"I'm a human being, I'm a man like everybody else. I mourn, I cry, just like everybody else, and I sit here before you guys embarrassed and ashamed for committing adultery," Bryant said. "

"Whatever occurred between Bryant and a 19-year old woman from Colorado on June 30 -- whether it was rape or consensual sex -- he is the one who put his career, team, family and image on the line by placing his libido ahead of the risk. If Bryant had been savvier, he would have discovered what several NBA veterans have said privately over the years: a professional stripper has no strings attached; a relative stranger is the greater danger. In other words, pay up front, not later."
-- Selena Roberts / New York Times


With the admission by Los Angeles Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant that he cheated on his wife with a 19-year-old woman in Colorado (and was subsequently accused by her of sexual assault), his carefully constructed image as a clean-cut and admirable athlete has come crashing down around him.

There's nothing new about a pro athlete getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but that raises a larger question: Do we take adultery seriously enough?

President Clinton was a serial philanderer and if I started listing names of politicians, sports figures and entertainers I'd crash the server. But we're talking about one of The Ten Commandments here aren't we? Thou shalt not commit adultery

So do we take adultery seriously enough or are we just shrugging it off?

Adultery is breaking a promise, a very serious promise that is made in the presence of one or two witnesses (at least) in a wedding ceremony. But the people that the promise means the most to are obviously the husband and wife.

No matter how much we like or dislike the persons involved or possibly empathize with someone who might be in a less than desirable relationship, the fact remains that it is wrong to break the promise of "forsaking all others."

It is considered a sin from the standpoint that it breaks one of the ten commandments. Even if religion somehow were not involved, it still would constitute betraying someone else's trust.

The entertainment industry is especially bad at making jokes about adultery, as if this situation is somehow funny. Not if you're the person who has just been betrayed. I feel sorry for Kobe Bryant's wife who has been coached by their attorney (no doubt) to act the loving, forgiving wife before the press. Her love for him (or the pre-nuptial agreement) will have to be pretty strong for her not to dump him like last week's garbage after the publicity settles down.

This is very true. Adultery is a serious thing, especially to those involved and hurt by it. So to answer the question, no, I don't think that we, as a society, take adultery seriously enough. Look at what we've done with Kobe Bryant's affair...splashed it all over the news, made a mockery of it.

There is a lot of overlap in your poll choices. I went with regretable. I think society takes it quite seriously. Personally, I think it is not as bad as physical or emotional abuse of one's partner. (By the way, I am defining "adultery" here as a sexual and/or romantic relationship with another person without the approval of one's partner. If the partner has no objection, I have no problem with it. I also have no problem with sexual and/or romantic fantasies that do not involve one's partner.)

In a relationship, I value honesty above all other things, so I voted that it's destructive to a healthy relationship, but like Victoria Silverwolf, I define adultery as having sexual/romantic relations with someone without the approval of one's partner. If it's agreed to within the relationship, I have no problem with it, but I recognize that it takes a very specific personality type to be able to handle a relationship like that.

Sins against God mean little to me, I dont know how to define them.
How it feels when someone has physically gone out of the relationship I can clearly define, it sucks and eats at your interior, at trust, and undermines the intimacy you thought you had , and a love you believed to be special, something you thought only you and your partner could touch. Suddenly , the physical love between you and your partner is NOT so special, its up for grabs by some new and interesting thing. This is a huge let down, a sadness. Something is inextricably broken that can never be repaired. The relationship is never the same after this. At least for me.

I have tried to protect myself from this. Open relationships, having ongoing affairs with old lovers so that I would not get hurt, with the supposed idea that if I did it too so I could not be affected.

I have tried to rationalize that men have 'other' needs than women, of conquest, physical and mental needs because of their biology or psychology. I have known more men than women in my life and because of being 'one with the guys' have seen things I dont wish any wife to know abut their husbands. I have seen many loving husbands cheat and lie, in some really surrly situations.

Although I know all of this and realize that sex for many men is about sport and not about anything else, I am still broken when it happens in my relationships. I guess I think I am above it all.
Women also have clandestine relationships, but I wonder if its sport sex at such a flagrant level.
We do know that men take cheating from their women very badly, yet think their own cheating is not a big deal.
It is a big deal, to me .

Well, I voted for the Destructive choice although I do question where it could happen in a truly "healthy" relationship. It seems to me that adultery is certainly a violation of trust, but more importantly, a distinct lack of respect for the other person that you profess to love. I don't know how you can love someone and not respect them and their feelings.

I am a Jimmy Carter type adulterer. I have thought about it. It isn't likely that I will actually ever do it. My church would view it as a sin, my wife would probably see it as a betrayal of trust, and I myself would see it as a weakness of self control.
I suppose if it is just occasional casual sex during periods of prolonged seperation, which is different from an ongoing relationship with someone other than your spouse or significant other, that it isn't quite as severe a sin/betrayal/weakness.
My opinion is, that if you actually love someone, you don't do things that would hurt them.

That quote by Selena Roberts is very telling. She clearly believes adultery to be not only acceptable but a forgone conclusion.

I consider the definition of adultery in this context to be not simply extramarital sexual intercourse, but a violation of trust. Honesty and mutual respect are everything. Deceiving and hurting your partner is an indication that you neither respect them, nor yourself. In the context set forth here, I would call adultery a sin...because that is the strongest word given, and willingly and hurtfully deceiving your loved one is a great offense.

I don't know about breaking trust, but the literal definition of adultery, i.e. any intercourse outside of an existing marriage is not, necessarily, something that's really that terrible. I mean, if there is some sort of sacred expectation that your partner will never ever touch another member of the opposite sex (which I don't quite understand) then I suppose it would be cruel, but adultery under it's strict definition isn't something that's necessarily bad.

To me, sex doesn't really have any of the things that society attaches to it. It's no different than any other bodily function. There's nothing that really gives sex the same weight with me as it does with ither people. I don't see how a guarantee that you will never again for as long as you live touch a member of the opposite sex makes a relationship any stronger. More possessive, maybe, but not any stronger. Me and my girlfriend have lasted almost 9 years now, and that's longer than a lot of marriages last. I know she's slept with other people, and I have no problem with that, because I have no fear that she'll leave me, and I think that's the underlying fear that makes most people so afraid of adultery.

If two people mutually enter into an agreement in which swearing fidelity forever is one of the tenets, then, obviously, infidelity is a breach of that agreement - and that is clearly wrong (though there are, as Victoria points out, far worse things). I feel that if more people (and I don't necessarily single out men here) were honest about their needs, desires, and curiosity, there would be fewer contracts which included the "forsaking all others" clause - and fewer relationships in which "faithfulness" was understood to be a given.

Personally, I'd go along with Rattlesnake to a large extent. What's the big deal with sex? To me, it is not so much "sport" as some have suggested, as it is a more intense means of communication. And even if sex only existed within the context of "love" (and I have never understood how those two concepts were confused), I find it impossible to believe that a human being is capable of loving only one other. We seem to accept the ability to love more than one child, more than one parent, more than one sibling - why do we draw the line with sexual partners?

I have been in a relationship for nearly twenty-three years now - and we were "faithful" for about the first six months (primarily because we hardly left the bedroom in that time). If fidelity had been a prerequisite to sustaining our relationship, rather than love, we wouldn't have lasted a year.

As to whether we take adultery seriously enough as a society, I'd say we do. We probably take it far too seriously. No one particularly admires someone who breaches an agreement with their partner. I wish we took other breaches of agreement as seriously.


Oh - just for the record, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is not one of the Ten Commandments, though it is commonly accepted as such. The real Ten Commandments, the covenant carved in stone, are to be found in Exodus 34: 10-26 (and include such gems as "Thou shalt not cook a young goat in its mother's milk") - not "all these words" which God spoke in Exodus 20:1-17 or Deuteronomy 5:6-21 (which actually total seventeen).

True, but isn't context everything? Lying, killing, and stealing are immoral under some conditions and not others. I might kill in self defense, lie to spare feelings, or steal to give food to the starving. Adultery (by the pure definition you cited) is the same.

Every partnership has an underlying understanding about the sexual dynamics which work within that relationship. If I were to buy my husband a hooker for his birthday because that was his ultimate fantasy, that would be a far sight different from him having an extramarital relationship and hiding it. The first example would be a mutual decision, the second a violation of trust (which I personally would equate with emotional abuse). The opening post to this thread seemed more a reflection of the latter example.

Mrs.P, from what I read and hear, a really good hooker can cost a lot of money, enough that a few trips with them can be the price of a new truck or car or boat.
So the price of 3 or 4 birthdays with hookers could get him something that he can use over and over again!
So speaking as a man who would like to have such an open-minded wife (not really, I am too cheap and have always been leary of "where it has been"), make sure he really wants it first! We men sometimes say we want things that we really don't. It is the pig in us.

LOL
Thanks for the heads up, Bill
It was just, um....a theoretical scenario.

Well, it's not exactly the same, at least IMO. I mean, to me, things like lying, killing and stealing are bad in themselves, as in that while there may be situations where they may be forced onto someone, these are actions that are against humanity at their heart, and if forced upon someone they must be undertaken with much caution and gravitas.

Killing is something that’s inherently bad. Sometimes we're forced to do it in self-defense or in war, but it's never something to be taken lightly or just accepted as normal. Adultery just isn't the same way.


Adultery can cause problems for people in a certain style of relationship, but there's nothing at the heart of it that makes it bad. I mean, all cultures have taboos, and one of ours is sex outside of marriage. There isn't really any logical reason that it's considered so terrible, it's mainly based on the Bible and, IMO, the materialistic, chauvinistic and possessive elements of our culture. I mean, in some places, it's considered unacceptable for a woman not to undergo certain sexual mutilations. This is just another hang-up of culture: that there's only supposed to be "one soulmate" for everyone. I don't believe that. Can adultery have unhappy consequences for some people? Yes. Is there something inherently bad about it? No.




Again, that's you. I mean, I seriously take sex about as seriously as the ol' "gotta keep warm somehow" cliché. If one of us were to "commit" adultery, we certainly wouldn't discuss it, it would just be something that happened, and neither of us would care. We are not forcing ourselves to follow guidelines simply because some book said them; we see no reason to punish ourselves for being human; it's just a book to us.

I guess any violation of God's or society's "guidelines" is no big deal to a person unless s/he happens to be the one victimized as a consequence. Then it's a horse of a different color... The homicide rate is a good reminder that not everyone is as "broad minded" as some of our posters.

If you love and cherish another person enough to say that s/he is all you want for life and you are willing to remain exclusive to that person as a sign of devotion, then marriage is for you. If you feel that fidelity is no big deal, why get married in the first place? The problems come when children result from the union (with you or another, possibly unnamed person). Then trying to sort things out can bring a world of hurt.

The more we rationalize our actions, rather than owning up to some things being right and some things being wrong, the more difficult it is to define morality and to instill it in our future generation. Role modeling becomes a joke. Acting like animals in heat has its drawbacks. Ultimately we reap (or don't reap) what we sow (or don't sow).

I had choose between destructive to a healthy relationship & a sin and i finally said sin because in a church, saying you will be faithful and all, you are basically violating a church rule kinda

I personally dont believe sex is just another bodily function. Although it can be performed as such, I find it rather vacant when compared to the act with someone you love.

In my head, brain, intellect and also with experience of life I am somewhat in agreement that one should not be expected to be eternally faithful to only one person. Things happen, people happen.
To give an example, when myself or my partner were traveling for extended periods, which people like us often do, we would meet someone and have a fling. We never considered this a big deal, in fact we would tell each other of it and it was fine, travel times were sort of off limits to fidelity.

I did have a problem when I was out of town and my partner met someone, had them stay at my home, in my bed, had parties and went out on the town with the woman and several of our mutual friends. When I returned home noone was able to look at me straight in the eye and I knew something went wrong. You can abuse even open relationships.

As far as having no fear someone will leave you. There is always the possibility when you become intimate with someone that you may fall for them. We are not animals exclusively. We are open to emotional stress, or temporary feelings that maybe our partner is 'not all that'. Often when you play with fire, you may get burned. I have found myself between two men and I lose, because its likely they will both leave. This is the very reason I never accept advances from married men. That situation can never be beneficial.

Fidelity is something I often loathe to discuss with my partners. It always appears to me they want to lock me down in an agreement they never really mean to keep for themselves. I usually keep the question open, just to keep the playing field level, although Im really faithful once in a relationship.

Ps. I realize we are talking about marriage, but since some of us are not marrying types I think the question still applies.

Is it taken too seriously in society? Yes. Can one get over these feelings of posession and betrayal? I have spent a lifetime at it and cant figure out how. I can smell another woman on my territory sooner than he even knows Ive figured it out. I cannot stand it.
Maybe, in the human realm there are wolves, dolphins, whales who are one time mates in a partnership for life, and lions, horses, elephants and others who are more multiple partner oriented. Although, interestingly, multiple partner relationships in the mammal world are almost all matriarchal. Males are used for sperm and protection only, the society is controlled, taught , nurtured and ultimately run by a grouping of females, often defending their young from being killed by the older males. Rouge males are often beat and nasty, fighting each other and barely making it with the most basic survival.

That's an interesting assessment, Artemise. I hadn't thought of it that way. One might say that animals for which sex is exclusively between mates have a much stronger bond in every way. Stronger bonds, IMO, are better environments for families. If sexual intimacy was unrelated to commitment there would be no argument in favor of gay marriage at all. Marry a woman and go have flings..Marry a man and be with women when you want. It simply doesn't work that way.

I heard a quote once that said,"Values reflect what used to pay". IOW...societal and personal values are in place today because cultural evolution found them to be important. We don't have to do the equivalent of reinvent the wheel every generation, because we have a basic societal guideline indicating what works best in most circumstances. It seems to fit on a primal level as well...which is why I've never felt drawn to rouge males.

I think there is a difference between a "fling" and promiscuous behavior.

How can you be in a committed relationship without being committed? One person here claims he has been in a committed relationship for 23 years, but faithfulness plays no part of that relationship (so much for recognizing same sex marriages to promote monogamy).

I am in a committed relationship with my wife and I could not even fathom going outside our marriage for sex. Why? Pretty simple. Because I actually love her. I don't WANT to be with anybody else. There is no need for me to get sex outside of marriage. Sex has been reduced on this board to simplistic animal behavior to get the ends to justify the means.

But how can you actually say you love someone and go outside your relationship for sex? How can you put your significant other through disease risks, the risk of violence from jealous wives/husbands, and all the other consequences associated with infidelity?

Obviously, mistakes happen and they should be recognized as such. But as usual, I'm terribly disappointed in the liberal attitude that "it's only sex". It seems to be a complete disregard for the one you supposedly love.

I don't think it's "only sex." I personally empathize with Artemise when she says that sex is pretty vacant if you don't care about the person that you are with, and I think that honesty is always important. If you say that you will be faithful, than you should.

What I don't buy into is the idea that all people should be expected to exist in the same rigid type of relationship. I believe in love, but I also believe that a person can love more than one person at a time. I also believe that sex has many dimensions, one of them being an expression of love.

If an alternative type of relationship is decided upon from the beginning, it can still be considered a committed relationship. I think the key factors are honesty and consent.

So basically, a committed relationship requires no commitment?

Reading comprehension is key DR.

Cyan is saying that she does not believe there is only one type of relationship. Making a commitment to someone does not necessarily mean monogamy, marriage etc.

Monogamy is not the only commitment available in relationships.
Cyan is simply saying if you enter a relationship and have no plans of being monogomous, you need to be open and honest about that.

Yes, thank you Eeyore. Basically, the terms of a relationship should be laid out at the beginning. That is it the commitment that all parties should be bound to. The terms of that commitment may vary from relationship to relationship.

Edited to fix my spelling.

Are you just figuring that out for yourself, or was there some other point you were trying to make?

If you are in a committed relationship that doesn't require monogamy, what have you committed to? Sharing a house payment and grocery bill? That's called having sex with your roommate.

"committed" just became words...not actions.

Perhaps. People get into relationships for a lot of different reasons, DR. Relationships are built on more than just sexuality. The absence of sex doesn't negate the validity of the relationship, correct? Why should the addition of sexual partners in certain circumstances negate that validity?

Edited to add: This is assuming that the addition is consented to by both partners

Ok, I'm really lost now. The topic here is about adultery and this is the most dysfunctional argument I've ever heard to validate a point. From what I understand, a committed relationship has nothing to do with intimacy and everything to do about splitting the cable bill? What is adultery under these circumstances? Switching to satellite?

So, someone is committed to a relationship without sex, but goes outside this relationship to get sex. Doesn't that go directly against your argument? That is, stating that at least one of the partners needs sex. And if that partner is not getting it at home, they go outside the home to get it? There is no commitment in that.

I'm sorry...but that is not a relationship. It violates every conceivable premise as to what a relationship is. I agree that people can be together without sex, but if someone is going outside that relationship to get sex, there is no commitment.

Dayton, you are completely misunderstanding me. A committed relationship can be based on a lot of different things, including or excluding physical intimacy.



Dayton, I don't know where you got that from, but that isn't what I was saying. I probably didn't articulate that well, and I apologize. This thread is about adultery, which we each have conflicting definitions of, and in your initial post, you said:



I'm disagreeing with you. I don't think that relationships like Wertz's fall under the adultery category, because both partners set the terms of the relationship at the beginning and neither partner is hiding their activities from the other. That is the commitment that they made, and it obviously works for them if they have been together for that many years.

In your case, I think it's wonderful that you and your wife love each other and that your sex life is satisfying enough that you don't feel the need to have sex outside of marriage. That is the commitment that you made.

People can't be categorized and fit into little boxes. Each relationship is as different as the people within it, and that's the way it should be.

Wrong. Society, at least as reflected by AD, treats adultery quite frivolously. When society treats something seriously, it makes very clear statements about it. The incentive/disincentive structures, both formal and informal, reflect society's serious treatment. Those who have responded are all over the map about it. Ignore the issue of "open marriages" for now, because that's merely a red-herring.

Let's take a look first at the explicit, formal structures that reveal how society treats adultery, i.e., the law. Cheat on your wife, what does it cost you in divorce court? Nothing. Same results, whether you cheat, she cheats, you both cheat, nobody cheats. What about "the other woman?" Scarlet letter for her? Nope, and even the alienation of affection laws have been toppling in the few places they remain. What about health? Cheat on your spouse, get an STD? Your privacy is legally more important than your spouse's health, which has been put as risk by betrayal. Legally, outside of the military, adultery is MEANINGLESS.

As for the informal structures, look at popular culture, and then among your own friends, family, and finally, yourself. If a friend of yours was cheating on their spouse, would you end the friendship? Tell the spouse? Maybe go out on "double dates" with the adulterer and "companion?" How many of you have attended the weddings of friends or family when you KNOW the relationship was the result of adultery? How many who chose not to attend have made clear to the "happy couple" exactly that you weren't going because of their adultery? How many would even consider, purely as a matter of principle in order to "treat adultery seriously", going to the wedding and objecting on the basis that the marriage is adulterous?

If your own married child came to visit for the weekend without their spouse, but did bring a "friend", would you welcome them?
If your stockbroker was having an affair, would you fire her, or compliment her on how vibrant she looked, how happy she looked? What would you think of somebody who did fire their stockbroker simply because she was having an affair?
Does a movie that celebrates adultery as "freeing the human spirit" appeal to you? When a married coworker starts talking about "maybe" doing something with another coworker, do you joke with them about how much fun it might be, fall silent, or maybe shame them for thinking about betraying their spouse? Those of you who are self-confessed "progressives", do you treat adultery as harshly as you do racism?

Adultery is a sin. Less importantly for this discussion, it is a sin in the theological sense. More importantly, it is also a sin against both the cuckolded spouse, and society. It is a corrosive acid that eats away at the most important building block of a civil society. Trust. Adultery destroys trust, not only within the relationship directly affected, but also it compromises the ability of those affected to trust others, i.e., the rest of society. The erosion of the cuckold's trust in society is excacerbated when society gives the adulterer a free pass, maybe even a pat on the back and a hearty . We cannot stop adultery, but we certainly can stop accepting it, normalizing it, even celebrating it. When we do, we will reduce its incidence, and that will be a good thing, for everybody.

Grace and peace, BD

That is a very good post BD.

Here is my thoughts on it, what is the adultry for, does the women no longer have feelings for me anymore and we stay together for social reasons, and or so it wont hurt the children.

What i am trying to say here is just that, marriage is a nice institution but i dont agree with it and i will never get married myself. My kids, i dont plan to have any but if i did, i hope i could raise them to see through that, if the child is raised in a society where the only outlet it has for growth is to be the home, a two parent home, it not being there is going to be the probelm as enforced by standards. I would like to think that two people can get married at 18 and hold deep convictions for each other for 70+ years but more or less marriage forces two people to look at it like a job, thats a good idea, but it does not take into account being human.

Do i think we should get away from it or not punish it, i dont want that anymore then i want a society of orphans and sex addicts.

Bikerdad, I am in agreement with your postings except for one thing:
I am a liberal and I think adultery is a sin. Even though I am politically liberal, I still believe that the family is the basic unit of human society and as such fidelity is one of the most important principles in keeping a society cohesive, for the reasons already stated.

I do think that a person has the right to expect his/her marital partner to remain faithful, considering both parties freely enter into the marital relationship in modern times, at least here. In the time of arranged, loveless marriages, unfaithful spouses would have more of an excuse. But nobody is holding a gun to their heads when they promise in a ceremony to forsake any other relationship that would get in the way of the marital union. Without trust, what good is friendship, let alone marriage?

It's simple enough. If a person does not feel s/he has the character or self discipline to follow the marital vows, don't take them!

As someone who has been on the wrong side of the adultery issue, I can testify from first-hand experience that trading a lifetime commitment for a fleeting physical sensation isn't all it's cracked up to be.

But after much soul-searching and weariness in trying to remember what lie I had previously used, I admitted the episode to my wife. It wasn't something she wanted to hear and it didn't make me feel like I'd lifted a great weight off my soul either. However through counseling and hard work we have regained the previously lost momentum in our 23 year-old-marriage.

I haven't met the husband who hasn't had lust in his heart and there are plenty of wives in the same boat. You start off as wild lovers, "mature" into a routine and far less spontaneous sex and finally you become room mates who every now and then knock boots. It takes a lot more than a best-selling "How To..." book and a wide selection of DVD's and sex toys to keep thing interesting behind closed doors.

Adultery, because it is wrong, but the desire to mate with others is strong, will never be stomped out of existence. Indeed, there are time when I still think the institution of marriage belongs in an institution. Who said that there only one person at a time can meet all your needs--emotionally, sexually, intellectually or whatever?

But adultery is eventually a short-term break from a longtime situation. The trick is to recognize before things reach a flashpoint where straying outside the conjugal bed looks like an attractive option.

This thread is amazing.
First Dayton Rocker, there are quite a few liberals here who are NOT happy with infidelity or free sex, so dont group us all in the same category, but.. many marriages are based on MUCH more than sex, and sometimes with no sex at all.

I have known men that are completely in love with their wives but sex is no part of the marriage for either her health problems, reasons of previous abuse to which the woman does not want sex, menopause, handicap or other. These men often seek the company of professionals for their needs, but dont have affairs and keep their 'love' marriages intact. Is this adultery in its most wicked sense? Can a man love a woman and desire to stay with her but possibly not ever have sex again for his whole life? If he loves, cares for and protects her, yet has a one hour thing on the side, never hurting her, is this a sin? Or shall he leave her because of such a trivial issue in the overall sense? who would win or lose? The same goes for women in the same type of relationships. I think its much more noble to stay with the one you love and make a little white lie.

Human relationships are very complex and I do not completely understand rigid, its a sin type thinking. There are too many variables. Some of my friends initially had open relationships and through the years became monogamous and got married for life. This is one of those issues that is really to each its own.

from the Encarta Dictionary online:

What is the matter with calling something a sin when it meets the definition (see above)? Everybody commits sins; sins vary according to type, intention and degree of severity. Don't worry; I don't think anyone around here has been stoned for sinning for quite a while. (If so, Jerry Springer would televise it! )

Adultery is a sin. Whether a person chooses to see it as an affront to God and/or an affront to other people is a matter of personal choice these days. If a person seeks forgiveness for a sin, it can be forgiven either by the deity in whom s/he believes and/or the person whom s/he hurt. The offense is not routinely forgiven if the person is not sorry.

Marital infidelity regrettable? Yes. Bad for a healthy relationship? Yes. No big deal? To those who do not value steadfast devotion in a life partner, no.

I don't say people are "living in sin" because they live together. That is their business. But as I aspire to teaching my daughter a good and happy way of life, I encourage marriage to a person you trust, who is your friend, and with whom you desire to spend the rest of your life.

It's not just a white dress, rings and an excuse for a big party. Marriage was not intended to be entered into lightly.

Actually, what I said was:

That grouped all liberals together? What's next? Pointing out typos and crappy grammar to invalidate a point?

Anyhow,

That's not the same argument I hear in the gay marriage thread. I had my proverbial a$$ kicked in that thread trying to make that point. Marriage in that thread was tax deductions and insurance coverage, so it's no shock that boinking anybody you want outside of your marriage is acceptable.

Thank you for clarifying that you were not lumping all of us liberals together with your statement.

As far as the gay marriage thread with all of the derriere whupping going on, I stand by the idea that in any case fidelity (whether I approve of the type of couple or not) is better than promiscuity any time.

Dayton, who are you trying to lump in with your statment? As far as I've seen in this thread, most of the liberals are not putting forth an attitude that "it's only sex," and even if some are, the vast majority said that they don't agree with adultery when it involves lying to a partner, myself included. None of us are far from the same page as you, I think...

I think that Adultery is wrong. You're breaking a very sacred promise with someone your committed to. If you want to go outside those vows you should end your current relationship. If you cannot control your libido, you don't deserve the love of someone who probably wants to spend the rest of their life with you. I couldn't trust that person again, nor would I want to stay with them. I'm a very jealous person. If I don't satisfy you, find it somewhere else, but you're not going to have your cake and eat it too.

Well, there doesn't seem to be much to reply to at this point in the thread, but to those who say that any healthy relationship requires marriage and complete and total sexual fidelity to your spouse, I'd say you're close-minded. Just because that is essential to you does not make it essential to everyone, nor is it a "fundamental building block of society." It's something that you and your spouse have chosen for whatever reasons you have, and that works for you. I know that I don't conform, but that's my business, and you can stay out of my bedroom.

Besides, I've been able to stay in an incredibly healthy relationship for 8 years now even though I don't demand that my girlfriend wear a chastity belt . We have two children, and they haven't been emotionally destroyed as far as I can tell. In fact, I can't really tell that much difference between us and any other family in the area, except that we might a little more "in love" than those who have gotten married and never ever look at anyone except their spouses. I don't understand how our sex lives could really affect that.


To me, a relationship is about more than just sex, and sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a relationship, so I don't really care if my partner sleeps with someone else. I don't understand how this is undermining our relationship our undermining our family. I just can't fathom where people are getting this. Do they think everyone who has any degree of an open relationship is running around, having sex with everyone, bringing them back to their house where their kids sleep, ect? If that's what you think, I assure you it isn't the case. We just don't see sex as this deep, profoundly emotional thing that should only be undertaken with someone you're deeply committed. That's not to say that sex is no different with someone you love, but in the end, sex is just three letters to us. Our relationship so far, far, far beyond the physical, and anyone who would question either our love or devotion for each other and our family can bugger off. I'm in love with my girlfriend, not her ------.

Oh, for the record, I haven't actually had sex (in any form) with anyone besides her for as long as we've considered ourselves a family, though she has.

I think we are having a miscommunication about 'liberal' here. I think DR is saying that sex outside of marriage and open relationships etc. is 'liberal' thought, not the 'Liberals' think.

My bad. We get a bit used to being bashed for being Libs or Conservs in these forums and its hard to read peoples intentions in type sometimes, especially when liberal is the same-ish as Liberal, depending on how well the poster defines.

I got you DR. (bowing deeply)

Not a problem. I've learned to be fairly thick-skinned around here...

Ah...my misunderstanding. Sorry about that DR.

Trust is not a "fundamental building block of society"? I sure hope I never find myself in a society that you create.

Rattlesnake didn't mention the word trust in association with that sentence, biker.

Just because one person is raised to believe in a particular moral structure does not extend that morality to the entire universe. Muslims, Mormons, and any number of indigenous tribes have had various moral structures associated with mating and relationship.

Trust is only abridged when infidelity is nonconsentual. If it is agreed by both people, it wouldn't even be infidelity, because it was within the boundaries of the defining structure of the relationship.

I have been faithfully and happily married for 13 years, but my wife and I don't presume that everyone else must live the same way we do. Adultery is very very wrong if it is deceitful, but what if both people are enthusiastic and open about it?

It is not wrong in and of itself; it is wrong within a certain context.

Maybe people have a different idea of adultery? I think of adultery as sneaking around, lying about how late you're working, going on business trips, etc...

You can argue that sex with another partner will or will not destroy the relationship, but you'd have to bring an arsenal of evidence that dishonesty and betraying someone's trust doesn't completely obliterate it.

So if rattle and his wife are open about their sexual extraciricular activities, that may work for them.

He didn't have to, he scare quoted it. If you search through this thread, the only place you'll find the concept of "building block" is in my first post. Here's the relevant portion:

It (adultery) is a corrosive acid that eats away at the most important building block of a civil society. Trust. What else could he have been referring to, with scare quotes and all?

Whether it does or not is a question of theology and philosophy. Here I'm talking about sociology and anthropology, and you won't find a single sociologist or anthropologist who will disagree with my statement concerning trust. Without it, civil society can't exist.

Well, as I said: Ignore the issue of "open marriages" for now, because that's merely a red-herring. But, since fishing is the order of the day, consentual infidelity/adultery/open marriages are also detrimental to the basic level of trust in a society, although not to nearly the same extent as good ol' fashioned sneakin' around adultery. The reason is because other married folks will see what's going on, and either want that lusty life themselves, or fear that their spouse will want it. I make no claim that this is rational behavior (neither are the reasons most people get married), but it is human behavior. Every advanced society in history has the moral proscription on adultery. There may be some variation in how it is defined (although not all that much), and there has been a lot of variation in the disincentive structure, but the core definition that its wrong is constant.

Why? Twisted ethics handed down from some mythical sky god? That doesn't explain ancient Chinese prohibitions of adultery. Oppression by the patriarchy? That doesn't explain why women have usually been at the forefront of upholding the standard of fidelity in culture after culture. No, its because up to this point in time, successful societies have found that adultery is destructive to the members of society and society itself. Perhaps the economic, reproductive and childrearing foundations have changed enough to alter that, but I'm not hopeful. Adultery, in the strictest definition, may not be destructive to the specific marriage involved (heck, read enough Penthouse and you'll believe it will probably help!), but it still poses risks to society as a whole. Whether those risks are manageable in our new era is yet to be seen.

Grace and peace, BD

You took that out of context, BD. I'm not going to quote your whole post, but in your post you certainly didn't make any distinction between consentual and mutally accetpable adultery and going behind your spouse's back. In fact, I got the impression that you thought both were akin to murder. If I got that wrong, then all right, but try to be clearer next time.




I think people should take care of themselves. If the fact that someone might have sex outside of a marriage is so sexy to you that you can't help but do it yourself, then that's your problem. I'm not here to make sure you don't have anything challenge your notions of what morality and politics should be like. I'm here to challenge them. If you really are gonna get so horny know that people are having sex outside of marriage that you're "forced" to cheat on your spouse, then you probably shouldn't be married anyway (unless, of course your partner is all right with it.) I can't make you follow your own morals, buddy, and I can't make you break them. That's a choice only you can make.

As Ben Harper said, "My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm doing no harm it shouldn't bother you. Your choice is what you choose to be, and if you're doing no harm then you're all right with me."




That's not really true, the Greeks, on which most of out society was based, were both adulterers and homosexuals, and their society flourished like few others. The Romans carved out a huge empire and held on to it longer than almost any other nation ever, and they influenced almost everything in our society, from government to religion to warfare, yet they were not shy about sex outside of marriage. In fact, most Romans were quite raunchy. In fact, the Romans did not see love as a good thing, but rather as something terrible that consumed your life. Just read Amores, one of the best books of poetry ever written. However, it's lacking in English, I'd suggest the Latin original, assuming you know Latin.




How? By making people so horny they have to cheat? Please.

aah, but I did my loquacious serpentine netfellow, I did. Ignore the issue of "open marriages" for now, because that's merely a red-herring.

An interesting impression. I will say, again from the theological point of view, that both adultery and murder made it onto the Ten Commandments, so one could make the claim that adultery is as serious as murder. However, I would have though that this Less importantly for this discussion, it is a sin in the theological sense. would have made it clear that I'm not talking theology here, but practical sociology.

Gee, so do I, even more than you, given that you're a Green. One place where we differ is that I don't think people should go around leaving sociological landmines scattered willy nilly about. I realize that if I were the harsh, utterly selfish, uncaring conservative of Green fantasy, I'd simply say "hey, if they can't afford to drive herds of endangered creatures into the minefield to clear it, then to hell with them."

Challenge away, but try to do so based on the reality of human nature, not some self-serving hyper-rationalist fantasy that justifies anything and condemns those who are less rational and noble than you to deal with the devastation that implementing your surreal fantasies bring about.

No, its society's problem when another child (or 2, or 5) experiences a broken home. Its YOUR problem when you're sitting in a restaraunt and an enraged spouse drives 2 tons of steel, rubber, glass and upholstery through the plate glass window in order to settle the matter with her cheating spouse in the booth behind you.

Try reading Shakespeare instead, maybe you'll come to some understanding. Or consider this: how many people are killed in America every year that can be positively traced to racism and/or homophobia? How many are killed by enraged cuckolded spouses, or are killed by adulterous spouses seeking to be "free?"

There's a WHOLE lot more killin' going on connected with adultery than racism. But hey, its not society's problem.

When I was a child, libertine was the term (and there were less polite terms) to define a person who went around freely having affairs with no responsibility. Someone who could not be depended upon, someone whom your parents cautioned you to avoid. He'll break your heart...

Of course this was when society was stabler, because society valued and encouraged morality and shunned those engaged in immorality.
That was the time when television stations earned the "Seal of Good Practice" which guaranteed that what was shown on that station was wholesome.

I'm not looking for the Taliban to take over and start imposing their strict morality. I have no desire to wear a birka and depend on my husband to take me out every time I need to go out, even though I do prefer to go places with him.

But I am saying that it was an overall sweeter time when we followed a code and could depend on others to do the same thing. Right and wrong were much more easily defined. The principles of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule always provided guidance if we were ever in doubt.

Morality made for a stronger society. Morality is sorely needed again.

@ BD



You still haven't provided any evidence that sleeping with someone besides your wife is a "sociological landmine." As I've said in just about every post in this thread, I'm talking about consentual adultery. I still don't see how that hurt anyone. My relationtionship is much more stable than some marriages, and I feel I have more trust too.




What? You're just throwing around big words to sound smart. I'm not condemning anyone, you're the one who's condemning. You're telling me that I'm not allowed to live my life in the way I see fit, because you feel that there's only one acceptable way to live. I'm sorry if I can't conform to your Southern Baptist mentality, but I have my own life, and I'm going to live it as I see fit. Just mind your own business, what goes on in my bedroom has nothing to do with you.




Nice way to act superiror there, Sailor. Last time I checked, Shakespeare wasn't the only authority on what people are allowed to do with their own lives. He was also a mysogenist and an elietist.




As I've said in every post in this thread, I do not approve of cheating on your partner, but I have no problem with sleeping with people other than your parner when you both agree it's acceptable. Maybe if we didn't treat sex like it was the ultimate evil, people wouldn't go around killing people over it so much.


@ Paladin



Really? It's not immoral to beat your wife and children, treat people of other races with contempt and to spend all your time drinking? From what I can see, the '50s were not a time of less immorality, but only a time when the type of immorality was different, and when no one talked about them. Sure, there was more "stability," but that wasn't necessarily because everything was so peachy, but rather because women weren't allowed the social freedom to leave a marriage.




It was also the time when people would get drunk and go hang black people from trees. It was also a time when the world you're describing had almost no knowledge of the rampant poverty that plauged so much of the nation.




Well, in some ways. In that time, families were closer, but that doesn't mean life was better. I don't like uniformity. I don't like this idea that there's only one way that you're allowed to think, one way that you're allowed to dress, and one way that you're allowed to live. I want to be able to live my life without having to follow a "code." I don't want to depend on everyone to do the same thing as me. I want to depend on everyone to be themselves and not be forced to live up to some commecialized, soccer-mom suburban ideal where the man goes to work, the woman stays home and the kids go to college to be doctors and laywers and vote Republican.

I don't want to go back to the past, I want to go forward to the future. I want the freedom to be myself, and that world's not me. To me, uniformity is next to tyranny.