Infidelity

[QuantumT]

Is it wrong?

From an evolutionary point of view it's normal and an advantage.

From a romantic point of view it's treason and destructive.

Do we own one another, when we become couples?

Is vengeance just, if we are "betrayed"?

Shouldn't we just forget romance, and be free?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

From an evolutionary point of view it's normal and an advantage.

I do think it's wrong. Unlike other animals, monogamy is a principle that's typically held by people. Now, I don't think it's as bad as some people would like to believe...namely, the people being cheated on. I've been expected to end my friendship with people because they've cheated on their spouse, and that to me is absolutely absurd. I'd definitely end my friendship with someone if they raped someone or molested a child, but cheating is a very peculiar type of immorality. It mostly just effects the person that it's being committed against, and it also doesn't necessarily indicate much about someones character. If someone steals, sells spiked drugs, or murders - well, those immoralities are very indicative of the type of person someone is.

What I'm getting at, is that it has a very direct intention, I think for this reason I can't really hate anyone who does it, unless I'm the one who's the victim of this infidelity...It's on an odd moral ground when you think about it.

[Walker]

Breaking a vow makes you weaker.
Keeping a vow makes you stronger.

This is because of vow dynamics and the body/mind connection.

The vow is public. It is spoken out loud. It is ceremonial, solemn, and it is made to witnesses. It’s made to the absolute. This makes vows a substantive and sustaining source of happiness.

A vow carries much more power than a suggestion whispered only to oneself, which might be forgotten by snack time.

Unlike self-declarations of what or who you are, the vow defines you objectively. Because you made the vow, in relation to your actions it becomes an objective measure of your identity.

Because of the dynamic, post-vow mind defines your life and existence in relation to the vow, kept or broken. You may not even realize it until a moment of clarity intrudes upon daily life.

If marriage vows include polygamy, then there is no infidelity because the vow is not broken, there is no conflict with the vow, and there is no resulting inner turmoil that causes suffering for all concerned. If polygamy is legal or culturally acceptable and part of the formal vows, then the woman probably doesn’t have an equal voice in the relationship, and could be living in conflict with the vow itself.

[Skip]

Is it wrong?

Depends on your moral matrix. Right and wrong are socially and culturally defined; breaking rules has social consequences, as well as psychological and practical ones, all of which depend on what you and the people around you believe.

From an evolutionary point of view it's normal and an advantage.

Well, there, you have some problems. Yes, a male can spread his chromosomes wider, and have spare offspring that he doesn't need to support... if the mate of one of the off-limits females doesn't catch him at it and take him out of the gene-pool for good. Yes, a female who has young by more than one male may be hedging her genetic bets.... if the male who supports her young doesn't find out and abandon them. Then, of course, there are both male and female animals that routinely kill the progeny of their rivals.
Sometimes coulouring inside the lines is more advantageous.

Do we own one another, when we become couples?

That's a deliberately negative way of putting it, but, yes.
That's why we introduce the mate as "my wife", "my husband" "my fiance" or "my partner".
The pair-bonding troth (whether publicly ceremonial or privately pledged) is a contract which carries privileges and duties, expectations and gratifications, responsibilities and limitations.
But most importantly, it's a voluntary transformation of two separate individuals to a couple: this means both people belong to the unit and to each other.

Is vengeance just, if we are "betrayed"?

That, too, is a culturally determined judgment.

Shouldn't we just forget romance, and be free?

That's not an ethical matter. It's an entirely personal choice.
Of course, as social animals, we are generally prone to crave companionship, validation, emotional security and physical affection. Most of us, when single, find it impossible to ignore romance: it rings a bell every time we encounter an appropriate other: we see mate-potential. And there is the even more basic biological imperative, not only to pass along DNA, but to possess and nurture offspring. And there are cultural and familial pressures to conform to societal pattern.

There persists, in civilized folklore, a version of Utopia where all humans are playful, unfettered, uninhibited hedonists. The down-side is, they're shallow and boring. They are perpetual children. For a mature human, some degrees of commitment - to principles or an ideal, to friends or a fraternity, to a life-mate and family, to a life's work or goal, to a community or nation - is necessary to self-fulfillment. They can't be happy without it.

[Kayla]

do we own one another?

would not put it this way but we certainly give up a lot of autonomy for the sake of the other person

does cheating indicate anything about character?

i would say it does but it really depends on the contet

if someone cheats habitually that says something about their character

if someone cheats with someone really attractive who comes on really strong, maybe not so much

[Eodnhoj7]

Is it wrong?

From an evolutionary point of view it's normal and an advantage.

From a romantic point of view it's treason and destructive.

Do we own one another, when we become couples?

Is vengeance just, if we are "betrayed"?

Shouldn't we just forget romance, and be free?

From an evolutionary viewpoint we progress nowhere if stuck to the laws of evolution alone to determine reality. Evolution, as a form of progressive negation, must eventually negate itself....under these terms infidelity must eventually cancel itself out to fidelity eventually.