIT assumption there was sexual exclusivity involved in being "official," and the cheater had to knowingly dismiss that high probability.

Pretty much. At least for today and in many cultures, being gf and bf means you are not supposed to have sexual exchanges with others. Gray areas may change depending on culture, class, and individuals, but in general, both know that unless they have specified that it is not a sexually exclusive relationship, then that is what it is.

 

[Me Myself]

Moral right? I don't understand what morality and rights have to do with anything here. People feel what they feel: it's a response to a situation. I don't think we should ever ask if someone has a "moral right" to an emotional response to any situation. Questioning the legitimacy of someone's emotional response and putting it down in this fashion reminds me strongly of the callousness of sociopaths.

Agreed. Mrality is based on feelings. We are not even talking about a stranger here, we are talking about someones whose feelings you are supposed to be very loving.

Like going "we never agreed we couldnt have sex with other people" just after she caught you with a redhead when you very well knew what her expectations were and you never said yours were different, equals acting like an a**

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IMO, it's only wrong if the one partner is being dishonest about it.