i will just start out the thread by stating that my mostly unexamined ideas about fidelity have been changed a bit by meeting french women who say up-front that they don't think it is reasonable to expect a man to be faithful - that is just unnatural. What they *do* expect, however, is to be treated with love and respect and consideration if and when a lover or husband does have an affair.
The corollary of this seems to be that they will do the same if and when they have an affair - and seem genuinely open to that.
was reading on the airplane Jerome Clement's book _Les Femmes et l'amour_, Women and Love, a series of interviews about love with women who are mostly French celebrities, including Catherine Millet.
they're not earth-shattering, but the interviews are refreshingly philosophical and honest while simultaneously unspecific as to personal details.
I've never had a partner cheat on me (that I know of, at least), but it's seems like something that would be really awful for me. Partly as a result of my anticipated reaction to infidelity, a while ago I made a conscious decision to just not cheat. I can't say that I would never, but it's not something I anticipate doing.
To be sort of cliched, it's a rather shocking breach of the trust that's present in a relationship.
I don't think sexual infidelity is the worst thing that could be done. I note that the phrasing of your question only allows for it being the worst or among the set of equally-bad worst things—not that there could be yet worse things.
I've been very tempted lately, but only because things aren't so hot in my relationship right now and I've been getting a lot of opportunities in recent weeks.
I don't have a history of cheating, though. I've kissed someone else, but that's as far as I've gone (and that wasn't during my current relationship, it was years ago). I have a pretty serious guilt complex when it comes to infidelity, even to the point where I feel guilty if I'm heavily flirting with another woman. This is likely because my father cheated on my mother, and I saw what it did to her.
I don't know; I could see myself doing it, I suppose. But not for any length of time. I would certainly either tell my gf, or end the relationship for other reasons. I figure if I'm cheating, it's likely that there are larger problems.
Could we make a rule, that TV-show plot references used for illustration of posts about sexual mores, have to be taken from Aaron Spelling-produced shows? I reckon Dylan, Brenda and Kelly have much to teach us in this regard.
Also, you know, the badness really depends on the expectations of both parties, no? Even if logically it's not the worst thing, you may not have time to lay out your case convincingly.
I asked him last night if he would tell me. He said yeah
Okay, I've never met you or your beau, so take this with the seriousness it deserves: nearly everybody gives that answer, regardless of how they handle (or would handle) the situation in real life. And how one handles it is unlikely to be consistent across all scenarios.
At my advanced age, I've now been in and witnessed enough relationships to state firmly that, unless you are carrying on an extended relationship outside of your primary one, fessing up is almost never a good idea. If it happened and you aren't planning on it happening again, then just let it lie.
Apostropher, right again. Asking someone the "you would tell me?" question is fraught, because if he says 'no' then any future denials, truthful or not, will be regarded with suspicion-- hey, maybe he's cheated already and hasn't told you! So it's not like he can give an honest and reflective answer without penalty.
This moment is sort of like the "promise you won't get mad" moment in that it seems to ignore what's at work in the question.
11: I'm reasonably certain he would. I already told him about the time I had unprotected sex with someone else near the beginning of our relationship, and he was quite rightly angry with me, not because I was supposed to not see other people, but because I was supposed to not take disease risks like that, for my own sake and because they impinged on our relationship. I think we've already forgive each other for enough serious stuff, and he knows I don't think cheating is the end of the world, that there's no reason he couldn't tell me.
At my advanced age, I've now been in and witnessed enough relationships to state firmly that, unless you are carrying on an extended relationship outside of your primary one, fessing up is almost never a good idea. If it happened and you aren't planning on it happening again, then just let it lie.
I know I said this in the body of the post--but doesn't your partner have a right to know if you had sex with someone else so they can consider what disease risks they want to take with you?
If you can get tested without telling, then, is it ok not to tell? I submit that few people would go straight to disease exposure on being informed of infidelity.
I've always thought it would really devastate me if my girlfriend/spouse/whatever cheated, and for that reason, have always told myself I cannot do it, and haven't.
That doesn't mean I'm never tempted or couldn't ever do it. The bigger temptations for me are people I know, where we have some sort of connection that is different from the connection with whoever I'm dating at the time. That sounds teh ghey, but is how I am.
16: the only way that scheme would work is if you came up with a plausible reason to not to anything disease-transmitting for three months, which is how long you have to wait to get an HIV test. And sure, few people would think about it first, but that's the first reason I think there's a moral obligation to tell your partner. If that consideration were absent, I might go along with the "what they don't know..." crowd.
While not telling is probably decent advice, if your SO is also your closest confidant, and you're kind of worked up about the fact of having cheated, then a simple slip can spiral out of control in your head before the SO ever knows something is wrong.
it is probably a better relationship where either person could tell. But without having told, how do you know if you have that kind of relationship or not?
The solution to text's problem is simple: one day, lie to your partner about having cheated, and observe closely his or her reaction! Then, after some suitable amount of time has elapsed, inform h/h that you had actually been faithful all along, and just wanted to know how h/s would react.
I certainly don't think this plan could have any flaws!
Yes, I am the Ogged heir: preoccupied with social mores, more earnest than I'd care to admit, and possessor of a lame-ass love life. The king is dead; long live the queen.
go straight to disease exposure on being informed of infidelity.
of course one does, because it is the unanswerable reproach, which cannot be fended off with "it was nothing" or "I thought you were more open-minded than that".
I broke off a relationship upon discovering my partner's infidelity, but only because it was the frosting of disrespect on the cake of general badness. If I had had other reasons to want the relationship to continue, I'd have found a way to get past it.
or arrange to have your partner catch you in the act. The scene must be arranged with care. It would be unfortunate for your partner to detect the ruse immediately! For this reason, it is necessary to commit vaginal penetration. But it is not cheating if you want your spouse to find you. If h/s doesn't understand, it's because your love was shallow!
SCMT, I hear that, but if I was cheating, I'm 99% sure it would mean that I wanted out anyway, so hiding it would be beside the point.
Break up, then. But don't tell her, even then, if she doesn't know or clearly suspect. If she suspects, validate her suspicions. But otherwise, why smack her as you walk out the door?
I don't know how y'all are getting past the disease thing. I wonder if there is an age gap, and those of up brought up post-HIV are more focused on that stuff.
I can't imagine cheating because I've found that when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way. It's not for reasons of morality – I'm just not interested. I can't imagine what the circumstances would be, but it's hard to never say never.
Ben, you know that Grice paper on meaning? Where he talks about the difference between showing a man a photograph of his wife having an affair and showing him a drawing of his wife having an affair? We should totally accost Tia's guy and draw him some weird pictures. I have a feeling it'd go over well.
also, for the test to work, it is integral that one find the proper actress. You can't tell just from looking at a person whether or not she is right for the job. That is a common mistake, and how awful! People think that any old person will do.
You might need to test out ten or twenty participants before finding the correct one. The process could very well take a year or two, and if you are not prepared for that, perhaps you should think over your relationship!
Ultimately your spouse will thank you when the ruse is over, that the partner chosen was of the proper proportion and expressed herself in a believable fashion, and that it was a performance, above all, with integrity. For integrity is the ultimate purpose of the experiment. Without it, what is it that you're doing!
I don't know how y'all are getting past the disease thing. I wonder if there is an age gap, and those of up brought up post-HIV are more focused on that stuff.
There are ways to dramatically limit disease exposure. Also, I have to say that, generally, people today seem (perhaps rightly - I don't know) a lot less worried about AIDS than when I was a kid.
when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way
But other men have not stopped seeing you in a sexual way, and one of them might just be asshole enough to try to peel you off from a relationship that's going through a rough patch.
44 - I know – as I wrote that I was thinking "none of the men are going to relate to this". And probably a lot of the women.
And, as someone who has been on the other end of one of those "BTW, I cheated back when we were still dating so you'd better go get tested" calls, there's a special place in hell for that.
You are a member of a tiny minority then, Becks. And obviously not a guy.
Actually there are many guys who do not think about other men in a sexual way. Mystifying I know -- you don't see many of that type at the Mineshaft -- but that's what I hear tell.
47: That's what I'm talking about. Relationships--even marriages--come and go, but some diseases are forever. I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
For this comment, it's probably pertinent that I'm male.
44: I'm not so sure about that. It probably depends on how long you've been together.
See, now, I don't think I would have much of a problem with this in many circumstances. The kind of relationship where I would expect the other person to be faithful sexually is a subset of the kinds of relationships I would call dating, and that include sex. In a lot of the relationships I've had, it really wouldn't bother me that much. But it depends on what expectations have been set up, and how closely I communicate with my SO, and what her values about sex are, and so on. If sex for her *means* emotional intimacy, then being unfaithful might be an indication that she's unhappy in the relationship. But if it's not, then what is there to worry about (besides disease)?
I think the possesive impulse that leads to the pain of these situations is something that one should strive to overcome. And I'm not saying this as someone that would be inclined to cheat, either. I'm a pretty monogamous sort of guy, in my limited experience.
And I've never been cheated on, so maybe it'd be different.
I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
I'd say it's because the primary social script for these things is a moral one, along the lines of fidelity and deception. The culture-level story isn't about disease.
when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way
That's basically true for me, too. It's not that I can't find other men attractive, or sexy, or desirable, it's that taking any sort of action is completely off the table.
Alternately, hormonal birth control plus metaphysics also works. (I hear epistemology works better!)
I don't know if I'd want to be told that someone was cheating on me. Maybe if I was allowed to kick him afterwards. But as a side point, my OB/GYN just runs tests at the yearly checkup as a matter of course. If I've caught a disease because he cheated, the truth will out.
53: Yeah, I mean, I get that's why it's the fidelity-deception thing is what people focus on, and that makes it easier to gloss over disease concerns. I guess I still don't understand the reasoning by which there is not a moral imperative to tell you partner after you've cheated because of them. And I suppose by "don't understand the reasoning" I mean "I don't think there is any reasoning."
You know I'm in the "yes, you should tell" camp--but more firmly in the "gosh, it's a good idea to have this conversation ahead of time, don't you think?" camp.
But I honestly think that the real answer is, duh, it depends on your partner. Some people really would want to know, and really would be able to handle it (and by "handle it" I include people for whom it's a clear deal breaker, and they'd say, "okay, see ya"); and others wouldn't. And this obviously can change over time.
My problem with the "don't tell" advice being offered, then, is more that it seems to stem from self-interest; there seems to be an implied "if you tell, you'll get in trouble, so best not to ruffle feathers" argument. I don't like that, even though I *also* don't like the "oh, I'd tell b/c I'd feel so guilty" argument (which no one is making).
The situation is this: you've done something that presumably will hurt your partner. I think that, in that circumstance, one owes it to one's partner, *as* partner, to be a decent human being and not continue to act out of simple self-interest. The real question is, would your partner, if you cheated and didn't tell, feel *worse* about being cheated on and lied to, or would they see the lying as considerate? In other words, the issue should be how the *partner* would feel, rather than about avoiding trouble.
I think it also depends a lot on the relationship. If you've both only mutual friends, word might eventually get out, and you'll probably find yourself friendless (people will side with the cheated). I've been the third party before, and that's not so much fun either.
Here's the question. Is the third part often someone you know (for those of you who have cheated)?
Also, Tia, I didn't think about the disease question. Maybe that's because I don't think I would cheat (unless I wanted out, like Eoj A.). Or maybe it's because I can't imagine what the circumstances of my cheating would actually take shape as. Never really thought about it.
I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
Once you've exposed them to the risk, you've exposed them to the risk. It's entirely possible that I don't know enough about STDs. Are there some (or a number) that can be treated in the receiver prior to symptoms in the giver if caught early enough?
51: You didn't treat it scrupulously when you had the affair (you being the generic you, not you personally). Yes, it would be the decent and honorable thing to do, but we've already established less than decent and honorable behavior as the precondition for this mental exercise.
taking any sort of action is completely off the table
That's a completely different statement than "I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way."
I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
If it was a one-time mistake, you're not going to want to ruin it. If it was a serious long-term affair, whether the person is harmed probably isn't a concern for you. Which makes you a moral tool, but you kinda were that anyway.
59: My point is, say you've had a one night stand. You go back immediately to your partner and tell them, and then your partner can decide whether or not (s)he wants to have sex with you until your disease status is clear (which would take three months), just as I told my boyfriend immediately when my disease status became uncertain, so he could make his own decisions.
If it was a serious long-term affair, whether the person is harmed probably isn't a concern for you
I don't think this is true at all. There's a difference in being willing to betray someone and being willing to give them an incurable or fatal illness. The issue is *degrees* of harm--is hurting someone's feelings more or less important than not getting in trouble, is endangering someone's health more or less important than hurting their feelings, etc.
apo, is it really? I guess it depends on what we mean by thinking of other [potential love-interests] sexually. I was presuming that we were talking about emotions and thoughts that would lead to infidelity, which seem to be a bit more than finding someone to be teh hott.
as someone who has been on the other end of one of those...calls
To make sure it's clear, I meant the receiving end. I guess that's another reason I can't imagine cheating -- I would never want to put my partner at risk in that way.
And I submit that *that's* why people prefer not to think of it in terms of disease risk--because doing so adds an additional, and to most people unacceptable, level of betrayal.
62: I think the emotional impact of sex is what directly drives the jealous impulse. It's a visceral reaction, the jealousy, to a mental image or series of images. It is not logical and not susceptible to logical reasoning. Like the sex drive itself.
I don't know. You can work through the jealousy, and maybe that's better, but I don't think you can remove it.
71: yeah, Bphd. You slept with someone else I could get over. You had an ongoing affair and are exposing me to all manner of who knows what without telling me would be much harder to get past.
73: If the reason it would do so is that the person you're with doesn't want to be with a person who's cheating on them, it's really selfish not to tell them, and not in a good way.
On the other hand, asking the question, "does my partner *really* want to know if I'm cheating on them" is a pretty tricky one.
#62: I honestly believe that jealousy stems from insecurity, rather than from sexual involement with someone. I've felt jealous about some partners, and not jealous about others, and the main distinction I can see is my level of certainty that the partner was committed to *me*.
#73: See, I think that that's cover for the argument from self-interest--because *I* don't want the relationship irretrievably damanged, I'm going to make the decision not to tell. It's framing self-interest as generosity to the other partner. Which, in many cases, it may well be.
The interesting thing about Tia's argument, though, is that it puts a lot of pressure on that answer. Okay, you may be acting in the interest of your partner's feelings by not telling them (though I'm not convinced that this is the case without prior discussion with said partner); but what about their health? Is *that* something that we can rationalize by saying "I didn't tell you for your own good," or is that one of the things that we absolutely believe each individual has a right to decide for his / herself? I'd say the latter: and I think that the fact that the moral argument is different in this respect really begs the question of whether not telling is condescending--self-interest cloaked in the language of generosity.
Oh, and let me make it clear that when I say I wouldn't mind, I'm talking mainly about short flings, at most. A long term affair would elicit quite a reaction out of me, but it would probably be more disappointment and anher at my partner than anger or jealousy about her other lover. And what would bug me about it is the deception involved, not the fact of their relationship, which I might have been fine with were it out in the open. (Oh, and the disease thing.)
It's about the way you build the relationship, too. If you demand a certain level of commitment because you feel it's expected of people dating, or because of your own insecurities, and the other person isn't the kind of person that can hold up that commitment, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's better to asses the person realistically, decide what kind of relationship you can sustain together (with an open mind towards varying levels of commitment and exclusivity vs. emotional and sexual involvement) and then if you do commit to something, you have much, much less reason to second guess their truthfullness when you ask "do you really love me?" or "have you been cheating on me?", and really, you probably won't even need those questions.
I was watching the TV show House on Tuesday, and one character got an HIV test in the course of the episode, and the episode couldn't have been longer than two days. Since TV never lies to me, I submit that doctors have access to super-fast HIV-testing, and are holding out.
Wait, except that I'm an idiot and Tia isn't talking about how long the testing takes, but rather how long after possible exposure one needs to be tested in order to know that the testing would catch it. I should probably just delete this comment, but I want to participate in this thread.
Is *that* something that we can rationalize by saying "I didn't tell you for your own good," or is that one of the things that we absolutely believe each individual has a right to decide for his / herself?
I have to admit, Tia's scenario (you tell your partner before you have another sexual interaction) didn't occur to me. But I think a lot of this depends on your sense of the risk of disease involved, and what level of risk you're willing to take for your partner. I'm not making a moral claim here; I'm saying that this is how I think people work things out. For example, and independent of cheating, I don't much worry about disease if I end up in bed with someone and have taken minimal precautions. I just don't think catching something, given my profile, is very likely. I think (and this might be very, very immoral) that I'd give my partner no greater weight if I were a cheater - if I was worried, I'd feel obligated to tell. If I wasn't worried, I wouldn't.
Because I think that's the way most people work out whether to tell or not, my own suspicion is that justifications for telling one's partner may be cover for the desire for an "honest" relationship or the desire for forgiveness.
Another thought: isn't the "if you cheat, don't tell" advice an implicit admission that it isn't cheating that damages a relationship, but upsetting the other person?
11, 14: You're assuming that the point of the "would you tell" conversation is to get a true answer. This seems unwarranted, the conversation is also useful for making clear what the expectations are (even if you know there's a chance that the expectations won't be met), or just to have the conversation "on the record" for the purpose of future discussion about the relationship.
I have trouble articulating the difference between the "expectations" and "on the record" motivations, because there is overlap, but "on the record" should lack some of the normativity of "expectations."
by the way, I also feel the way Becks and Cala do 98% of the time when I'm dating - just utterly not sexually attracted to other men. I could tell you if they're attractive or not theoretically, but I just don't feel it.
I don't think this is so rare (among women?)
This might have to do with setting the bar for beginning to date someone quite high, so that once things do get off the ground the emotional and physical attraction is very intense and everybody else just seems irrelevant, on those terms. It's a condition that can last years.
83: 1 in 5 adult women in America are genital herpes+. Condoms reduce the risk of herpes transmission somewhat, but the transmission method is still external contact. There isn't much of a way to reduce the risk of contracting herpes to a negligibe level via "profiling" your partner or by using protection.
perhaps I am a caveman, but I suspect it is at bottom the very fact of the sex with someone who isn't me that creates the visceral reaction against it. I don't think this is something that can be bargained away on the fourth date.
I can imagine a situation where I wasn't very invested in the relationship outside of a friendly way, and didn't mind what my partner did so long as I could continue doing what I was doing. But I'd be afraid I was taking advantage of my partner.
1 in 5 adult women in America are genital herpes+.
I'd be stunned if the risk was spread homogeneously over the entire population of US women. If I only date ex-nuns who just left the convent, my risks are likely to be smaller.
I'm just a simple caveman. Your modern forms of intepretation scare and confuse me. Each night I wonder: did the sun dissolve into the earth? will it ever return? I think that words mean simple things, and you can look them up.
But one thing I know for sure. Statutes mean what they say they mean. And my client is entitled to $5 million in punitive damages.
88- well, sure. When you start to notice other men are becoming attractive again, then you have to exercise your willpower more consciously.
But I've found that the complete lack of attraction thing -- fidelity not even being an issue -- can last at least 5 years - definitely longer than the 2 year euphoric love state which biologists say is apparently at least partly chemical...
there is a cake i am fond of called nuns' breasts. i think the idea is that nuns' breasts are supposed to be -- or become -- deformed, because the cake is a little lumpy and it looks like they are, um, triple-breasted.
97 -- is that the one with the chorus that starts, "I'm an ape-man, I'm an ape-ape-man, I'm an ape-man"? Or am I thinking of something else? If I'm thinking of the same thing as you, agreed that it is good; otherwise, the thing I am thinking of is also good.
One open relationship that I witnessed pretty closely really bothered me, and I eventually figured out the reason: because it made the power relation between the original couple explicit. The more powerful one cheated, because she could, and the less powerful one (also a woman) had to deal, because she loved the other person so much she would never leave. So although they expressed high ideals about it--especially the cheater--it made the non- or less-cheating one look like a total doormat.
Deception, or even the appearance of deception, can be face-saving for the faithful one.
To help in summing up what I've read so far: most of us are in or have mostly been in relationships where sexual fidelity was implicity important to both of us, and where cheating would at least threaten the relationship, and would most certainly alter it.
The alternative, for us here in North America, is an open-eyed relationship, ususally where the decision to be together has been made over time through degrees of friendship against a backdrop of other sexual activity. The only open (I think) marriage among my friends conforms to this pattern.
That still leaves the understanding supposedly common among the French, alluded to at the top of this thread. Is that a myth? Does anybody know? If it's real, and assuming we think it desirable that our grandchildren--too late for us--might profitably live that way, could our culture get from here to there? How?
ac -- I knew a couple in a similar open relationship, but the gender roles reversed. (I had the total hots for the woman in the relationship but did not act on it for any number of reasons -- including timidity of course, and unavailability on my part, but also that I just was scared of getting bogged down in all the crap they were living.)
Oh wait -- "gender roles reversed" doesn't make any sense now that I reread your comment and see you are talking about a lesbian couple. I meant to say, the man in the relationship was the one who took most advantage of its openness.
In a long term relationship, I also think you are better off if you don't have actual temptations to cheat. I think movie stars and the like have too many options. This article talks about a study that shows mixed gender workplaces lead to a 70% higher divorce rate. It isn't so much that people cheat with people from work as they realize that they have options.
106--About that "understanding supposedly common" in France, my experience has been that while the argument is certainly out there, very few people I knew are actually living or building relationships that way.
Julia Kristeva and Phillipe Sellers (sp?) co-wrote an article making that case, and when I brought it up with a French guy I was seeing, he was unimpressed. I was a bit surprised because I'd pegged him as a Tel Quel-y, "I'm very sophisticated about these matters" kind of guy. Maybe he wasn't interested in non-monogamy because he didn't want me running off and sleeping with other people. (In K and S's article, she was not the one conducting the flamboyant affaires.)
Um, in other words, I think there's still a fair bit of misogyny in French society that the "worldly wise" posture simply covers up.
Agree with ac and Joe O. Note, fwiw, that the only aspect of Clinton's impeachment that I didn't actively enjoy was the realization that it must have been hell for Hillary and Chelsea to know that everyone else knew he was stepping out.
SCMT, I know you've noted your poltical unorthodoxy in the past, but do you care to expand on your enjoyment of the vast majority of the Clinton impeachment?
Actually (see, I can spell it), Clinton brings up a good point. Politicians appear to belong to a kind of upper class in their practice on this issue. Johnson, Clinton, Gary Hart were none of them uc to begin with, although they married up. But their marriages survived exposure of their infidelities.
I actually think that marks a big divide, of trust and identification, if you will, between our leaders and ourselves, even if our selves are the denizens of a very liberal and sophisticated blog. They don't live by the same rules as the rest of us.
I like sex. Sex is the best! But somewhere long ago I decided that sex without love was simply more hassle than it was worth. Chalk it up to pure laziness.
Never cheated, I guess, tho was often the partner for cheaters. Besides the effort in trying to please a stranger, there was the discomfort of secrets and looking a guy in the eye after doing his wife. Just Not Worth It. Other people apparently like sex more than I do, and find more excitement in variety. There is variety, everyone is unique, but to reach that individuality you need more than a nooner or one-night-stand. So it just felt like masturbation with an audience and complications. Why bother?
1. How funny is the idea that the size and shape of the President's dick might be entered into evidence? It's a scene out of Porky's, for gawd's sake. So awesome!
2. If you knew anyone on the Clinton team (and if you were Saisalegy's age at the time, you ran into a lot of the low-level staffers), you knew they were officious and often self-righteous pricks. (These are roughly the same people we hate in our party now, for the same reasons + they are insane cowards.) Comeuppance - fun!
3. It kept Clinton busy. Ambitious people at the end of the time they will be able to act on their ambitions are scary. (I occassionally rethink this one.)
4. Worst case scenario? President Al Gore. Not that much of a problem.
except that bush rode the momentum into office. Or he rode the momentum into a close enough race that various shenanigans could boost him the rest of the way.
#117: Actually my "yikes" wasn't conservative; it was more about the idea that the real issue is some kind of competition between men over possession. Yuck.
Wasn't claiming you were conservative, don't think I am, only that my agreeing immediately with you about that might seem incongruous to some. I knew what you meant and agree completely.
121: Was that considered anti-feminist or misogynist? Okay, I myself had conflicts. Granted women are free agents and not possessions, but there is also a matter of being instrumental to the surreptitious violation of a contract. That she had no qualms didn't mean I couldn't. Besides, the guys were sometimes my friends.
115 isn't especially sexist. Flipping it to read "I wouldn't want to look the wife in the eye after doing the husband" makes perfect sense, especially if the wife is a friend.
some kind of competition between men over possession
Can't speak for Bob, but I suspect this is a misreading. Nothing to do with possession, everything to do with trust, betrayal, and secrets.
The obvious solution is don't have an affair. Simple enough. Except that people do. Lots of people. All the time. Irrational though it may be, I have seen very few relationships survive the discovery of an affair unscathed. The relationship may not fail altogether (at least not right away), but it emerges with a pronounced limp. I've seen a few do okay, but they are decidedly in the minority.
I'm doubtful about the assumption that "looking a guy in the eye after doing his wife" is necessarily an issue of competition over possesion. I was involved with someone (but that was in another country, & besides, the wench is now a minister) who was unfaithful with more than one of our mutual friends. I didn't feel that I was being deprived of "possessing" her; I felt that I was being deprived of the ability to have honest discourse with my friends. It's no fun to realize that someone you like & respect may be avoiding you to protect a secret, regardless of the nature of that secret.
maybe i subscribe too much to the evolutionary psychology perspective, but i think male sexual jealousy, at least, is a powerful unconscious biological imperative.
i do believe that part of being human is our ability to not allow our behavior to be dictated by our biological imperatives, but submit that it can be difficult to be happy when we consistently do so.
naw, it's cultural. Except perhaps in Texas, where killing a cheating wife is the way to assure reproductive success. Where's LB? We need another Somoa story.
A big part of my problem with cheating in a relationship is that... well, it's not two people and an automaton. It's three people and at least two relationships, although the second one might be of short duration.
In the kind of scenario people seem to be talking about here: one-off(-ish) night together it's not always the case that the fling can end with as much ease as the cheater (and their partner) would like. The relationship outsider might well be having a short term fling for kicks, but that's not always true: in fact in most situations I've witnessed, the outsider has in fact had a bit of a thing (or usually a whole whopping lot of a thing) for the cheater for a while and is none too pleased to be a short term fling that was a huge mistake and also a big secret. The outsider in some cases then attempts one of two things: wrecking the main relationship by telling the other partner, or doing their best to start a longer term affair (or both). In other cases word may get out via their trusted friend who is the recipient of their off-loaded woe.
And it's affairs that I really don't like. And also huge dramatic situations of dealing with the woes of three people: the cheater, the partner and the outsider, all bouncing frantically on each other's weak points.
Intellectually, I don't think it makes any sense that it's OK for a spouse or SO to have and spend time with close opposite-sex friends but not OK if they go to bed instead of lunch. Emotionally, I think it would be difficult if either my wife or I screwed around with a mutual friend or acquaintance, but I don't think an occasional extramarital romp would be a big deal if it were possible to do such a thing at a safe remove from the marriage but with someone who could be trusted not to create either health or emotional issues down the road. Practically, it just ain't anywhere close to being worth messing around with. Having a relationship with one other person is complicated enough.
87: Tia, are you sure about that? I thought it was that 1 in 5 women have some strain of HPV, which does not always cause genital herpes, or any outward symptoms whatsoever (and in many cases is in fact totally harmless unless you get cervical cancer). I should do research...
140: maybe, but i dunno, it just seems incredibly unlikely that our genes would have constructed brains that did not behave in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of their successful propagation.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted virus. It has been estimated that 75% or more of sexually active Americans will contract HPV sometime in their lives. This means that anyone who has ever had sexual relations has a high chance of being exposed to this virus, but only a small number of women infected with HPV develop cell changes that need to be treated. In almost all cases, the immune system will keep the virus (including the cancer-related HPV types) under control or get rid of it completely. However, if HPV infection does not go away over many years, there is a greater chance of developing cell changes that may lead to cervical cancer. Only very rarely does the presence of HPV lead to cervical cancer.
And if you have kids there's a whole nother level of betrayal, if you're not good at covering your tracks or you wind up being secretive about other things. I know that I felt terribly betrayed when I found out about my Dad's girlfriend--even though my parents didn't have a healthy marriage in any sense. I'm pretty sure that they haven't slept together in years. I think that he thought about divorcing her at one point within the last several years, but he didn't. He did try once when I was 11 or so, but she contested it. She wouldn't have wanted a divorce, and then it became so clear that she couldn't take care of herself that he stayed.
But given the values I was raised with, this felt like a terrible betrayal. A divorce wouldn't have been so bad, and an open marriage might have been tolerable, but failed secrecy was a real betrayal.
I caught sight of a blockbuster charge from Ohio. I told him that somebody might be using his card etc. At one point he told me about the girlfriend and his plan to divorce my mother, but he never did, and they're back together. I think it has as much to do with money as his feeligns about his promise to my mother. I would have preferred a divorce instead of an affair. And it wasn't even me that he was cheating on.
HPV also causes cervical cancer, at least some strains.
Re. possessiveness: I was putting a lot of pressure on the "his" part of "his wife." I note, for instance, that Joe's flipping of the genders substitutes "the" for "her." And yes, I know that that's a lot of reading into two small words, but my larger point is that the essence of the "I would be ashamed to face X after sleeping with X's partner, Y" is the idea that partnership connotes a kind of possession. That's the point of jealousy, no? B/c logically sleeping with someone else doesn't harm X in any way--which again, is, I think, the unarticulated premise behind the argument (probably sound, practically speaking) that it's a bad idea to admit to having had a one-night stand.
110- well, the book of interviews i read was with female french celebrities, from journalism and the literary worlds mostly, so it is obviously not a fair sample. certainly a sample including catherine millet is not a fair sample. and i can imagine the "worldly wise" attitude may be a posture that many frenchpeople enjoy perpetuating. on the other hand, i do believe that there is much less of a knee-jerk moralizing response to men who sleep with women other than their wives - witness the completely unshocked reaction to mitterand's widow and his mistress showing up at his state funeral. and wasn't mitterand's wife herself fairly openly involved with derrida at one point? and finally, these philandering french men must have partners, since they can't cheat by themselves. i get the strong impression the partners are often married women, not ingenues off the street. however, jackmormon, i do agree that it is probably easier for men to be open about infidelity than women - it seems very likely there is a double standard.
I think sexual jealousy is pretty common in both sexes, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a biological component in addition to a cultural component. But that's not wholly relevant, as 'having a biological component' doesn't always mean 'morally unquestionable.' (Not mention that 'recent social phenomenon that I like' doesn't line up with 'must be biologically determined', either.)
In a lot of infidelity cases, I imagine that telling the other person might turn out okay, even if the relationship fails. But these are the sorts of situations where I imagine the couple is sort of like Tia and Graham. Very open, very modern, and not married, or planning to, or having children together.
With most other couples I think you'd have to balance the risk of disease (and seriously fucking up the other person's life) against the risk that telling them seriously fucks up the other person's life. If it was a one-night stand with someone you had no idea about sexual history? Maybe better off telling. If it was a one-night stand with a co-worker who you knew very well (reason to expect clean, used condoms, etc.)? Maybe not.
I would like to believe that were I ever confronted with an admission of this kind, I would pick myself off the floor and try to save the relationship. If forgiveness were asked, that I would grant it on the spot.
And that's where the particulars come in. The point made above, that the third party often wants to replace you, is worth remembering. Also worth remembering is that many times the spouse wants to be monogamous, and interprets the fact of having had sex outside as a sign that the marriage is over. That seems to have been common in my parent's generation.
That it ain't necessarily so seems to require a conceptual leap for many people.
I don't think possessiveness of men is the only explanation or jealousy is the only explanation for guilt. How about this construal?
'X and Y are both my friends. X and Y promised, when they decided to be monogamous, among other things, not to sleep with other people. When I cheated with Y, I helped break that contract. I feel guilty for having helped Y break the contract, plus, I know X will be hurt by my actions.'
Now you might be able to argue that the promise is made only out of jealousy, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.
121, 128:Wow, I come back from walking the dogs and find I have been defended. Warm fuzzies.
1) In discussions of adult relationships, I think the use of the possessive usually indicates some kind of contractual relationship, as in "Clinton's lawyer" or "her doctor."
2) Got the wrong dude. Not only was I rarely competitive with other men, especially sexually, I was rarely even sexually assertive or aggressive with women. I am a lazy dude, and in the 70s it was just safer and easier to let the lady take the initiative. It was the 70s, so it worked out pretty well. Now there are signals, eye contact, body language, flirting and the affairs didn't just happen, but they mostly felt serendipitous.
3) Part of the problem is precisely the feminism. If I respected her, and wanted her, refusing her because of my concern over how she handled her relationship seemed presumptuous and insulting. If that contradicts the above, I did say I was conflicted. Being a passive a kind of guy, I usually let my gonads resolve the moral dilemma.
Ordinarily, I think one has a moral obligation to tell one's partner about an act of sexual infidelity. This may well cause the partner pain, anger, and the beginning of the end of the relationship---but I suspect, in most cases, the cheatee would rather know than not know that her partner has become a cheator. Reference to the partner's pain as a means of justifying non-disclosure ignores the fact that the partner believes the disutility of not-knowing outweighs the disutility of the pain-of-knowing. And surely the partner, ordinarily, is a better judge of whether disclosure/non-disclosure is preferable for her than anyone else is.
But I can also envision situations in which the general rule should not be followed. Suppose the act of infidelity occurred decades ago, and the partners are so old as to reduce the likelihood of finding a new partnership to nearly zero. Here, even though the partner might still insist that he would want to know, the degree of harm caused might be so great as to outweigh his wishes. Perhaps we might call this an instance of justifiable paternalism? Or suppose that there are children involved, and the disclosure of infidelity would likely destroy the relationship, and thereby harm the children. Here one must consider various third-parties in addition to the partner's own wishes.
I'm not sure anyone can really predict whether he will always be faithful. I think we could all agree, though a few may secretly not, that the long-term detriment of cheating outweighs the short-term excitement of cheating, and so we would have to be acting irrationally, and contrary to our own interests, when we do cheat. I don't think this excuses the conduct when it occurs though, or should prevent anyone from promising not to cheat.
I think we could all agree, though a few may secretly not, that the long-term detriment of cheating outweighs the short-term excitement of cheating
I pretty much agree that this is true, but is that a good thing? The older I get, the more I drift toward thinking that sexual fidelity may be important in the early stages of a relationship but should become less important as the couple become more secure with each other and their lives get cemented together in more ways. I'm too lazy, contented, and risk-averse to risk messing up a good thing for something transitory, but jealousy and possessiveness don't seem like the kinds of emotions that we ought to be treating as central to our most important relationships.
Why are we assuming that jealousy is an insurmountable problem in a relationship? I mean, people get jealous of all sorts of things: their partner's work, time spent out with "the boys" or "the girls," hell, sometimes even children, yes? And we don't consider those jealousies de facto grounds for ending a relationship.
163: DaveL, that's a really interesting point. I've always thought that one important reason (for me at least) to aspire to monogamy is that it would just get muddled who had emotional primacy in my life, but I suppose if my life had been bound with someone else's for a decade, that would be less confusing. I dunno though, if I met some other nice guy, and wound up seeing him for years too...
164: It's not insurmountable. But mostly people regard that one particular jealousy as sacred and proper. That's a cultural thing. If there's one thing we really, really fear in this culture, it's being made a fool of, and we're socialized to believe that our partner's having sex with someone else makes us foolish and pathetic. What's kind of odd is that even people who generally aren't into those games regard sexual fidelity as really, really important. An awful lot of efforts to take on that particular taboo have ended badly, so I think it's rational to be cautious about moving from the intellectual to the practical, but it does seem odd that so few people even question it.
but jealousy and possessiveness don't seem like the kinds of emotions that we ought to be treating as central to our most important relationships.
I don't think that a desire to be monogamous, by itself, means that jealousy and possessiveness are central to the relationship, though. The implication of that would be that every couple that desires to be monogamous i.e. the vast majority of couples in this country and around the world, has jealousy and possessiveness at the center of their relationship.
I dunno though, if I met some other nice guy, and wound up seeing him for years too...
That strikes me as a whole 'nother set of complications, because I think it would require not only that the primary partner be cool with the outside relationship but also that the outside partner be OK with being in a long-term secondary status. And that, in turn, would often mean that the outside squeeze would need to have his/her own primary partner who was also cool with the whole thing. And so on, ever outward, rebuilding the culture in a less jealous mode. More power to those who can make such things work, but there would be an awful lot of social pressures working against you.
surprised no discussion broke out over the standard "women cheat b/c something's missing, men cheat b/c they can" line. neat.
what a shite topic to have some firsthand experience. cheating is teh suck. when i was the wronged half, it was during a period of geographic (ergo temporal) separation, so the disease aspect didn't affect me directly, apart from the shock sense she had risked such a thing. we had talked about it beforehand, and i was sure i'd want to know. i was dumb.
i am very much of the opinion that if one has cheated, they should take some time for very serious thought and reflection. extenuating factors aside (y'know, for kids), that's a likely sign its quittin' time. but if the disease factor isn't there, i think many people who tell their partner are actually doing so to make themselves feel better. it can be a very selfish thing to do, and will often devastate your other.
re: jealousy. in my limited experience i've found men & women focus on it differently, that is, physically v. emotionally.
also: walking into a meeting and realizing that one of the lobbyists is the fellow who seduced your s/o: not fun.
i like the line from miller's crossing on this one: nobody knows anybody. not that well.
I don't think that a desire to be monogamous, by itself, means that jealousy and possessiveness are central to the relationship, though.
But what is monogamy? The essence of my relationship with my wife is love, mutual support, shared experience, etc. I don't think it's written in the stars that those things instantly go out the window as soon as either of us touches somebody else's genitals. If monogamy is compatible with all sorts of non-sexual interactions with third parties, what makes sexual interactions fundamentally different (other than the fact that we're socialized to treat them that way)?
Well, a few things. First, I don't think every couple should be monogamous. It's a decision for each couple to make individually. Second, even non-monogamous couples ascribe importance to sexual interactions. Third, that a couple decides that sexual interactions represent something important, and intimate, and that the relationship is enhanced by a commitment to mutual fidelity, does not mean that they do so out of jealousy or possessiveness. That we are socialized to have a belief does not in itself render that belief unimportant to us, or superficial, or based upon some type of fear.
Maybe this is just a misunderstanding though. I view acts of sexual infidelity to be those sexual interactions which violate, in some manner, one's relationship with one's partner. I don't mean to imply that every non-monogamous act is also an act of sexual infidelity.
I don't think we're disagreeing. I tend to think that in a better world we'd continue to form long-term, monogamous relationships but wouldn't treat sexual exclusivity as central to those relationships, but we don't live in that world. In the world we do live in, sexual exclusivity is expected and appropriate in most long-term relationships, and it's not right to claim sexual liberties that our partners would consider inappropriate. I think there's some value in grappling with whether that makes any sense or not, but the sexual revolution and its aftermath suggest that "it's all stupid, tear it down" is not an adequate answer.
169: sorry to harp, but there is no such thing as the disease factor not being there. There just isn't. There is no one on earth whose STD status you can know for sure. The closest you can get is "I trust this person to be honest with me if I ask them their status and whether they're involved with anyone else," and if you're having an affair with them, and they know you're elsewhere committed, maybe you already have some reason to doubt their scruples.
i meant that in my case, we were on different continents for several months, more than enough time for anything to register before we saw one another. and i was adamant about testing after, which itself was a reflection of pretty much all trust being decimated.
You doubt their scruples because they're assisting you in the violation of contract, as Bob put it.
Just to drive home this point, since I'm anonymous and I'd like to destigmatize this anyway: I am herpes positive. I found out after I was tested after my sixth sexual partner. You might be thinking, "But Tia, you're *exactly* the kind of person I'd expect to get an STD." But trust me, I do not come off that way in real life, and any hypothetical coworker who met me and assessed me for disease risk would almost certainly assess very low. I'm also very honest, so in some ways, they'd be right to assess a low risk of an undisclosed disease, but the point remains that you really can't tell what's going on in someone's genitals from a casual assessment of their character. I have friends who went to my college, and thus would theoretically go in my "has values and education similar to mine" category, who have historically been very resistant to or lazy about STD testing. One boyfriend of mine told me months into our relationship that he'd slept with men; that totally changed my assessment of his disease risk, and I didn't hear about it for a long time.
If you're curious, herpes is not a big deal to me, since I had one outbreak three years ago, then never again; that means I'm unlikely to be contagious, and I've never had a man decline to sleep with me because of it. Delivering the news has always gone well.
I was also in a relationship where my s/o cheated while on another continent. He told me about it shortly after it happened, and I broke up with him on the phone. The cheating was a symptom of other problems, and I'm glad he told me about it. Infidelity gave me a reason to end the relationship.
Because of that experience, I think I wouldn't be very likely to cheat. Also, I'm like Becks, et al. in that I kinda lose interest in other men when I'm in a serious long-term relationship. And the last paragraph of mmf!'s 86 is probably why.
Hmmm... so has Jane done something wrong when she sleeps with Jill while Jill is exclusively involved with Joan? Does Jane owe some type of responsibility to Joan which is thereby violated? Does it matter if Jane and Jill are very attractive, offered to take pictures? Was that an incredibly rude question?
DaveL,
I think there are some deep-seated evolutionary reasons why sexual interactions are so important to us, so I don't see them fading as important any time soon either. But I also think it reasonable to suppose that by keeping certain things between oneself and one's partner, one adds an element of privilege to the relationship, an element of intimacy, and an expression of commitment that cannot easily be added otherwise.
164- You are especially jealous of a rival (more than work, more than children) because she could replace you. And it's not so irrational--you're at a structural disadvantage against a new person, because you are familiar, and she is exciting and mysterious. The new person glitters a bit falsely, because one day she will become just as familiar as you, but in the meantime the emotions associated with can be far more passionate. Your partner may be distracted by this and leave you, however great your relationship is.
As long as we're on the subject of the symbols and signifiers of long term committed monogamous relationships, what's the current practice with respect to wedding rings? I'm wondering if I'm the only unmarried person who wears one. Do married people still normally wear 'em?
I wear a wedding ring. Why do you wear a ring? Were you previously married? I don't think it would be called a "wedding ring" if you just happen to wear it on your ring finger without ever having gotten married.
I wear one to signal 'committed, unavailable.' I like talking to women, and I'm not quite sure where the boundary between friendliness and flirting lies, so it helps prevent misunderstanding. Or some such thing. I'm not really sure why I wear it. It seemd like a good thing to start wearing. It's clearly a wedding ring. I inherited it from my father. It looks like nothing except a wedding ring, a plain thin gold band, third finger left hand. About 7 years after I started wearing it, my partner started wearing something that looks like a wedding ring. We haven't really discussed it.
what I mean is, there isn't much separating you from actually being married, but for various legal rights, which you may have attained already if you and your girlfriend have lived together for awhile.
I don't look for wedding rings either. Other people do that a lot from what I hear. I doubt it will lead me to trouble, though: the topic would likely come up at some point.
202 - There was a girl who I worked with who called her engagement ring her "I don't care" ring, meaning that she knew she was going to quit her job the day she got married. Whenever a problem came up at work and we'd ask her opinion, she would stick out her ring finger, wave it back and forth, and sing-song "IIII don't caaare".
Do I infer correctly that you're in the married, no ring category, Text?
I know one divorced woman who wears a diamond ring that looks a lot like an engagement ring. I've never asked her about it. But she wears a lot of jewelry.
The last time I checked, New Mexico was one of the 42 states in which one can't form a common law marriage.
I think there are some deep-seated evolutionary reasons why sexual interactions are so important to us, so I don't see them fading as important any time soon either.
Don't think you'll get much argument on that one!
But I also think it reasonable to suppose that by keeping certain things between oneself and one's partner, one adds an element of privilege to the relationship, an element of intimacy, and an expression of commitment that cannot easily be added otherwise.
That one's a lot more debatable. Sexual exclusivity may be an important glue early on, but if that's all you have holding you together ten years in, something's wrong. If you've been together for long enough to survive a few tough times together, it ought to be pretty clear whether you're committed to each other or not. And if any outside sex is still an absolute dealbreaker at that point regardless of the circumstances, I think there are some jealousy and ego issues in play.
Again, this is all theoretical. I'm boring and monogamous and have been for 15+ years. But I've watched other people tear themselves to pieces over infidelities that probably didn't need to be a huge deal if they could have dealt with some of the other issues they had going on, but once the wounded egos came into play they had to make sure there was plenty of pain to go around.
Oh, there isn't any meaning behind it. When we got married, instead of shelling out for rings and a wedding, we went to Italy (it's the second marriage for both of us, fwiw). Several months later, she saw a ring in an antique store that she really liked and I had just gotten my annual bonus at work so I bought it for her. I wouldn't be averse to wearing one, just never have gotten around to getting one. And for now, the unbelievable cost of daycare for a 1-year-old pretty much precludes getting one.
Very understandable story. I think there has been a general decline in the social importance of wedding rings over the lastseveral decades. Someone has probably done a study. Thanks.
209: Well, yes, but it was the infidelities that were unforgiveable and led to the big ugly blowups. And in other cases, where maybe there was a little less wounded ego factor, infidelity or some other sort of crisis led the parties to step back a little, realize they had something worth saving but needed to work hard to save it, and come through stronger for having made the effort.
I think it's not unusual for people to break up because they're afraid that they'll be perceived by others as weak and pathetic if they don't--"how can you let him/her do that to you?!"--and then start over from scratch in a new relationship when they could have saved the old one with a fraction of the effort they put into finding and building the new one. Not my place to tell them they're wrong, but it tends to strike me as more pain and drama than it's worth. OTOH, it takes two to fix a screwed-up relationship, and there are enough jerks in the world that an awful lot of relationships contain at least one.
211 -- Ellen and I have a vaguely similar story. When we got married, instead of shelling out for rings we upgraded a couple of old rings of Ellen's to "wedding ring" status -- luckily she and I have similarly sized fingers. Neither of us is still wearing those rings -- a couple of years later she saw a ring she liked and bought it, and then when we were in China adopting Sylvia, I saw a ring I liked and bought it. (A bargain too, at 30 Yuan ==about 3 and a half $ US. (My ring will not last forever being made of turquoise, and when it breaks I imagine I will go back to wearing my old wedding ring of Ellen's.)
My wife and both have wedding rings - plain silver bands - but neither of us wear them. I'd start wearing mine again but it doesn't quite fit comfortably - my hands are a fraction bigger than when we first bought the rings and I don't really like wearing rings anyway, the slightest hint that one is too tight and it doesn't get worn.
My wife does wear her engagement ring though as she likes it a lot as an item of jewellery [irrespective of any symbolism].
Several times I've lost mine trying to extricate my hand from a crevice in an engine compartment, and then had to spend time fishing for it. That's about the only trouble it's ever caused me; I must wear mine for weeks at a time without thinking about it.
Seems to me that the more traditional the assumptions the more significant the ring under current conditions. Like the heavy-handed symbolism of the way the lawyer dude plays with his on his desk, off his hand, in Sex, Lies, and Video Tape.
He's not in the same league as Ralph Fiennes--because no one is--because at least his roles are interesting. But I suspect he'd disappoint you if you met him.
A question that no-one has raised yet, but that is begging to be asked: are you obligated to confess to your partner if you have been untrue only in thought? It seems to me lustful fantasy is just as much a breach of fidelity as the actual physical deed.
In some ways, I rather do think that lustful thoughts are a breach of fidelity. It feels like a betrayal to have them. (See above comments on not sexually desiring other men when in a committed relationship.) However, lustful thoughts are clearly not as, well, compromising as lustful actions. (See above comments on disease transmission.) Talking about having such lustful thoughts might be really awkward, but not talking about them might be covering up the fact that something's going a little haywire in the relationship, something that could be resolved or at least managed with a little more honesty and negotiation.
Fine. Inclination/will distinction. There's a difference between momentarily thinking, 'Wow, he's hot.', momentarily flirting with someone in a store or on a weblog, and havinng a long cyberfling, even though no one actually has sex in any of them.
I emphatically believe that lustful thoughts about others are not a breach of fidelity. While it's possible that having lustful thoughts for another is an indication that something's wrong in the relationship, it's also possible that it's just evidence of a healthy libido.
To quote the Dan Savage interview linked earlier, "The measure of a man's devotion isn't that he doesn't want to fuck other people. It's that he doesn't fuck other people."
Thanks for clearing up the inclination/will distinction, FL and Cala. I do think that if you're at the point of having a prolonged flirtation, you've at least advanced a yard or two along the garden path. My concern would have to be weighed against opportunity (how accessible is the object of lust?) and fairness (does the object of lust also harbor fantasies for you?). Random guy on the subway doesn't meet either bar, so whether you talk about him with your SO is up to you. Co-worker or friend, who's also interested in you? Problem probably worth discussing with your SO before it becomes a disaster.
Lustful thoughts are cheating, and should therefore be confessed, even if your partner tells you to shut the fuck up already. If you have them, you are being unfaithful and your relationship is doomed.
Hating Sarah Vowell is second only in preposterousness to hating barbecues. As I recall, certain authors were highly preposterous. Too bad, she was cute!
i will just start out the thread by stating that my mostly unexamined ideas about fidelity have been changed a bit by meeting french women who say up-front that they don't think it is reasonable to expect a man to be faithful - that is just unnatural. What they *do* expect, however, is to be treated with love and respect and consideration if and when a lover or husband does have an affair.
The corollary of this seems to be that they will do the same if and when they have an affair - and seem genuinely open to that.
was reading on the airplane Jerome Clement's book _Les Femmes et l'amour_, Women and Love, a series of interviews about love with women who are mostly French celebrities, including Catherine Millet.
they're not earth-shattering, but the interviews are refreshingly philosophical and honest while simultaneously unspecific as to personal details.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:31 AM
I've never had a partner cheat on me (that I know of, at least), but it's seems like something that would be really awful for me. Partly as a result of my anticipated reaction to infidelity, a while ago I made a conscious decision to just not cheat. I can't say that I would never, but it's not something I anticipate doing.
To be sort of cliched, it's a rather shocking breach of the trust that's present in a relationship.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:33 AM
I don't think sexual infidelity is the worst thing that could be done. I note that the phrasing of your question only allows for it being the worst or among the set of equally-bad worst things—not that there could be yet worse things.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:37 AM
I've been very tempted lately, but only because things aren't so hot in my relationship right now and I've been getting a lot of opportunities in recent weeks.
I don't have a history of cheating, though. I've kissed someone else, but that's as far as I've gone (and that wasn't during my current relationship, it was years ago). I have a pretty serious guilt complex when it comes to infidelity, even to the point where I feel guilty if I'm heavily flirting with another woman. This is likely because my father cheated on my mother, and I saw what it did to her.
I don't know; I could see myself doing it, I suppose. But not for any length of time. I would certainly either tell my gf, or end the relationship for other reasons. I figure if I'm cheating, it's likely that there are larger problems.
Posted by Eoj Alamyrd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:39 AM
Could we make a rule, that TV-show plot references used for illustration of posts about sexual mores, have to be taken from Aaron Spelling-produced shows? I reckon Dylan, Brenda and Kelly have much to teach us in this regard.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:39 AM
Hey Eoj, you know you have your pick of the stable here at the Mineshaft.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:41 AM
Also, you know, the badness really depends on the expectations of both parties, no? Even if logically it's not the worst thing, you may not have time to lay out your case convincingly.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:42 AM
Osner, we killed the horses, remember?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:42 AM
The unattributed above was me, and this is me too.
Osner, we killed the horses, remember?
They were delicious.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:45 AM
Okay, edited in response to Wolfson's observation.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:46 AM
I asked him last night if he would tell me. He said yeah
Okay, I've never met you or your beau, so take this with the seriousness it deserves: nearly everybody gives that answer, regardless of how they handle (or would handle) the situation in real life. And how one handles it is unlikely to be consistent across all scenarios.
At my advanced age, I've now been in and witnessed enough relationships to state firmly that, unless you are carrying on an extended relationship outside of your primary one, fessing up is almost never a good idea. If it happened and you aren't planning on it happening again, then just let it lie.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:48 AM
aren't planning on it happening again
With that same person, I mean.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:50 AM
Ah, youth. Apostropher's right - never, ever tell.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:55 AM
Apostropher, right again. Asking someone the "you would tell me?" question is fraught, because if he says 'no' then any future denials, truthful or not, will be regarded with suspicion-- hey, maybe he's cheated already and hasn't told you! So it's not like he can give an honest and reflective answer without penalty.
This moment is sort of like the "promise you won't get mad" moment in that it seems to ignore what's at work in the question.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:57 AM
11: I'm reasonably certain he would. I already told him about the time I had unprotected sex with someone else near the beginning of our relationship, and he was quite rightly angry with me, not because I was supposed to not see other people, but because I was supposed to not take disease risks like that, for my own sake and because they impinged on our relationship. I think we've already forgive each other for enough serious stuff, and he knows I don't think cheating is the end of the world, that there's no reason he couldn't tell me.
At my advanced age, I've now been in and witnessed enough relationships to state firmly that, unless you are carrying on an extended relationship outside of your primary one, fessing up is almost never a good idea. If it happened and you aren't planning on it happening again, then just let it lie.
I know I said this in the body of the post--but doesn't your partner have a right to know if you had sex with someone else so they can consider what disease risks they want to take with you?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:57 AM
If you can get tested without telling, then, is it ok not to tell? I submit that few people would go straight to disease exposure on being informed of infidelity.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:01 AM
I've always thought it would really devastate me if my girlfriend/spouse/whatever cheated, and for that reason, have always told myself I cannot do it, and haven't.
That doesn't mean I'm never tempted or couldn't ever do it. The bigger temptations for me are people I know, where we have some sort of connection that is different from the connection with whoever I'm dating at the time. That sounds teh ghey, but is how I am.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:02 AM
16: the only way that scheme would work is if you came up with a plausible reason to not to anything disease-transmitting for three months, which is how long you have to wait to get an HIV test. And sure, few people would think about it first, but that's the first reason I think there's a moral obligation to tell your partner. If that consideration were absent, I might go along with the "what they don't know..." crowd.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:03 AM
While not telling is probably decent advice, if your SO is also your closest confidant, and you're kind of worked up about the fact of having cheated, then a simple slip can spiral out of control in your head before the SO ever knows something is wrong.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:04 AM
18 me.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:04 AM
it is probably a better relationship where either person could tell. But without having told, how do you know if you have that kind of relationship or not?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:08 AM
pure physical attraction isn't so much a temptation as teh mind meld for the reason that I want to hump everything I see. So it's no big deal.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:10 AM
The solution to text's problem is simple: one day, lie to your partner about having cheated, and observe closely his or her reaction! Then, after some suitable amount of time has elapsed, inform h/h that you had actually been faithful all along, and just wanted to know how h/s would react.
I certainly don't think this plan could have any flaws!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:11 AM
Seriously, unless you are in one of a very, very small subset of relationships, like Tia, don't tell.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:11 AM
Yes, I am the Ogged heir: preoccupied with social mores, more earnest than I'd care to admit, and possessor of a lame-ass love life. The king is dead; long live the queen.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:16 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:24 AM
SCMT, I hear that, but if I was cheating, I'm 99% sure it would mean that I wanted out anyway, so hiding it would be beside the point.
Posted by Eoj A. | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:26 AM
go straight to disease exposure on being informed of infidelity.
of course one does, because it is the unanswerable reproach, which cannot be fended off with "it was nothing" or "I thought you were more open-minded than that".
I broke off a relationship upon discovering my partner's infidelity, but only because it was the frosting of disrespect on the cake of general badness. If I had had other reasons to want the relationship to continue, I'd have found a way to get past it.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:26 AM
or arrange to have your partner catch you in the act. The scene must be arranged with care. It would be unfortunate for your partner to detect the ruse immediately! For this reason, it is necessary to commit vaginal penetration. But it is not cheating if you want your spouse to find you. If h/s doesn't understand, it's because your love was shallow!
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:29 AM
It would be like J. L. Austin's thief who, in order to pretend to wash a window, washes a window.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:30 AM
SCMT, I hear that, but if I was cheating, I'm 99% sure it would mean that I wanted out anyway, so hiding it would be beside the point.
Break up, then. But don't tell her, even then, if she doesn't know or clearly suspect. If she suspects, validate her suspicions. But otherwise, why smack her as you walk out the door?
"Authentic" relationships are vastly overrated.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:32 AM
it is prudent to practice for a few days or weeks before the big day so that it doesn't look artificial.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:34 AM
I don't know how y'all are getting past the disease thing. I wonder if there is an age gap, and those of up brought up post-HIV are more focused on that stuff.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:35 AM
I'm about to smack text as he walks out the door.
Posted by Eoj A. | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:35 AM
I'm 99% sure it would mean that I wanted out anyway
My observations and experience say that people cheat for all kinds of reasons, while still not wanting to end their primary relationship.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:37 AM
True that, a-poz. I speak only for myself.
Posted by Eoj A. | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:38 AM
I can't imagine cheating because I've found that when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way. It's not for reasons of morality – I'm just not interested. I can't imagine what the circumstances would be, but it's hard to never say never.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:38 AM
Ben, you know that Grice paper on meaning? Where he talks about the difference between showing a man a photograph of his wife having an affair and showing him a drawing of his wife having an affair? We should totally accost Tia's guy and draw him some weird pictures. I have a feeling it'd go over well.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:41 AM
also, for the test to work, it is integral that one find the proper actress. You can't tell just from looking at a person whether or not she is right for the job. That is a common mistake, and how awful! People think that any old person will do.
You might need to test out ten or twenty participants before finding the correct one. The process could very well take a year or two, and if you are not prepared for that, perhaps you should think over your relationship!
Ultimately your spouse will thank you when the ruse is over, that the partner chosen was of the proper proportion and expressed herself in a believable fashion, and that it was a performance, above all, with integrity. For integrity is the ultimate purpose of the experiment. Without it, what is it that you're doing!
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:41 AM
I don't know how y'all are getting past the disease thing. I wonder if there is an age gap, and those of up brought up post-HIV are more focused on that stuff.
There are ways to dramatically limit disease exposure. Also, I have to say that, generally, people today seem (perhaps rightly - I don't know) a lot less worried about AIDS than when I was a kid.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:44 AM
You can get and transmit herpes even wearing a condom.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:45 AM
With the disease thang, those who live in big urban areas are likely to be a lot more worried about it as well. Even condoms aren't perfect.
Posted by Eoj A. | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:45 AM
if you are devoted to testing your relationship, there are risks that you must take.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:47 AM
when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way
You are a member of a tiny minority then, Becks. And obviously not a guy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:51 AM
I want to imagine that all women I have dated are like Becks. And therefore, they are.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:53 AM
when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way
But other men have not stopped seeing you in a sexual way, and one of them might just be asshole enough to try to peel you off from a relationship that's going through a rough patch.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:55 AM
44 - I know – as I wrote that I was thinking "none of the men are going to relate to this". And probably a lot of the women.
And, as someone who has been on the other end of one of those "BTW, I cheated back when we were still dating so you'd better go get tested" calls, there's a special place in hell for that.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:59 AM
no, anonymous! It can't happen! She doesn't see them that way!
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:00 AM
You are a member of a tiny minority then, Becks. And obviously not a guy.
Actually there are many guys who do not think about other men in a sexual way. Mystifying I know -- you don't see many of that type at the Mineshaft -- but that's what I hear tell.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:02 AM
Just keep telling yourself that, Osner.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:07 AM
47: That's what I'm talking about. Relationships--even marriages--come and go, but some diseases are forever. I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:07 AM
For this comment, it's probably pertinent that I'm male.
44: I'm not so sure about that. It probably depends on how long you've been together.
See, now, I don't think I would have much of a problem with this in many circumstances. The kind of relationship where I would expect the other person to be faithful sexually is a subset of the kinds of relationships I would call dating, and that include sex. In a lot of the relationships I've had, it really wouldn't bother me that much. But it depends on what expectations have been set up, and how closely I communicate with my SO, and what her values about sex are, and so on. If sex for her *means* emotional intimacy, then being unfaithful might be an indication that she's unhappy in the relationship. But if it's not, then what is there to worry about (besides disease)?
I think the possesive impulse that leads to the pain of these situations is something that one should strive to overcome. And I'm not saying this as someone that would be inclined to cheat, either. I'm a pretty monogamous sort of guy, in my limited experience.
And I've never been cheated on, so maybe it'd be different.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:09 AM
I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
I'd say it's because the primary social script for these things is a moral one, along the lines of fidelity and deception. The culture-level story isn't about disease.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:10 AM
"I think the possesive impulse that leads to the pain of these situations is something that one should strive to overcome."
I think this is as easy to overcome as the urge to have sex, eat, and defecate. I'm being serious now. Sex comes with emotion.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:13 AM
when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way
That's basically true for me, too. It's not that I can't find other men attractive, or sexy, or desirable, it's that taking any sort of action is completely off the table.
Alternately, hormonal birth control plus metaphysics also works. (I hear epistemology works better!)
I don't know if I'd want to be told that someone was cheating on me. Maybe if I was allowed to kick him afterwards. But as a side point, my OB/GYN just runs tests at the yearly checkup as a matter of course. If I've caught a disease because he cheated, the truth will out.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:13 AM
53: Yeah, I mean, I get that's why it's the fidelity-deception thing is what people focus on, and that makes it easier to gloss over disease concerns. I guess I still don't understand the reasoning by which there is not a moral imperative to tell you partner after you've cheated because of them. And I suppose by "don't understand the reasoning" I mean "I don't think there is any reasoning."
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:15 AM
You know I'm in the "yes, you should tell" camp--but more firmly in the "gosh, it's a good idea to have this conversation ahead of time, don't you think?" camp.
But I honestly think that the real answer is, duh, it depends on your partner. Some people really would want to know, and really would be able to handle it (and by "handle it" I include people for whom it's a clear deal breaker, and they'd say, "okay, see ya"); and others wouldn't. And this obviously can change over time.
My problem with the "don't tell" advice being offered, then, is more that it seems to stem from self-interest; there seems to be an implied "if you tell, you'll get in trouble, so best not to ruffle feathers" argument. I don't like that, even though I *also* don't like the "oh, I'd tell b/c I'd feel so guilty" argument (which no one is making).
The situation is this: you've done something that presumably will hurt your partner. I think that, in that circumstance, one owes it to one's partner, *as* partner, to be a decent human being and not continue to act out of simple self-interest. The real question is, would your partner, if you cheated and didn't tell, feel *worse* about being cheated on and lied to, or would they see the lying as considerate? In other words, the issue should be how the *partner* would feel, rather than about avoiding trouble.
IMHO.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:16 AM
I think it also depends a lot on the relationship. If you've both only mutual friends, word might eventually get out, and you'll probably find yourself friendless (people will side with the cheated). I've been the third party before, and that's not so much fun either.
Here's the question. Is the third part often someone you know (for those of you who have cheated)?
Also, Tia, I didn't think about the disease question. Maybe that's because I don't think I would cheat (unless I wanted out, like Eoj A.). Or maybe it's because I can't imagine what the circumstances of my cheating would actually take shape as. Never really thought about it.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:17 AM
I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
Once you've exposed them to the risk, you've exposed them to the risk. It's entirely possible that I don't know enough about STDs. Are there some (or a number) that can be treated in the receiver prior to symptoms in the giver if caught early enough?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:17 AM
Hey, I didn't say I want out, t/d!
Posted by Eoj A. | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:19 AM
51: You didn't treat it scrupulously when you had the affair (you being the generic you, not you personally). Yes, it would be the decent and honorable thing to do, but we've already established less than decent and honorable behavior as the precondition for this mental exercise.
taking any sort of action is completely off the table
That's a completely different statement than "I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:19 AM
#54: Sex usually comes with emotion, but it doesn't follow that possessiveness is necessarily the, or one of the, emotions that follows from sex.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:19 AM
60: I meant that's the reason you said you would cheat, not that you wanted out.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:19 AM
I don't understand not making your partner's health the thing you treat most scrupulously.
If it was a one-time mistake, you're not going to want to ruin it. If it was a serious long-term affair, whether the person is harmed probably isn't a concern for you. Which makes you a moral tool, but you kinda were that anyway.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:20 AM
60: I have a problem translating throughts into words. You said, I'm 99% sure it would mean that I wanted out anyway. That's what I was referring to.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:21 AM
59: My point is, say you've had a one night stand. You go back immediately to your partner and tell them, and then your partner can decide whether or not (s)he wants to have sex with you until your disease status is clear (which would take three months), just as I told my boyfriend immediately when my disease status became uncertain, so he could make his own decisions.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:23 AM
If it was a serious long-term affair, whether the person is harmed probably isn't a concern for you
I don't think this is true at all. There's a difference in being willing to betray someone and being willing to give them an incurable or fatal illness. The issue is *degrees* of harm--is hurting someone's feelings more or less important than not getting in trouble, is endangering someone's health more or less important than hurting their feelings, etc.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:23 AM
Or what apo said.
apo, is it really? I guess it depends on what we mean by thinking of other [potential love-interests] sexually. I was presuming that we were talking about emotions and thoughts that would lead to infidelity, which seem to be a bit more than finding someone to be teh hott.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:23 AM
as someone who has been on the other end of one of those...calls
To make sure it's clear, I meant the receiving end. I guess that's another reason I can't imagine cheating -- I would never want to put my partner at risk in that way.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:23 AM
You were clear, tweedle; I was just being overly defensive.
Posted by Eoj A. | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:23 AM
And I submit that *that's* why people prefer not to think of it in terms of disease risk--because doing so adds an additional, and to most people unacceptable, level of betrayal.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:24 AM
62: I think the emotional impact of sex is what directly drives the jealous impulse. It's a visceral reaction, the jealousy, to a mental image or series of images. It is not logical and not susceptible to logical reasoning. Like the sex drive itself.
I don't know. You can work through the jealousy, and maybe that's better, but I don't think you can remove it.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:25 AM
there seems to be an implied "if you tell, you'll get in trouble, so best not to ruffle feathers" argument
No, at least not on my part. My implied argument is that, more often than not, you will irreparably damage the relationship.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:25 AM
61: True, a-poz, but that doesn't justify the affirmative "don't tell your partner" advice given on this thread, including by you.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:26 AM
71: yeah, Bphd. You slept with someone else I could get over. You had an ongoing affair and are exposing me to all manner of who knows what without telling me would be much harder to get past.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:28 AM
73: If the reason it would do so is that the person you're with doesn't want to be with a person who's cheating on them, it's really selfish not to tell them, and not in a good way.
On the other hand, asking the question, "does my partner *really* want to know if I'm cheating on them" is a pretty tricky one.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:29 AM
It's a visceral reaction, the jealousy, to a mental image or series of images.
How true that is.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:31 AM
#62: I honestly believe that jealousy stems from insecurity, rather than from sexual involement with someone. I've felt jealous about some partners, and not jealous about others, and the main distinction I can see is my level of certainty that the partner was committed to *me*.
#73: See, I think that that's cover for the argument from self-interest--because *I* don't want the relationship irretrievably damanged, I'm going to make the decision not to tell. It's framing self-interest as generosity to the other partner. Which, in many cases, it may well be.
The interesting thing about Tia's argument, though, is that it puts a lot of pressure on that answer. Okay, you may be acting in the interest of your partner's feelings by not telling them (though I'm not convinced that this is the case without prior discussion with said partner); but what about their health? Is *that* something that we can rationalize by saying "I didn't tell you for your own good," or is that one of the things that we absolutely believe each individual has a right to decide for his / herself? I'd say the latter: and I think that the fact that the moral argument is different in this respect really begs the question of whether not telling is condescending--self-interest cloaked in the language of generosity.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:32 AM
Oh, and let me make it clear that when I say I wouldn't mind, I'm talking mainly about short flings, at most. A long term affair would elicit quite a reaction out of me, but it would probably be more disappointment and anher at my partner than anger or jealousy about her other lover. And what would bug me about it is the deception involved, not the fact of their relationship, which I might have been fine with were it out in the open. (Oh, and the disease thing.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:35 AM
It's about the way you build the relationship, too. If you demand a certain level of commitment because you feel it's expected of people dating, or because of your own insecurities, and the other person isn't the kind of person that can hold up that commitment, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's better to asses the person realistically, decide what kind of relationship you can sustain together (with an open mind towards varying levels of commitment and exclusivity vs. emotional and sexual involvement) and then if you do commit to something, you have much, much less reason to second guess their truthfullness when you ask "do you really love me?" or "have you been cheating on me?", and really, you probably won't even need those questions.
But what do I know?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:41 AM
>when I'm in a relationship I just stop thinking about other men in a sexual way
This dan savage interview talks about that phenonomen in his defence of heterosexual men.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:42 AM
I was watching the TV show House on Tuesday, and one character got an HIV test in the course of the episode, and the episode couldn't have been longer than two days. Since TV never lies to me, I submit that doctors have access to super-fast HIV-testing, and are holding out.
Wait, except that I'm an idiot and Tia isn't talking about how long the testing takes, but rather how long after possible exposure one needs to be tested in order to know that the testing would catch it. I should probably just delete this comment, but I want to participate in this thread.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:46 AM
Is *that* something that we can rationalize by saying "I didn't tell you for your own good," or is that one of the things that we absolutely believe each individual has a right to decide for his / herself?
I have to admit, Tia's scenario (you tell your partner before you have another sexual interaction) didn't occur to me. But I think a lot of this depends on your sense of the risk of disease involved, and what level of risk you're willing to take for your partner. I'm not making a moral claim here; I'm saying that this is how I think people work things out. For example, and independent of cheating, I don't much worry about disease if I end up in bed with someone and have taken minimal precautions. I just don't think catching something, given my profile, is very likely. I think (and this might be very, very immoral) that I'd give my partner no greater weight if I were a cheater - if I was worried, I'd feel obligated to tell. If I wasn't worried, I wouldn't.
Because I think that's the way most people work out whether to tell or not, my own suspicion is that justifications for telling one's partner may be cover for the desire for an "honest" relationship or the desire for forgiveness.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:48 AM
Another thought: isn't the "if you cheat, don't tell" advice an implicit admission that it isn't cheating that damages a relationship, but upsetting the other person?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:49 AM
11, 14: You're assuming that the point of the "would you tell" conversation is to get a true answer. This seems unwarranted, the conversation is also useful for making clear what the expectations are (even if you know there's a chance that the expectations won't be met), or just to have the conversation "on the record" for the purpose of future discussion about the relationship.
I have trouble articulating the difference between the "expectations" and "on the record" motivations, because there is overlap, but "on the record" should lack some of the normativity of "expectations."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:53 AM
by the way, I also feel the way Becks and Cala do 98% of the time when I'm dating - just utterly not sexually attracted to other men. I could tell you if they're attractive or not theoretically, but I just don't feel it.
I don't think this is so rare (among women?)
This might have to do with setting the bar for beginning to date someone quite high, so that once things do get off the ground the emotional and physical attraction is very intense and everybody else just seems irrelevant, on those terms. It's a condition that can last years.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:57 AM
83: 1 in 5 adult women in America are genital herpes+. Condoms reduce the risk of herpes transmission somewhat, but the transmission method is still external contact. There isn't much of a way to reduce the risk of contracting herpes to a negligibe level via "profiling" your partner or by using protection.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 10:59 AM
It's a condition that can last years.
And then, suddenly, not obtain. Which is why it's probably worth not counting on it as the sole basis for a trusting relationship.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:00 AM
perhaps I am a caveman, but I suspect it is at bottom the very fact of the sex with someone who isn't me that creates the visceral reaction against it. I don't think this is something that can be bargained away on the fourth date.
I can imagine a situation where I wasn't very invested in the relationship outside of a friendly way, and didn't mind what my partner did so long as I could continue doing what I was doing. But I'd be afraid I was taking advantage of my partner.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:01 AM
what I mean is, I couldn't bargain it away because I am a caveman. Maybe you lot are more evolved.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:04 AM
He used to be a caveman, but now he's a textualist...
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:05 AM
1 in 5 adult women in America are genital herpes+.
I'd be stunned if the risk was spread homogeneously over the entire population of US women. If I only date ex-nuns who just left the convent, my risks are likely to be smaller.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:07 AM
I'm just a simple caveman. Your modern forms of intepretation scare and confuse me. Each night I wonder: did the sun dissolve into the earth? will it ever return? I think that words mean simple things, and you can look them up.
But one thing I know for sure. Statutes mean what they say they mean. And my client is entitled to $5 million in punitive damages.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:08 AM
92: You don't know what they were up to before they went into the convent!
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:09 AM
"If I only date ex-nuns who just left the convent, my risks are likely to be smaller."
They probably left the convent for a reason.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:09 AM
Maybe they only entered the convent as part of a witness protection program. Did you ever think of that?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:11 AM
The Kings song "Apeman" is very good.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:12 AM
88- well, sure. When you start to notice other men are becoming attractive again, then you have to exercise your willpower more consciously.
But I've found that the complete lack of attraction thing -- fidelity not even being an issue -- can last at least 5 years - definitely longer than the 2 year euphoric love state which biologists say is apparently at least partly chemical...
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:12 AM
Convents are not to be trusted.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:15 AM
there is a cake i am fond of called nuns' breasts. i think the idea is that nuns' breasts are supposed to be -- or become -- deformed, because the cake is a little lumpy and it looks like they are, um, triple-breasted.
but it's good.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:15 AM
97 -- is that the one with the chorus that starts, "I'm an ape-man, I'm an ape-ape-man, I'm an ape-man"? Or am I thinking of something else? If I'm thinking of the same thing as you, agreed that it is good; otherwise, the thing I am thinking of is also good.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:20 AM
that is the best 100 comment in the history of unfogged.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:20 AM
102: Yes, it is good.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:24 AM
One open relationship that I witnessed pretty closely really bothered me, and I eventually figured out the reason: because it made the power relation between the original couple explicit. The more powerful one cheated, because she could, and the less powerful one (also a woman) had to deal, because she loved the other person so much she would never leave. So although they expressed high ideals about it--especially the cheater--it made the non- or less-cheating one look like a total doormat.
Deception, or even the appearance of deception, can be face-saving for the faithful one.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:37 AM
Not all relationships have such an obvious power discrepancy, but it was striking in this case.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 11:56 AM
To help in summing up what I've read so far: most of us are in or have mostly been in relationships where sexual fidelity was implicity important to both of us, and where cheating would at least threaten the relationship, and would most certainly alter it.
The alternative, for us here in North America, is an open-eyed relationship, ususally where the decision to be together has been made over time through degrees of friendship against a backdrop of other sexual activity. The only open (I think) marriage among my friends conforms to this pattern.
That still leaves the understanding supposedly common among the French, alluded to at the top of this thread. Is that a myth? Does anybody know? If it's real, and assuming we think it desirable that our grandchildren--too late for us--might profitably live that way, could our culture get from here to there? How?
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:05 PM
ac -- I knew a couple in a similar open relationship, but the gender roles reversed. (I had the total hots for the woman in the relationship but did not act on it for any number of reasons -- including timidity of course, and unavailability on my part, but also that I just was scared of getting bogged down in all the crap they were living.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:07 PM
Oh wait -- "gender roles reversed" doesn't make any sense now that I reread your comment and see you are talking about a lesbian couple. I meant to say, the man in the relationship was the one who took most advantage of its openness.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:10 PM
I agree with AC in 104.
In a long term relationship, I also think you are better off if you don't have actual temptations to cheat. I think movie stars and the like have too many options. This article talks about a study that shows mixed gender workplaces lead to a 70% higher divorce rate. It isn't so much that people cheat with people from work as they realize that they have options.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:14 PM
106--About that "understanding supposedly common" in France, my experience has been that while the argument is certainly out there, very few people I knew are actually living or building relationships that way.
Julia Kristeva and Phillipe Sellers (sp?) co-wrote an article making that case, and when I brought it up with a French guy I was seeing, he was unimpressed. I was a bit surprised because I'd pegged him as a Tel Quel-y, "I'm very sophisticated about these matters" kind of guy. Maybe he wasn't interested in non-monogamy because he didn't want me running off and sleeping with other people. (In K and S's article, she was not the one conducting the flamboyant affaires.)
Um, in other words, I think there's still a fair bit of misogyny in French society that the "worldly wise" posture simply covers up.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:20 PM
"Phillipe Sellers" s/b "Philippe Sollers" (Guess you all now know which of the two I prefer.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:28 PM
Agree with ac and Joe O. Note, fwiw, that the only aspect of Clinton's impeachment that I didn't actively enjoy was the realization that it must have been hell for Hillary and Chelsea to know that everyone else knew he was stepping out.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:29 PM
SCMT, I know you've noted your poltical unorthodoxy in the past, but do you care to expand on your enjoyment of the vast majority of the Clinton impeachment?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:40 PM
Actually (see, I can spell it), Clinton brings up a good point. Politicians appear to belong to a kind of upper class in their practice on this issue. Johnson, Clinton, Gary Hart were none of them uc to begin with, although they married up. But their marriages survived exposure of their infidelities.
I actually think that marks a big divide, of trust and identification, if you will, between our leaders and ourselves, even if our selves are the denizens of a very liberal and sophisticated blog. They don't live by the same rules as the rest of us.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:52 PM
I like sex. Sex is the best! But somewhere long ago I decided that sex without love was simply more hassle than it was worth. Chalk it up to pure laziness.
Never cheated, I guess, tho was often the partner for cheaters. Besides the effort in trying to please a stranger, there was the discomfort of secrets and looking a guy in the eye after doing his wife. Just Not Worth It. Other people apparently like sex more than I do, and find more excitement in variety. There is variety, everyone is unique, but to reach that individuality you need more than a nooner or one-night-stand. So it just felt like masturbation with an audience and complications. Why bother?
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:52 PM
looking a guy in the eye after doing his wife
Yikes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:55 PM
I know I'm coming off as a conservative here, but I'll second that "Yikes"
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:57 PM
w/d:
Everything.
1. How funny is the idea that the size and shape of the President's dick might be entered into evidence? It's a scene out of Porky's, for gawd's sake. So awesome!
2. If you knew anyone on the Clinton team (and if you were Saisalegy's age at the time, you ran into a lot of the low-level staffers), you knew they were officious and often self-righteous pricks. (These are roughly the same people we hate in our party now, for the same reasons + they are insane cowards.) Comeuppance - fun!
3. It kept Clinton busy. Ambitious people at the end of the time they will be able to act on their ambitions are scary. (I occassionally rethink this one.)
4. Worst case scenario? President Al Gore. Not that much of a problem.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 12:57 PM
not that much of a problem.
except that bush rode the momentum into office. Or he rode the momentum into a close enough race that various shenanigans could boost him the rest of the way.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 1:00 PM
there was the discomfort of secrets and looking a guy in the eye after doing his wife
Depends on the guy, doesn't it?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 1:01 PM
#117: Actually my "yikes" wasn't conservative; it was more about the idea that the real issue is some kind of competition between men over possession. Yuck.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 1:02 PM
119: I admit I never, ever thought Bush would win in '00. So maybe President Gore was second worst, and what happened was worst.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 1:03 PM
#121
Wasn't claiming you were conservative, don't think I am, only that my agreeing immediately with you about that might seem incongruous to some. I knew what you meant and agree completely.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 1:06 PM
121: Was that considered anti-feminist or misogynist? Okay, I myself had conflicts. Granted women are free agents and not possessions, but there is also a matter of being instrumental to the surreptitious violation of a contract. That she had no qualms didn't mean I couldn't. Besides, the guys were sometimes my friends.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 1:50 PM
bob, you randy dog!
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 1:56 PM
The advice I give to all men young and old:
It takes a special kind of stupid to want more than ONE woman in your life. ,
One is more than enough trouble.
Cheating is just disrespectful and hurtful. And selfish.
Posted by fasteddie | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:07 PM
115 isn't especially sexist. Flipping it to read "I wouldn't want to look the wife in the eye after doing the husband" makes perfect sense, especially if the wife is a friend.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:12 PM
Just got out of the longest meeting ever.
some kind of competition between men over possession
Can't speak for Bob, but I suspect this is a misreading. Nothing to do with possession, everything to do with trust, betrayal, and secrets.
The obvious solution is don't have an affair. Simple enough. Except that people do. Lots of people. All the time. Irrational though it may be, I have seen very few relationships survive the discovery of an affair unscathed. The relationship may not fail altogether (at least not right away), but it emerges with a pronounced limp. I've seen a few do okay, but they are decidedly in the minority.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:19 PM
121:
I'm doubtful about the assumption that "looking a guy in the eye after doing his wife" is necessarily an issue of competition over possesion. I was involved with someone (but that was in another country, & besides, the wench is now a minister) who was unfaithful with more than one of our mutual friends. I didn't feel that I was being deprived of "possessing" her; I felt that I was being deprived of the ability to have honest discourse with my friends. It's no fun to realize that someone you like & respect may be avoiding you to protect a secret, regardless of the nature of that secret.
Posted by Rah | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:27 PM
Drat! "possesion" s/b "possession".
Posted by Rah | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:30 PM
the wench is now a minister
Hmmm, I think I know who you're talking about...
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:34 PM
maybe i subscribe too much to the evolutionary psychology perspective, but i think male sexual jealousy, at least, is a powerful unconscious biological imperative.
i do believe that part of being human is our ability to not allow our behavior to be dictated by our biological imperatives, but submit that it can be difficult to be happy when we consistently do so.
Posted by fiend | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:49 PM
naw, it's cultural. Except perhaps in Texas, where killing a cheating wife is the way to assure reproductive success. Where's LB? We need another Somoa story.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 2:59 PM
Did anyone see the Frontline on sex slavery that aired on Tuesday? It was so depressing I couldn't even enjoy the fact the pimp was named Apo.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:05 PM
A big part of my problem with cheating in a relationship is that... well, it's not two people and an automaton. It's three people and at least two relationships, although the second one might be of short duration.
In the kind of scenario people seem to be talking about here: one-off(-ish) night together it's not always the case that the fling can end with as much ease as the cheater (and their partner) would like. The relationship outsider might well be having a short term fling for kicks, but that's not always true: in fact in most situations I've witnessed, the outsider has in fact had a bit of a thing (or usually a whole whopping lot of a thing) for the cheater for a while and is none too pleased to be a short term fling that was a huge mistake and also a big secret. The outsider in some cases then attempts one of two things: wrecking the main relationship by telling the other partner, or doing their best to start a longer term affair (or both). In other cases word may get out via their trusted friend who is the recipient of their off-loaded woe.
And it's affairs that I really don't like. And also huge dramatic situations of dealing with the woes of three people: the cheater, the partner and the outsider, all bouncing frantically on each other's weak points.
Posted by Anonymousness Personified | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:09 PM
naw, it's cultural.
Such things are almost never exclusively one or the other.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:09 PM
Intellectually, I don't think it makes any sense that it's OK for a spouse or SO to have and spend time with close opposite-sex friends but not OK if they go to bed instead of lunch. Emotionally, I think it would be difficult if either my wife or I screwed around with a mutual friend or acquaintance, but I don't think an occasional extramarital romp would be a big deal if it were possible to do such a thing at a safe remove from the marriage but with someone who could be trusted not to create either health or emotional issues down the road. Practically, it just ain't anywhere close to being worth messing around with. Having a relationship with one other person is complicated enough.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:17 PM
87: Tia, are you sure about that? I thought it was that 1 in 5 women have some strain of HPV, which does not always cause genital herpes, or any outward symptoms whatsoever (and in many cases is in fact totally harmless unless you get cervical cancer). I should do research...
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:22 PM
Such things are almost never exclusively one or the other.
I'm trying to imagine a way to demonstrate a biological basis for male sexual jealousy, and failing. Maybe my imagination is inadequate.
Demonstrating a cultural basis is easy. There are cultures and groups where it doesn't occur. And then there are Bonobos.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:22 PM
maybe i subscribe too much to the evolutionary psychology perspective
If you subscribe at all, you subscribe too much.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:24 PM
140: maybe, but i dunno, it just seems incredibly unlikely that our genes would have constructed brains that did not behave in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of their successful propagation.
Posted by fiend | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:32 PM
138: HPV causes genital warts, not herpes. They're two different things.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:33 PM
139: which cultures and groups would those be? i ask out of genuine curiousity.
Posted by fiend | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:34 PM
from here:
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted virus. It has been estimated that 75% or more of sexually active Americans will contract HPV sometime in their lives. This means that anyone who has ever had sexual relations has a high chance of being exposed to this virus, but only a small number of women infected with HPV develop cell changes that need to be treated. In almost all cases, the immune system will keep the virus (including the cancer-related HPV types) under control or get rid of it completely. However, if HPV infection does not go away over many years, there is a greater chance of developing cell changes that may lead to cervical cancer. Only very rarely does the presence of HPV lead to cervical cancer.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:34 PM
oh yeah.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:35 PM
And if you have kids there's a whole nother level of betrayal, if you're not good at covering your tracks or you wind up being secretive about other things. I know that I felt terribly betrayed when I found out about my Dad's girlfriend--even though my parents didn't have a healthy marriage in any sense. I'm pretty sure that they haven't slept together in years. I think that he thought about divorcing her at one point within the last several years, but he didn't. He did try once when I was 11 or so, but she contested it. She wouldn't have wanted a divorce, and then it became so clear that she couldn't take care of herself that he stayed.
But given the values I was raised with, this felt like a terrible betrayal. A divorce wouldn't have been so bad, and an open marriage might have been tolerable, but failed secrecy was a real betrayal.
I caught sight of a blockbuster charge from Ohio. I told him that somebody might be using his card etc. At one point he told me about the girlfriend and his plan to divorce my mother, but he never did, and they're back together. I think it has as much to do with money as his feeligns about his promise to my mother. I would have preferred a divorce instead of an affair. And it wasn't even me that he was cheating on.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:37 PM
138: HPV causes genital warts, not herpes. They're two different things.
Feel like sharing, Becks?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:37 PM
that's got to be the worst pick-up line I've ever heard.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:41 PM
HPV also causes cervical cancer, at least some strains.
Re. possessiveness: I was putting a lot of pressure on the "his" part of "his wife." I note, for instance, that Joe's flipping of the genders substitutes "the" for "her." And yes, I know that that's a lot of reading into two small words, but my larger point is that the essence of the "I would be ashamed to face X after sleeping with X's partner, Y" is the idea that partnership connotes a kind of possession. That's the point of jealousy, no? B/c logically sleeping with someone else doesn't harm X in any way--which again, is, I think, the unarticulated premise behind the argument (probably sound, practically speaking) that it's a bad idea to admit to having had a one-night stand.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:44 PM
148: Funny, you magnificent bastard.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:46 PM
110- well, the book of interviews i read was with female french celebrities, from journalism and the literary worlds mostly, so it is obviously not a fair sample. certainly a sample including catherine millet is not a fair sample. and i can imagine the "worldly wise" attitude may be a posture that many frenchpeople enjoy perpetuating. on the other hand, i do believe that there is much less of a knee-jerk moralizing response to men who sleep with women other than their wives - witness the completely unshocked reaction to mitterand's widow and his mistress showing up at his state funeral. and wasn't mitterand's wife herself fairly openly involved with derrida at one point? and finally, these philandering french men must have partners, since they can't cheat by themselves. i get the strong impression the partners are often married women, not ingenues off the street. however, jackmormon, i do agree that it is probably easier for men to be open about infidelity than women - it seems very likely there is a double standard.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:50 PM
I think sexual jealousy is pretty common in both sexes, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a biological component in addition to a cultural component. But that's not wholly relevant, as 'having a biological component' doesn't always mean 'morally unquestionable.' (Not mention that 'recent social phenomenon that I like' doesn't line up with 'must be biologically determined', either.)
In a lot of infidelity cases, I imagine that telling the other person might turn out okay, even if the relationship fails. But these are the sorts of situations where I imagine the couple is sort of like Tia and Graham. Very open, very modern, and not married, or planning to, or having children together.
With most other couples I think you'd have to balance the risk of disease (and seriously fucking up the other person's life) against the risk that telling them seriously fucks up the other person's life. If it was a one-night stand with someone you had no idea about sexual history? Maybe better off telling. If it was a one-night stand with a co-worker who you knew very well (reason to expect clean, used condoms, etc.)? Maybe not.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:54 PM
148: You beat me to it. I was going to say "Yeah, come by at 10, IYKWIM."
(OK...that even icked me out.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 3:56 PM
I would like to believe that were I ever confronted with an admission of this kind, I would pick myself off the floor and try to save the relationship. If forgiveness were asked, that I would grant it on the spot.
And that's where the particulars come in. The point made above, that the third party often wants to replace you, is worth remembering. Also worth remembering is that many times the spouse wants to be monogamous, and interprets the fact of having had sex outside as a sign that the marriage is over. That seems to have been common in my parent's generation.
That it ain't necessarily so seems to require a conceptual leap for many people.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 4:05 PM
Unclear, I'm sure: By "the spouse" in #154 I mean the one who has had the sex outside, and interprets his/her own behavior as a sign it's over.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 4:20 PM
I don't think possessiveness of men is the only explanation or jealousy is the only explanation for guilt. How about this construal?
'X and Y are both my friends. X and Y promised, when they decided to be monogamous, among other things, not to sleep with other people. When I cheated with Y, I helped break that contract. I feel guilty for having helped Y break the contract, plus, I know X will be hurt by my actions.'
Now you might be able to argue that the promise is made only out of jealousy, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 4:22 PM
next month, after having completed my regimen to eradicate all jealous thoughts, I will purge myself of the need to urinate.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 4:26 PM
121, 128:Wow, I come back from walking the dogs and find I have been defended. Warm fuzzies.
1) In discussions of adult relationships, I think the use of the possessive usually indicates some kind of contractual relationship, as in "Clinton's lawyer" or "her doctor."
2) Got the wrong dude. Not only was I rarely competitive with other men, especially sexually, I was rarely even sexually assertive or aggressive with women. I am a lazy dude, and in the 70s it was just safer and easier to let the lady take the initiative. It was the 70s, so it worked out pretty well. Now there are signals, eye contact, body language, flirting and the affairs didn't just happen, but they mostly felt serendipitous.
3) Part of the problem is precisely the feminism. If I respected her, and wanted her, refusing her because of my concern over how she handled her relationship seemed presumptuous and insulting. If that contradicts the above, I did say I was conflicted. Being a passive a kind of guy, I usually let my gonads resolve the moral dilemma.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 4:29 PM
Ordinarily, I think one has a moral obligation to tell one's partner about an act of sexual infidelity. This may well cause the partner pain, anger, and the beginning of the end of the relationship---but I suspect, in most cases, the cheatee would rather know than not know that her partner has become a cheator. Reference to the partner's pain as a means of justifying non-disclosure ignores the fact that the partner believes the disutility of not-knowing outweighs the disutility of the pain-of-knowing. And surely the partner, ordinarily, is a better judge of whether disclosure/non-disclosure is preferable for her than anyone else is.
But I can also envision situations in which the general rule should not be followed. Suppose the act of infidelity occurred decades ago, and the partners are so old as to reduce the likelihood of finding a new partnership to nearly zero. Here, even though the partner might still insist that he would want to know, the degree of harm caused might be so great as to outweigh his wishes. Perhaps we might call this an instance of justifiable paternalism? Or suppose that there are children involved, and the disclosure of infidelity would likely destroy the relationship, and thereby harm the children. Here one must consider various third-parties in addition to the partner's own wishes.
I'm not sure anyone can really predict whether he will always be faithful. I think we could all agree, though a few may secretly not, that the long-term detriment of cheating outweighs the short-term excitement of cheating, and so we would have to be acting irrationally, and contrary to our own interests, when we do cheat. I don't think this excuses the conduct when it occurs though, or should prevent anyone from promising not to cheat.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 4:40 PM
It was the 70s, so it worked out pretty well.
What a great sentence.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 4:49 PM
118: What a bunch of crap, Tim.
i'll delete the rest of my response.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 5:02 PM
C'mon, old man. Bring the heat, and warm up my cold, cold heart.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 5:20 PM
I think we could all agree, though a few may secretly not, that the long-term detriment of cheating outweighs the short-term excitement of cheating
I pretty much agree that this is true, but is that a good thing? The older I get, the more I drift toward thinking that sexual fidelity may be important in the early stages of a relationship but should become less important as the couple become more secure with each other and their lives get cemented together in more ways. I'm too lazy, contented, and risk-averse to risk messing up a good thing for something transitory, but jealousy and possessiveness don't seem like the kinds of emotions that we ought to be treating as central to our most important relationships.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 5:20 PM
Why are we assuming that jealousy is an insurmountable problem in a relationship? I mean, people get jealous of all sorts of things: their partner's work, time spent out with "the boys" or "the girls," hell, sometimes even children, yes? And we don't consider those jealousies de facto grounds for ending a relationship.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 5:40 PM
163: DaveL, that's a really interesting point. I've always thought that one important reason (for me at least) to aspire to monogamy is that it would just get muddled who had emotional primacy in my life, but I suppose if my life had been bound with someone else's for a decade, that would be less confusing. I dunno though, if I met some other nice guy, and wound up seeing him for years too...
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 5:54 PM
164: It's not insurmountable. But mostly people regard that one particular jealousy as sacred and proper. That's a cultural thing. If there's one thing we really, really fear in this culture, it's being made a fool of, and we're socialized to believe that our partner's having sex with someone else makes us foolish and pathetic. What's kind of odd is that even people who generally aren't into those games regard sexual fidelity as really, really important. An awful lot of efforts to take on that particular taboo have ended badly, so I think it's rational to be cautious about moving from the intellectual to the practical, but it does seem odd that so few people even question it.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:03 PM
but jealousy and possessiveness don't seem like the kinds of emotions that we ought to be treating as central to our most important relationships.
I don't think that a desire to be monogamous, by itself, means that jealousy and possessiveness are central to the relationship, though. The implication of that would be that every couple that desires to be monogamous i.e. the vast majority of couples in this country and around the world, has jealousy and possessiveness at the center of their relationship.
Maybe I'm misreading you though.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:10 PM
I dunno though, if I met some other nice guy, and wound up seeing him for years too...
That strikes me as a whole 'nother set of complications, because I think it would require not only that the primary partner be cool with the outside relationship but also that the outside partner be OK with being in a long-term secondary status. And that, in turn, would often mean that the outside squeeze would need to have his/her own primary partner who was also cool with the whole thing. And so on, ever outward, rebuilding the culture in a less jealous mode. More power to those who can make such things work, but there would be an awful lot of social pressures working against you.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:20 PM
surprised no discussion broke out over the standard "women cheat b/c something's missing, men cheat b/c they can" line. neat.
what a shite topic to have some firsthand experience. cheating is teh suck. when i was the wronged half, it was during a period of geographic (ergo temporal) separation, so the disease aspect didn't affect me directly, apart from the shock sense she had risked such a thing. we had talked about it beforehand, and i was sure i'd want to know. i was dumb.
i am very much of the opinion that if one has cheated, they should take some time for very serious thought and reflection. extenuating factors aside (y'know, for kids), that's a likely sign its quittin' time. but if the disease factor isn't there, i think many people who tell their partner are actually doing so to make themselves feel better. it can be a very selfish thing to do, and will often devastate your other.
re: jealousy. in my limited experience i've found men & women focus on it differently, that is, physically v. emotionally.
also: walking into a meeting and realizing that one of the lobbyists is the fellow who seduced your s/o: not fun.
i like the line from miller's crossing on this one: nobody knows anybody. not that well.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:21 PM
I don't think that a desire to be monogamous, by itself, means that jealousy and possessiveness are central to the relationship, though.
But what is monogamy? The essence of my relationship with my wife is love, mutual support, shared experience, etc. I don't think it's written in the stars that those things instantly go out the window as soon as either of us touches somebody else's genitals. If monogamy is compatible with all sorts of non-sexual interactions with third parties, what makes sexual interactions fundamentally different (other than the fact that we're socialized to treat them that way)?
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:28 PM
Well, a few things. First, I don't think every couple should be monogamous. It's a decision for each couple to make individually. Second, even non-monogamous couples ascribe importance to sexual interactions. Third, that a couple decides that sexual interactions represent something important, and intimate, and that the relationship is enhanced by a commitment to mutual fidelity, does not mean that they do so out of jealousy or possessiveness. That we are socialized to have a belief does not in itself render that belief unimportant to us, or superficial, or based upon some type of fear.
Maybe this is just a misunderstanding though. I view acts of sexual infidelity to be those sexual interactions which violate, in some manner, one's relationship with one's partner. I don't mean to imply that every non-monogamous act is also an act of sexual infidelity.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:38 PM
I don't think we're disagreeing. I tend to think that in a better world we'd continue to form long-term, monogamous relationships but wouldn't treat sexual exclusivity as central to those relationships, but we don't live in that world. In the world we do live in, sexual exclusivity is expected and appropriate in most long-term relationships, and it's not right to claim sexual liberties that our partners would consider inappropriate. I think there's some value in grappling with whether that makes any sense or not, but the sexual revolution and its aftermath suggest that "it's all stupid, tear it down" is not an adequate answer.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:48 PM
169: sorry to harp, but there is no such thing as the disease factor not being there. There just isn't. There is no one on earth whose STD status you can know for sure. The closest you can get is "I trust this person to be honest with me if I ask them their status and whether they're involved with anyone else," and if you're having an affair with them, and they know you're elsewhere committed, maybe you already have some reason to doubt their scruples.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:55 PM
They have reason to doubt your scruples, but I'm not sure you have reason to doubt theirs.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 6:58 PM
Why not? They're the one that's cheating.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:00 PM
No, in the given scenario, you're the one that's cheating.
Unless both parties are cheating.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:02 PM
Tia's scenario, to which you were responding, was that the other party is the one that's committed.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:04 PM
tia-
i meant that in my case, we were on different continents for several months, more than enough time for anything to register before we saw one another. and i was adamant about testing after, which itself was a reflection of pretty much all trust being decimated.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:04 PM
Tia's scenario, to which you were responding, was that the other party is the one that's committed.
Really?
you're having an affair with them, and they know you're elsewhere committed
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:09 PM
You doubt their scruples because they're assisting you in the violation of contract, as Bob put it.
Just to drive home this point, since I'm anonymous and I'd like to destigmatize this anyway: I am herpes positive. I found out after I was tested after my sixth sexual partner. You might be thinking, "But Tia, you're *exactly* the kind of person I'd expect to get an STD." But trust me, I do not come off that way in real life, and any hypothetical coworker who met me and assessed me for disease risk would almost certainly assess very low. I'm also very honest, so in some ways, they'd be right to assess a low risk of an undisclosed disease, but the point remains that you really can't tell what's going on in someone's genitals from a casual assessment of their character. I have friends who went to my college, and thus would theoretically go in my "has values and education similar to mine" category, who have historically been very resistant to or lazy about STD testing. One boyfriend of mine told me months into our relationship that he'd slept with men; that totally changed my assessment of his disease risk, and I didn't hear about it for a long time.
If you're curious, herpes is not a big deal to me, since I had one outbreak three years ago, then never again; that means I'm unlikely to be contagious, and I've never had a man decline to sleep with me because of it. Delivering the news has always gone well.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:10 PM
If they're crazy enough to get involved with you, perhaps they should be committed.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:10 PM
Oh! I misread. Okay, never mind.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:10 PM
181 was not in response to 180.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:12 PM
Who was it directed at, then? Hmm?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:16 PM
Yet 181 might be true wrt me nonetheless.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:16 PM
It was directed to the hypothetical.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:19 PM
Who has affairs with the hypothetical?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:25 PM
I don't have enough energy for any other kind.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:30 PM
I was also in a relationship where my s/o cheated while on another continent. He told me about it shortly after it happened, and I broke up with him on the phone. The cheating was a symptom of other problems, and I'm glad he told me about it. Infidelity gave me a reason to end the relationship.
Because of that experience, I think I wouldn't be very likely to cheat. Also, I'm like Becks, et al. in that I kinda lose interest in other men when I'm in a serious long-term relationship. And the last paragraph of mmf!'s 86 is probably why.
Posted by singular girl | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:35 PM
187: that's the best and safest kind.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:53 PM
Hmmm... so has Jane done something wrong when she sleeps with Jill while Jill is exclusively involved with Joan? Does Jane owe some type of responsibility to Joan which is thereby violated? Does it matter if Jane and Jill are very attractive, offered to take pictures? Was that an incredibly rude question?
DaveL,
I think there are some deep-seated evolutionary reasons why sexual interactions are so important to us, so I don't see them fading as important any time soon either. But I also think it reasonable to suppose that by keeping certain things between oneself and one's partner, one adds an element of privilege to the relationship, an element of intimacy, and an expression of commitment that cannot easily be added otherwise.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 7:58 PM
164- You are especially jealous of a rival (more than work, more than children) because she could replace you. And it's not so irrational--you're at a structural disadvantage against a new person, because you are familiar, and she is exciting and mysterious. The new person glitters a bit falsely, because one day she will become just as familiar as you, but in the meantime the emotions associated with can be far more passionate. Your partner may be distracted by this and leave you, however great your relationship is.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:22 PM
As long as we're on the subject of the symbols and signifiers of long term committed monogamous relationships, what's the current practice with respect to wedding rings? I'm wondering if I'm the only unmarried person who wears one. Do married people still normally wear 'em?
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:23 PM
I wear a wedding ring. Why do you wear a ring? Were you previously married? I don't think it would be called a "wedding ring" if you just happen to wear it on your ring finger without ever having gotten married.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:31 PM
my married friends all got them.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:32 PM
I lost mine playing volleyball a couple of summers ago and never replaced it. T. doesn't wear his, either.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:37 PM
I wear one to signal 'committed, unavailable.' I like talking to women, and I'm not quite sure where the boundary between friendliness and flirting lies, so it helps prevent misunderstanding. Or some such thing. I'm not really sure why I wear it. It seemd like a good thing to start wearing. It's clearly a wedding ring. I inherited it from my father. It looks like nothing except a wedding ring, a plain thin gold band, third finger left hand. About 7 years after I started wearing it, my partner started wearing something that looks like a wedding ring. We haven't really discussed it.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:38 PM
so you had a very informal ceremony, is what you're saying.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:39 PM
I never notice whether people are wearing wedding rings or not. It's not really something I look for.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:41 PM
No ceremony at all (if that was addressed to me). But now I need to remember not to play volleyball.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:41 PM
I know some single women who do deliberately look for wedding rings on guys.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:43 PM
I may have some block about it, actually, because it annoys me no end when women show off their engagement rings.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:44 PM
what I mean is, there isn't much separating you from actually being married, but for various legal rights, which you may have attained already if you and your girlfriend have lived together for awhile.
I don't look for wedding rings either. Other people do that a lot from what I hear. I doubt it will lead me to trouble, though: the topic would likely come up at some point.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:45 PM
202 - There was a girl who I worked with who called her engagement ring her "I don't care" ring, meaning that she knew she was going to quit her job the day she got married. Whenever a problem came up at work and we'd ask her opinion, she would stick out her ring finger, wave it back and forth, and sing-song "IIII don't caaare".
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:48 PM
Do I infer correctly that you're in the married, no ring category, Text?
I know one divorced woman who wears a diamond ring that looks a lot like an engagement ring. I've never asked her about it. But she wears a lot of jewelry.
The last time I checked, New Mexico was one of the 42 states in which one can't form a common law marriage.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 8:54 PM
I think there are some deep-seated evolutionary reasons why sexual interactions are so important to us, so I don't see them fading as important any time soon either.
Don't think you'll get much argument on that one!
But I also think it reasonable to suppose that by keeping certain things between oneself and one's partner, one adds an element of privilege to the relationship, an element of intimacy, and an expression of commitment that cannot easily be added otherwise.
That one's a lot more debatable. Sexual exclusivity may be an important glue early on, but if that's all you have holding you together ten years in, something's wrong. If you've been together for long enough to survive a few tough times together, it ought to be pretty clear whether you're committed to each other or not. And if any outside sex is still an absolute dealbreaker at that point regardless of the circumstances, I think there are some jealousy and ego issues in play.
Again, this is all theoretical. I'm boring and monogamous and have been for 15+ years. But I've watched other people tear themselves to pieces over infidelities that probably didn't need to be a huge deal if they could have dealt with some of the other issues they had going on, but once the wounded egos came into play they had to make sure there was plenty of pain to go around.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:04 PM
no, no. I'm in the no ring not married category. the statement to which you refer was very unclear.
I meant, not noticing someone else's ring, because I don't look, wouldn't lead me to trouble. I'd be informed if I got fresh.
I'm really like 12 years old Schneider.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:04 PM
I don't wear a ring, but my wife does.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:08 PM
Right, DaveL, but if they'd dealt with the other issues the infidelity might well never have happened. There's a tautology hiding in there somewhere.
I wish it weren't only my mind that was 12. Then I wouldn't have this bursitis in my shoulder.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:10 PM
Why don't you, Apostropher, if I may ask? If I mayn't, don't answer.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:13 PM
Oh, there isn't any meaning behind it. When we got married, instead of shelling out for rings and a wedding, we went to Italy (it's the second marriage for both of us, fwiw). Several months later, she saw a ring in an antique store that she really liked and I had just gotten my annual bonus at work so I bought it for her. I wouldn't be averse to wearing one, just never have gotten around to getting one. And for now, the unbelievable cost of daycare for a 1-year-old pretty much precludes getting one.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:20 PM
Very understandable story. I think there has been a general decline in the social importance of wedding rings over the lastseveral decades. Someone has probably done a study. Thanks.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:26 PM
209: Well, yes, but it was the infidelities that were unforgiveable and led to the big ugly blowups. And in other cases, where maybe there was a little less wounded ego factor, infidelity or some other sort of crisis led the parties to step back a little, realize they had something worth saving but needed to work hard to save it, and come through stronger for having made the effort.
I think it's not unusual for people to break up because they're afraid that they'll be perceived by others as weak and pathetic if they don't--"how can you let him/her do that to you?!"--and then start over from scratch in a new relationship when they could have saved the old one with a fraction of the effort they put into finding and building the new one. Not my place to tell them they're wrong, but it tends to strike me as more pain and drama than it's worth. OTOH, it takes two to fix a screwed-up relationship, and there are enough jerks in the world that an awful lot of relationships contain at least one.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 02- 9-06 9:59 PM
211 -- Ellen and I have a vaguely similar story. When we got married, instead of shelling out for rings we upgraded a couple of old rings of Ellen's to "wedding ring" status -- luckily she and I have similarly sized fingers. Neither of us is still wearing those rings -- a couple of years later she saw a ring she liked and bought it, and then when we were in China adopting Sylvia, I saw a ring I liked and bought it. (A bargain too, at 30 Yuan ==about 3 and a half $ US. (My ring will not last forever being made of turquoise, and when it breaks I imagine I will go back to wearing my old wedding ring of Ellen's.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 5:53 AM
My wife and both have wedding rings - plain silver bands - but neither of us wear them. I'd start wearing mine again but it doesn't quite fit comfortably - my hands are a fraction bigger than when we first bought the rings and I don't really like wearing rings anyway, the slightest hint that one is too tight and it doesn't get worn.
My wife does wear her engagement ring though as she likes it a lot as an item of jewellery [irrespective of any symbolism].
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 6:38 AM
Several times I've lost mine trying to extricate my hand from a crevice in an engine compartment, and then had to spend time fishing for it. That's about the only trouble it's ever caused me; I must wear mine for weeks at a time without thinking about it.
Seems to me that the more traditional the assumptions the more significant the ring under current conditions. Like the heavy-handed symbolism of the way the lawyer dude plays with his on his desk, off his hand, in Sex, Lies, and Video Tape.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 7:53 AM
Peter Gallagher is just some "lawyer dude" to you?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 8:32 AM
Am I supposed to have a man crush on him?
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 8:41 AM
yes.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:12 AM
No one should have a man crush on Peter Gallagher.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:14 AM
Well, Sarah Vowell's crush on him probably isn't very manly.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:18 AM
More evidence that TNR is the root of modern evil: They hate Sarah Vowell.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:26 AM
He's not in the same league as Ralph Fiennes--because no one is--because at least his roles are interesting. But I suspect he'd disappoint you if you met him.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:27 AM
He's a poor man's Treat Williams. That in itself is man-crush worthy.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:35 AM
A question that no-one has raised yet, but that is begging to be asked: are you obligated to confess to your partner if you have been untrue only in thought? It seems to me lustful fantasy is just as much a breach of fidelity as the actual physical deed.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:39 AM
...and that it should be confessed in gory detail.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:41 AM
Someone raised that question, alright.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:42 AM
I read "Treat" as "Tennessee," which put an interesting spin on your man-crush.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:43 AM
It seems to me lustful fantasy is just as much a breach of fidelity as the actual physical deed.
Hmm. I've been unfaithful with the apostropher about four times today already.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:49 AM
Found while poring over verse. WTF is the matter with Xians?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:53 AM
229: Aw, shucks. Tia is the best!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:57 AM
230 -- wow that's beautiful. I wonder if the likeness is of one of those neo-Nazi twins with the band?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 9:58 AM
In some ways, I rather do think that lustful thoughts are a breach of fidelity. It feels like a betrayal to have them. (See above comments on not sexually desiring other men when in a committed relationship.) However, lustful thoughts are clearly not as, well, compromising as lustful actions. (See above comments on disease transmission.) Talking about having such lustful thoughts might be really awkward, but not talking about them might be covering up the fact that something's going a little haywire in the relationship, something that could be resolved or at least managed with a little more honesty and negotiation.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:01 AM
(Wow, 233 was earnest.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:03 AM
Somebody'd better invoke the distinction between inclinations and will before this goes any further.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:09 AM
Also, I love Buddy Kane, the real-estate king. Mancrush galore!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:10 AM
Fine. Inclination/will distinction. There's a difference between momentarily thinking, 'Wow, he's hot.', momentarily flirting with someone in a store or on a weblog, and havinng a long cyberfling, even though no one actually has sex in any of them.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:15 AM
I emphatically believe that lustful thoughts about others are not a breach of fidelity. While it's possible that having lustful thoughts for another is an indication that something's wrong in the relationship, it's also possible that it's just evidence of a healthy libido.
To quote the Dan Savage interview linked earlier, "The measure of a man's devotion isn't that he doesn't want to fuck other people. It's that he doesn't fuck other people."
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:16 AM
What's wrong with being sexy?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:22 AM
I rather do think that lustful thoughts are a breach of fidelity
That would make me a bad, bad, bad man. Holy moly.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:24 AM
I also think that it's your duty not to talk about your lustful thoughts for others, unless that kind of thing turns your partner on.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:26 AM
Thanks for clearing up the inclination/will distinction, FL and Cala. I do think that if you're at the point of having a prolonged flirtation, you've at least advanced a yard or two along the garden path. My concern would have to be weighed against opportunity (how accessible is the object of lust?) and fairness (does the object of lust also harbor fantasies for you?). Random guy on the subway doesn't meet either bar, so whether you talk about him with your SO is up to you. Co-worker or friend, who's also interested in you? Problem probably worth discussing with your SO before it becomes a disaster.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:39 AM
Who hates Sarah Vowell?
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:46 AM
Who hates Sarah Vowell? She's so likeable!
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:51 AM
Hating Sarah Vowell is grounds for divorce.
Lustful thoughts are cheating, and should therefore be confessed, even if your partner tells you to shut the fuck up already. If you have them, you are being unfaithful and your relationship is doomed.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:56 AM
Sarah Vowell's so nice, he named her twice.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:58 AM
Hating Sarah Vowell is grounds for divorce.
Now that I've read it, turns out I used to go out with the author of that piece.
Also, forgot my pseudonym!
Posted by Wehttam Saiselgy | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:01 AM
Hating Sarah Vowell is second only in preposterousness to hating barbecues. As I recall, certain authors were highly preposterous. Too bad, she was cute!
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:16 AM
She doesn't hate barbecues; she just hates being outside.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:20 AM
She didn't like the brisket. Also, being outside is so fun.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:21 AM
Speaking of food, we should go to Whole Foods and buy fixin's for breakfast tacos.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:26 AM
Hating being outside is dumb, too.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:26 AM
I thought you were going to be MoDo's boy-toy, WS. Otherwise, stick to libertarians.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim |