Should I be cheating?

[Iskaral Pust]

Forget about the Outlander time travel scenario, the real question is whether I'm a naive idiot for never cheating?  Is it just a taboo that everyone does but never admits, or do we really have this collective agreement that we're all committed to monogamy?

Reassure me that I'm not unnecessarily passing up these opportunities, because I'm pretty sure the opportunities will dwindle with time. 

This question came up in a conversation not too long ago and the group was about 50:50 split on whether this was something that no-one did or that everyone at least tried.  Is there something I don't know?

[Altherion]

It's even harder to find reliable data on this than on most other sociological phenomena. That said, here's a Forbes article which cites a study that is also cited by several other fairly respectable publications (example). The study says 3-4% of married people are cheating (in the sense of having a sexual relationship with somebody other than their spouse) in any given year and 15-18% of married people have ever done it. So basically, it is common enough that everybody who is acquainted with at least 30 people (i.e. everyone isn't a hermit) probably knows at least a few people who have done it, but not nearly so common as to imply that everyone has done it. In fact, the preceding statement is true even if they're off by 2 in either direction.

In other words, you may consider yourself reassured.

[Larry of the Lawn]

We've been over the "is monogamy a failure as an idea" question.  iirc the consensus was that it's kind of begging the question.  I think 'cheating' has a negative connotation that puts blame on the partner who strays.  As such, I'd argue that cheating or infidelity is often, but not necessarily, a symptom of other relationship issues.  I think a binary approach or the old gag 'once a cheater always a cheater' is essentially a BS framing of human sexuality and behavior.  

Trust should be reciprocated but in my own anecdotal experience infidelity is rarely an issue of to cheat or not to cheat.

[felice]

49 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Forget about the Outlander time travel scenario, the real question is whether I'm a naive idiot for never cheating?

No, you're a decent person. Cheating is never acceptable. On the other hand, it's not cheating if it's not against the rules (letter and spirit), and while monogamy is the default, there's nothing to stop you establishing different house rules with your partner(s). The rules have to apply equally to everyone involved, though.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, felice said:

No, you're a decent person. Cheating is never acceptable. On the other hand, it's not cheating if it's not against the rules (letter and spirit), and while monogamy is the default, there's nothing to stop you establishing different house rules with your partner(s). The rules have to apply equally to everyone involved, though.

I think there are actually a variety of stations that make it ok to stray beyond a relationship, not limited to abuse, neglect, etc.  And a slew of milder situations that are beyond outside judgment for their specificity. 

[felice]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think there are actually a variety of stations that make it ok to stray beyond a relationship, not limited to abuse, neglect, etc.

Hmm... those should probably also be considered cheating, since I'm pretty sure abuse and neglect are against the rules of most relationships. But yes, there are exceptions to every rule.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Should you be cheating? Hell no. But as felice says, monogamy is not the only mode of relationships available to us in this glorious modern era, and if consensual nonmonogamy something that everyone in the relationship wishes to explore, then more power to them (you). 

[Iskaral Pust]

Who in hell ever raises the possibility of consensual nonmonogamy?  I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.  I assume they consult a divorce lawyer beforehand  

@Altherion  thanks, I'm reassured.  No-one wants to think they're the patsy in the game of life. 

Part of this question falls under the thanklessness of a virtuous life.  Fidelity to a spouse is one of the few aspects of virtuous living that has an objective moral basis: a promise to another.  All the other stuff like sobriety, healthy eating, exercise, financial responsibility, etc are all uneasy promises to ourselves, with no medals awarded on death beds.  As I get older I think more about the opportunity cost of various forms of self-denial.  I still plan to play catch-up with a ton of illegal drugs when dementia starts.

Considering this was a parody thread, I appreciate the thoughtful and surprisingly non-judgy responses.  But we need a devil's advocate to really kick this off.  Who wants to make the case that lifetime monogamy is a trap for people who don't know what they're signing up for and therefore can't be held binding?

(I was really surprised that some of my friends thought that marital infidelity is an inevitable stage of life/marriage.  I doubt I'll ever completely forget they said that.)

[Xray the Enforcer]

31 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Who in hell ever raises the possibility of consensual nonmonogamy?

Everyone in a consensual nonmonogamous relationship or marriage, of which there are a number among my friends, including a number of boarders. It's not as unusual as you think, it's just not something that's talked about much with most people because, for whatever reason, lots of people get aggressive/weird about the thought of nonmonogamy. Ain't nobody got time to be lectured by some rando about one's consensual life choices. Also, if you think that consensual nonmonogamy doesn't involve making and keeping promises to someone (e.g. your primary partner), you're profoundly misinformed. (BTW, I think monogamy is a fine choice that works for many people. I just don't think it's the ONLY valid choice for long-term relationships/marriages.)

[The Anti-Targ]

I think if you want to flexible in your sexual encounters then you should arguably not be entering into a relationship where exclusivity is implicit or explicit. A typical marriage comes with the expectation of exclusivity in sexual relations. If that's not you then either establish an explicitly more open marriage contract or just don't enter into relationships of the traditional nature.

It's not the playing around that's the problem. It's the lying about about it. So long as you are not lying (concealing the truth = lying) then what you do is up to you.

Therefore "cheating" being suggestive of dishonesty I'd say no, one should never cheat. Being non-exclusive with sexual partners, however, that's totally up to your own personal morality and I don't think it's right for anyone to say yes you should or no you shouldn't, since in both cases that's a person trying to convince you of the correctness of their own moral perspective. You can certainly ask people about why they think and act as they do and be informed about your own moral choices taking these things into account. 

I've never particularly thought "everyone else is doing it" is a particularly solid moral compass. Try to at least formulate your morality on some sort of fairly objective principles.

[Iskaral Pust]

22 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Everyone in a consensual nonmonogamous relationship or marriage, of which there are a number among my friends, including a number of boarders. It's not as unusual as you think, it's just not something that's talked about much with most people because, for whatever reason, lots of people get aggressive/weird about the thought of nonmonogamy. Ain't nobody got time to be lectured by some rando about one's consensual life choices. Also, if you think that consensual nonmonogamy doesn't involve making and keeping promises to someone (e.g. your primary partner), you're profoundly misinformed. (BTW, I think monogamy is a fine choice that works for many people. I just don't think it's the ONLY valid choice for long-term relationships/marriages.)

I agree with all the above.  I just can't imagine how you broach the subject to convert a previously monogamous lifetime commitment to a newly nonmonogamous situation, even with new promises, boundaries, etc.  It must be easier to start from that basis than convert midway.  From my very sheltered standpoint, just introducing that idea sounds like a pretty big bomb to drop and a contravention of your original promise.  I'm totally on board that people and relationships change over time and that there has to be mutual trust and the ability to voice what's on your mind, but that particular conversation seems to carry a lot of risk of undermining trust if the other spouse isn't open to it, or perhaps they now feel pressured to accept.  Tricky territory.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I agree with all the above.  I just can't imagine how you broach the subject to convert a previously monogamous lifetime commitment to a newly nonmonogamous situation, even with new promises, boundaries, etc.  It must be easier to start from that basis than convert midway.  From my very sheltered standpoint, just introducing that idea sounds like a pretty big bomb to drop and a contravention of your original promise.  I'm totally on board that people and relationships change over time and that there has to be mutual trust and the ability to voice what's on your mind, but that particular conversation seems to carry a lot of risk of undermining trust if the other spouse isn't open to it, or perhaps they now feel pressured to accept.  Tricky territory.

Most people I know whose relationships change from monogamous to nonmonogamous usually come to the realization that sex isn't some super sacred act that is somehow significantly different than any other human function. It's very rare that a person receives everything they need or want solely from their significant other, so why should sex be any different?  

[Iskaral Pust]

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I've never particularly thought "everyone else is doing it" is a particularly solid moral compass. Try to at least formulate your morality on some sort of fairly objective principles.

You know I was kidding, right?  If I was trying to solicit actual justification, I would have used more ambiguous language than "cheating".

[Iskaral Pust]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Most people I know whose relationships change from monogamous to nonmonogamous usually come to the realization that sex isn't some super sacred act that is somehow significantly different than any other human function. It's very rare that a person receives everything they need or want solely from their significant other, so why should sex be any different?  

I agree with that too.  I can even recognize how my own attitude to the sanctity of sex changed over time, although the intimacy and trust issues that are all tied up with the biology of sex are much harder to separate cleanly.  It's all a minefield of our own creation and I think we each choose a path that suits us best.  Definitely not a one size fits all.

[Xray the Enforcer]

55 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Considering this was a parody thread, I appreciate the thoughtful and surprisingly non-judgy responses.  But we need a devil's advocate to really kick this off.  Who wants to make the case that lifetime monogamy is a trap for people who don't know what they're signing up for and therefore can't be held binding?

Sorry, just don't have it in me today. Maybe if I drank more...(not gonna happen tonight, as I have work tomorrow).

[baxus]

7 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

 

@Altherion  thanks, I'm reassured.  No-one wants to think they're the patsy in the game of life. 

Why would you consider someone who's not cheating while everyone else is a patsy?

We are all aware of a concept of cheating. Some of us choose not to do it and the others go the other way. It's a choice one makes, hopefully while fully aware of gains/risks involved.

 

6 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I agree with all the above.  I just can't imagine how you broach the subject to convert a previously monogamous lifetime commitment to a newly nonmonogamous situation, even with new promises, boundaries, etc.  It must be easier to start from that basis than convert midway.  From my very sheltered standpoint, just introducing that idea sounds like a pretty big bomb to drop and a contravention of your original promise.  I'm totally on board that people and relationships change over time and that there has to be mutual trust and the ability to voice what's on your mind, but that particular conversation seems to carry a lot of risk of undermining trust if the other spouse isn't open to it, or perhaps they now feel pressured to accept.  Tricky territory.

It's definitely a big bomb to drop. Wanting to change your relationship from monogamous to non-monogamous is not something that happens overnight. If you wait that long to have a conversation about your relationship, then someone is in for a surprise. :lol: 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I think there are two conflicting factors:

1) Humans find it very hard to be monogamous over large periods of time, lots of evidence pointing to the fact that we aren't designed that way. Certainly relationships are far more complicated than being just about sex or even love. Over history ,men for example have had many other outlets for their sexual desires, prostitutes and mistresses. Its hard to find a time when anyone was truly monogamous, and whether the concept isn't a human construct designed to keep society together.

2) You don't get to go backwards in relationships. In general its usually something men want and women resist, but I find both sexes cannot handle the moving backwards. It takes a very special type of couple to be able to handle sex with others, and even then I think most are just trying to cover up their own emotional trauma about the situation. 

My own opinion is that you shouldn't get into long term relationships until you are at a point in your life where you feel you've done enough exploring of your sexuality and are happy to just move onto another portion of your life. Otherwise you are wasting everyones time.

[Masonity]

I can actually help with the how you drop the bomb... You do it slowly. 

 

When my wife realised I was into stuff she wasn't, she off handedly suggested if I was super desperate I could always try those kinks with other people. A little later I let her know I'd be cool with her being with other women, then a little later with other guys if she wanted to too. Then when I came out as bi she asked if I wanted to just outright open the relationship. Every step of the way it was one of us offering the other freedoms, not asking for them ourselves. Neither of us did anything until that final opening either. 

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Considering this was a parody thread, I appreciate the thoughtful and surprisingly non-judgy responses.  But we need a devil's advocate to really kick this off.  Who wants to make the case that lifetime monogamy is a trap for people who don't know what they're signing up for and therefore can't be held binding?

That's pretty awesome, especially after reading Altherion's data-driven response.  

To the bolded - my parents?

[brook]

I'm not entirely sure why a relationship change = "going backwards"

Maybe some do see it that way but most people I've known who have actually done so view it as a natural progression that usually involves a number of small changes and discussions rather than one partner sitting the other down to propose opening the relationship out of the blue.