When is infidelity allowed?

I was having some thoughts on relationships and it accured to me there comes a time when having an affair may be socially acceptable. I am not supporting infidelity by any means but in this situation I will describe I could see why it may transpire.

Example; you are married to your wife everything is great the sex is great actually phenomenal, actually so good you reach your sexual peak and loose all interest in sex all together.

What happens next is you stop having sex with your wife simple becuase there is no more sexual desire left. So because of this your wife becomes sexually frustrated and may not tell you this, the question; Is it fair if she decides to have an afair after all you are no longer giving her the pleasure she signed up for when choosing to marry you? Or what would be the right thing to do is have a divorce before any infidelity accurs? Please note other than this effect the relationship is virtually perfect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think sexual promiscuity carries risks. I don't believe a relationship is built on sex. That's just an added bonus, plus it brings more into the relationship (children). I personally couldn't have sex with anyone other than my partner. Even if sex was absent in our relationship, I still couldn't go out and have an affair. Doing so (or trying to do so) would be weird.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree in my opinion if you feel to have an affair then you should end the relationship first. But that wasn't my question I was wondering is it fair to stop having sex with your wife not because you are not attracted to her but just because you don't feel like having sex for a long period of time months or in extreme cases years. And if you make that decision, is it fair that she seeks pleasure elsewhere?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There might be other problems involved. Men often lose their ability with age. It's not necessarily the man or woman to blame. There are a number of physical issues that can arise. If he is a young man, then I would call him on it. Maybe suggest a doctor's visit in case something is terribly wrong, or counseling.

 

What if there is no physiological problem and the individual just doesn't feel like having sex for no particular reason. What if the individual has had so much sex it's just not interesting any more after all sex is over rated.

 

Infidelity is ok whenever it is not betrayal.

It usually is.

 

I have got to chime in here. Infidelity as in cheating/deceiving (not mutual open relationship) partner is never justified.

There are two parts to this which has destructive and damaging effects not only to individuals but to families and society at large. The first aspect is that there are way more psychopathic/sociopathic/narcissistic people than what is statistically admitted. The ones that are known are those who commit heinous crimes which can be punitive under law. The truth is many don't fall under this narrow umbrella but indeed are sociopathic narcissists.

The destruction, betrayal, pain and damage done to persons and breakdown to families is heinous by people who are selfish who justify their own whims at any cost as well as those who participate (other man/woman).

You see the outward effects in society; single mothers, broken families with children. A society disastrously full of this.

What you don't see is the damage, distress, pain, distrust, struggle etc.

What makes this so utterly heinous is there is a right and wrong way to handle troubled relationships. First is honesty to try and work it out together if it can be (not cowardly have affairs which creates new sets of problems and damage worse than they are) or end the relationship before you delve into another.

The people who don't do this are too numerous causing chaos, havoc, and damage that has far-reaching consequences to society at large to its social, moral, emotional and mental health. They are selfish, lack empathy and ultimately untrustworthy and dishonest. Its just 'me, me, me'. The people who believe they should have their cake and eat it too. They don't care if others are compromised or betrayed. They don't care if the wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend or children are betrayed. Both the cheater as well as those who rationalize/justify being a participant. They are both culpable and just as responsible.

I've seen all sorts of deceptive rationales to justify sociopathic and narcissistic behavior also from the other man/woman that the cheating partner was not happy, the wife/husband etc is bad, no good etc.
The other party glosses over or excuses their own guilt in the betrayal of the cheating partner and their complicity in the deception. Even to the point, some enjoy the idea of stealing a partner for their ego. Of course, this type of hypocrite would be self-righteous and infuriated if they were betrayed or cheated on. Disgusting? Lipstick on a pig, even if they don't look it. The number of manwhores and sluts is astounding. The damage to society is astounding where its a sad circus of perverted situations often with children being shuttled back and forth, where single parents struggle, where people try to get back in the dating game with all this baggage and internal damage etc.

Cheaters will use lies and deception to elicit sympathy by badmouthing their spouse or play the 'poor me' routine. What makes this even more heinous is often the spouse is overloaded with 'real' life responsibilities of taking care of home, spouse and children so the cheating spouse gives romance to another instead of infusing romance into the relationship with their dedicated spouse who has invested so much heart, soul, work etc based on trust in the other. This is literally like stealing your dues and giving it to another who doesn't deserve it. The betrayed spouse ends up as the scapegoat and used for responsibilities while the other part is given gifts, affection and romance. The scapegoating is necessary for the cheater and other party to have their haven of fantasy free from responsibility. This is why this type of betrayal is so hurtful and immoral.

Yes, this is the society at large. Mostly aka psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissists.

 

Such as we treat relationships now, I wouldn't disagree.

I cannot, however, definitively rule out a more "Brave New World" outcome in which diversity is the norm.

Then again, the basic relationships between couples we now regardin the context of infidelity does preclude cheating. 'Til death do you part, unless you've agreed to some other terms. Exclusivity, unless you've agreed to some other terms.

There are anthropological advantages to monogamy, but I think compared to nature our societal mores have more to do with possession of other human beings. To wit, I live in the United States of America, the foremost society in the history of the human species, and we still can't figure this shit out. Then again, part of the way we built such influence in the human endeavor was by disregarding even the most obvious of paradoxes about principle and behavior.

In the end, women have not yet achieved equality from their historical deficit. Once that dynamic changes, I couldn't tell you how everything else will go. Maybe the men will throw their hands up and say if they can't own 'em there isn't any point to relationships. And maybe, if they say that, the women will nod and say, "Sounds good to us."

In my society, one of the curious aspects of monogamous relationships is that we are currently wracked by a dispute over the form of those relationships, and to judge by the reaction of the losing side, they're pretty much ready to call the whole thing off. Kind of an, "If I can't have it, nobody can", attitude. We'll have to see where things go after people get over their petulance and stupidity; I mean, really, some of these people apparently can't figure out the place of consent about intimate relations.

We gotta get out of this place; it's the last thing we will fail to do.

And until we do, yeah, this is all going to be a mess.

However, if the terms are monogamy, the terms are monogamy, and infidelity itself is inappropriate.

 

Um, the diversity is the norm. No one is forcing anyone to stay in a relationship where one is unhappy. No one is forcing monogamy on anyone either.

However, deception, lies and betrayal is not acceptable. Uh, what is there to justify? Heh, I mean legitimately.

You know, its called honesty. People tend to not like being used, deceived or lied to.

If you can't be monogamous or no longer want to or don't care about someone anymore doesn't excuse deception of another party. If you cant or dont want to do right by someone anymore, doesnt justify deceiving them or using them with pretense and lies. Its not just about fidelity, often when that goes, so does emotional involvement, caring or support replaced with mistreatment. Heck, considering there exists a diversity of people who are on the same page as you regarding your particular character, even advertising themselves, there is no excuse. People who deceive a faithful partner that they are when they are not is called fraud. Period. No different than any other type of FRAUD, just it isn't an area that's recognised under 'knock on wood' law. You know, if there is an advertisement for a product, you wouldnt like a bait and switch or outright FRAUD. End of story.

 

Not to that degree.

 

What degree are you referring to?

Is there not a plethora of 'diverse' individuals advertising themselves with dating acronyms stretching all the way to 'bdsm'? I mean, there is underground activity as well that goes beyond legal limits. Is this not enough? Does it have to stretch to the point its acceptable to justify deception as well? Lets just forego all ethics then. Lets even bring underground activity of pedophilism and scat videos acceptable which would include even abduction and murder. Well, good news for some as at least 'cheating' (essentially lies, deception, betrayal) is considered acceptable among general population. Its rampant and to hell with the damage.

You know, when you consider the rather 'classic' tactics of the sociopath (cheater) which is intentional manipulation and misleading to falsehood its psychopathic involving pathological lying. The faults of the guilty party are projected onto the victim trying to convince them they are 'crazy,' imagining things, perhaps need some happy pills etc. They don't care if they mislead, corrupt or be destructive with another's mind/emotions. Pfft.

 

Brave New World, in which monogamy is considered suggestive, if not indicative, of psychiatric dysfunction.

 

Pair-bonding is not a dysfunction. The proof is evident even in cheaters as they themselves feel hurt and angered by betrayal. The justification of deception (cheating is a symptom) is indicative of narcissistic personality disorder. The problem with them is lack of empathy for others as well as a hypocritical value system. They tend to be controlling, value their rights but not others, believe they are special and their feelings/needs/wants are superior to others. They don't feel personal accountability or responsibility.

There is nothing strictly wrong with polygamy as long as its 'mutual'. There is something dysfunctional mentally/emotionally when a person derives pleasure and a 'high' (adrenaline rush) or power trip from deceiving others or abusing trust.

 

I would not disagree.

 

Well, it depends what you're the dictator of.

 

Normal as in 'common' doesn't mean healthy. Addiction and abuse is common, doesn't mean it should be endorsed or considered acceptable.

Cheaters are the most guilty of viewing people as property. They believe they should have as numerous people as they desire whether they can be responsible towards them or not and even extending to lies to hold onto them as objects. Even they pair-bond while another/others are either left out in the cold, on the back burner or their needs are compromised in the meantime.

Besides ones in unhappy, abusive or incompatible relationships that need to get out, the rest are just serial cheaters that justify what they do. They feel no remorse or guilt. There short attention span and shallowness will be excused by projecting the other is not fulfilling them when they exert no effort of themselves either.

These types leave a string of broken homes, hearts, financial problems, exes, children and even stds due to immaturity, selfishness and unaccountability leaving the chips to fall where they may after the havoc. Relationships and people are viewed as convenient throwaways. Its quantity over quality. You have a society where extended family, strangers and social services must take up the slack.

 

In my opinion? When all three people agree to it.

That's different from the above question. The answer to THAT question is - when no one finds out about it.

 

In "Amusing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman writes:

In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.​

The Experience Machine or Pleasure Machine is a thought experiment put forward by philosopher Robert Nozick.

Nozick asks us to imagine a machine that could give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences we could want. Psychologists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those he would have apart from the machine. He then asks, if given the choice, would we prefer the machine to real life?​

While this later version of the Matrix is not a paradise-like reality in the literal sense, it may be argued that it is a lot like a pleasure-inducing Experience Machine, since Cypher is given the opportunity to have a prominent position of power and wealth in this new simulation. As he says while dining at a simulated restaurant:​

"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy, and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."​

In a summer walk in the countryside, Freud and two companions engage in a discussion of the ephemeral nature of all that is beautiful. For one, a poet, the thought that all the beauty surrounding them will vanish is saddening and robs beauty of its value. For Freud, however, it is exactly the contrary: transience lends things greater value, rather that stripping them of it: “Transience value is scarcity value in time”.​

It makes you wonder why the idea of heaven is even appealing when eternity would cancel out transience.

Hmm…oh, well, back to the OP.

I loved Esther Perel’s talk.



She gave a great talk on desire, as well.

Esther Perel: The secret to desire in a long-term relationship

 

Did you ever happen to read Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury?

Or the Saturday Evening Post, I suppose. Leo Auffmann's Happiness Machine↱ comes to mind.