# Infidelity. Justifiable?



## 'alexcia'

Good day Foreros!

I have noticed, as I wander on the threads that much have been discussed about LOVE. As Mr. Cuchu said in one of his posts : "You have discovered the secret: All of WR is about love "
Discussing about love, we can't do away with Infidelity ( it took courage for me to even admit it ). But let's face reality. I mean how many of us here, Foreros can actually say that there was never in his/her life that he/she was unfaithful? Or at least, was tempted to be? 
I came across an article the other day. Accordingly, some of us might not even be aware that we are being unfaithful? Some thinks that as long as they are not touching, they are not guilty of cheating. Thus, the difference between *emotional* and *sexual* (wish there's another word to replace this, if so tell me i'll edit  ) infidelity. Made me think: when is infidelity, INFIDELITY?
The guilty would usually excuse by saying " Well I just followed my heart, it's love. " So is that justifiable? If not, when can you consider Infidelity justifiable? ( if it is ever justifiable  )


----------



## modgirl

alexcia said:
			
		

> Accordingly, some of us might not even be aware that we are being unfaithful?


 
Sorry for the diversion, but the impeached President Clinton comes to mind!

I think I understand what you're asking. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)


Are you asking, "Is it okay to think about other women (or men) even when I'm with my wife (or husband) as long as I don't follow my thoughts with actions?"

If that is the question, I'd say that's not infidelity at all. We often can't control our thoughts, but we *can* control our actions. That's what makes us moral humans. When an animal is in heat, he has sex with the first available partner! However, with very rare exception, humans do not do that.


----------



## 'alexcia'

> Are you asking, "Is it okay to think about other women (or men) even when I'm with my wife (or husband) as long as I don't follow my thoughts with actions?"


Lets go a little further, thinking and with feeling. I agree that if it's thoughts alone then it is not infidelity but if there's emotion involve, i'll give a second thought. Don't you think?


----------



## modgirl

alexcia said:
			
		

> Lets go a little further, thinking and with feeling. I agree that if it's thoughts alone then it is not infidelity but if there's emotion involve, i'll give a second thought. Don't you think?


 
Oh, I think I understand.  Perhaps a man is married and has been physically faithful to his wife.  However, there's another woman, and although he has never touched this other woman physically, he has not only sexual desires but also is falling in love with her.  Is that what you mean?  

If so, I don't know that I could label that "infidelity."  However, in a marital relationships, I'd call it unhealthy.


----------



## 'alexcia'

> Oh, I think I understand. Perhaps a man is married and has been physically faithful to his wife. However, there's another woman, and although he has never touched this other woman physically, he has not only sexual desires but also is falling in love with her. Is that what you mean?


That will be one example. And to make the situation that you've given worst, the husband is enjoying more the company and all the time being with the other woman as precious than that with the wife.



> If so, I don't know that I could label that "infidelity." However, in a marital relationships, I'd call it unhealthy.


But it could be labeled emotional infidelity, right?


----------



## modgirl

alexcia said:
			
		

> And to make the situation that you've given worst, the husband is enjoying more the company and all the time being with the other woman as precious than that with the wife.


 
Oh, definitely not good at all.



> But it could be labeled emotional infidelity, right?


 
I don't know what the official term would be, but *emotional infidelity* certainly seems very appropriate here.

Enjoying the company of the opposite sex is certainly no crime. But, when a person begins spending more time with one particular person at the exclusion of his wife, it certainly sounds like some very serious issues are going on. If the husband won't talk about it or go to counseling, I'd highly suggest that the woman speak with a disinterested third-party to find out how to cope with the situation.


----------



## 'alexcia'

> If the husband won't talk about it or go to counseling, I'd highly suggest that the woman speak with a disinterested third-party to find out how to cope with the situation.


Yes, I could not imagine the process but we have witnessed and seen how this can ruin a relationship and a family/home. I'm picturing the movie "unfaithful". I'm not married but if ever i'll be, i could and would not tolerate my husband's maltreatment.
But I don't know how to tell the children, how to make things feel the same again for them. You know, they look up to their dad with respect and love. Who knows what they might be feeling afterwards, right? Some might cope up easily but how about the weak ones? Pity kids..


----------



## modgirl

alexcia said:
			
		

> But I don't know how to tell the children, how to make things feel the same again for them.


 

In the situation that we were describing, I personally feel that there is no reason to tell the kids. In fact, telling the kids would do more harm than good because children need a secure environment. Telling them about their father's wandering mind is not only weakening that environment but putting the children in a very awkward position (and the children are completely innocent!). In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it would be selfish of either parent to tell the children.


----------



## 'alexcia'

But sooner or later the children will find out right? That is if the situation keeps getting worst. One more thing, in our country there is no divorce so one could be forever trapped and tortured in a relationship. There's legal separation and anullment but it's a long process ( I heard ) and very painful. Sometimes kids could be involve due to custody.
In USA ( not sure if you are there  you have divorce right? But I think the process is equally painful.
Here, if your parents are separated/anulled or not living together anymore, you ( child ) are seen as somebody incomplete (don't know of what). I wonder if this is the same in your place and how it is in other countries. Well, I know that in some countries/religion multiple wives are allowed. Not sure, what countries though.


----------



## modgirl

alexcia said:
			
		

> But sooner or later the children will find out right?


 
Clarification is pertinent here.  If the situation is a father who is spending more time with another woman than with his wife and separation or divorce is not imminent, then what is the reason for telling the children and getting them involved?  I'm sure the children will figure out that dad isn't home as often as he used to be, but the exact reason could harm them tremendously.

It seems to me, at the point, if the mother, father, and children are all still living together, and assuming there is no abuse -- physical, chemical, sexual, and so forth -- there may be hope for the marriage and the family life.

Has the wife spoken with her husband about the situation at all?


----------



## 'alexcia'

Yes I agree modgirl. When I wrote that I was actually thinking the situation got worst.
I think if the level of infidelity is not that worst, if it is still manageable all they need is to acknowledge that it is actually happening and talk about it. Bridge the communication gap.


> Has the wife spoken with her husband about the situation at all?


I hope our hypothetical characters will do that in a minute..jejejeje  

But seriously, I remember (from the article) that most guys will find the idea of emotional infidelity distressing than sexual infidelity. You think so? Why is that? 
By the way, do you notice we are the only ones discussing this issue? I'm starting to think we are the only one not guilty of the issue.. jejejeje


----------



## modgirl

alexcia said:
			
		

> I hope our hypothetical characters will do that in a minute..jejejeje


 
Hypothetical characters are my favorite kind!



> But seriously, I remember (from the article) that most guys will find the idea of emotional infidelity distressing than sexual infidelity. You think so? Why is that?


 
My feeling is that the distress would be felt by any guilty party, male or female. None of us is perfect, but sometimes we choose behavior that we purposely know is self-destructive, but darn, it just feels so good that we selfishly give into it. I can't imagine anyone would care to discuss his own personal behavior that is damaging his family and marital life!



> By the way, do you notice we are the only ones discussing this issue? I'm starting to think we are the only one not guilty of the issue.. jejejeje


 
Or more likely, (at least in my area) people are enjoying a beautiful day outside! I'm stuck inside, working on both job-related tasks and household tasks (though I'll be glad to hand the kitchen mop over to anyone who wants it...)

I am not a psychologist or any kind of a counselor at all, but my sincere suggestion is that if the husband will not discuss the situation or if his behavior does not change, the wife must do what she can to help herself and her children. Since, I'm not exactly certain what that is, most likely a marriage counselor or someone who has experience and education in this area could potentially be a big help and may even help save and enrich the marriage! At the very least, it can't hurt.


----------



## 'alexcia'

> Hypothetical characters are my favorite kind!


same here! 


> None of us is perfect, but sometimes we choose behavior that we purposely know is self-destructive, but darn, it just feels so good that we selfishly give into it.


This makes us human. We make mistakes, learn and hopefully not do it again. But you're right it just feels good.



> Or more likely, (at least in my area) people are enjoying a beautiful day outside! I'm stuck inside, working on both job-related tasks and household tasks (though I'll be glad to hand the kitchen mop over to anyone who wants it...)



They could be. Same here, in my terminal facing the monitor and trying to control the thoughts running in my mind.. Certainly that anyone can't be me..


----------



## Mitcheck

I believed that infidelity is justifiable. As long as both partners(a married person and a partner) loved each other the way they wanted to be loved. At times, we can't find that love to a person whom we are with but with the stranger whom we didn't expect to fill that love we longed for.


----------



## julienne

hello  

been following your posts heheheh 

i can't help but wonder though, how you would tactfully broach the subject to the individuals involved and get them to seek counsel.. this is after all a delicate situation... i expect the guilty party would deny it just to save face... and to produce proofs would be considered butting in on things none of  your business....


----------



## 'alexcia'

As the song goes " it's sad to belong to someone else when the right one comes along ". But as mod girl put it " sometimes we choose behavior that we purposely know is self-destructive, but darn, it just feels so good that we selfishly give into it "..
Well, you could be right. It is justifiable for the two whose loving each other. How about the one who will be left alone?


----------



## meili

Allow me to be one of those who are on the 'not guilty' side.

I think this all boils down to freewill, and conscience at that.

Those who say that this is justifiable, IMHO, is also saying that looting or robbery is justifiable when you are hungry.  I believe that you can only feel happiness living with the supposed to be married person if you (both) have left the other party happy, too.  How will that be possible?  Legal separation, or the willingness of both to let go of each other.

Call me naive, but I am definitely not a moron on this particular conversation.  (I am the product of something and something and so on and so forth) - and I tell you, the situation is bad, really bad.


----------



## Artrella

Infidelity is the worst invention of society!! Why can't you be happy with more than one person?


----------



## 'alexcia'

> Infidelity is the worst invention of society!! Why can't you be happy with more than one person?


Wow that is strong! Anyway, it got me thinking why is it an invention of society? Well I can say i agree with the 'worst', need more explanation on the words that follows..Maybe some people are not just contented with one. Or could be they were happy at one point and just woke up one day not in love with their partner anymore. Sad, right?


----------



## 'alexcia'

> can't help but wonder though, how you would tactfully broach the subject to the individuals involved and get them to seek counsel.. this is after all a delicate situation... i expect the guilty party would deny it just to save face... and to produce proofs would be considered butting in on things none of your business....


i believe you are looking from an outsider's perspective right? you are not totally within the scope of the guilty or not guilty partner but a friend of either one of the two. at least, that's how i understood it..


----------



## Artrella

alexcia said:
			
		

> Wow that is strong! Anyway, it got me thinking why is it an invention of society? Well I can say i agree with the 'worst', need more explanation on the words that follows..Maybe some people are not just contented with one. Or could be they were happy at one point and just woke up one day not in love with their partner anymore. Sad, right?




I think that it is an invention, because people are always comparing with each other.  So "competence" "power" overdo "love".  If I love my husband for such and such things, and I also love another man for "such and such things", and I live happy loving both of them... what is the problem?
Why couldn't a person love two different people?  Why there is the idea that you can only love one man/woman?  Has "sex comparison" have something to do here? I think this is the problem...


----------



## Mitcheck

alexcia said:
			
		

> How about the one who will be left alone?


It will just be fair enough for the one who will be left alone so that s/he can realized that he/have not given enough or what was expected. Sometimes, a partner will think of being unfaithful if s/he can't find satisfaction from a partner.


----------



## julienne

if you're already married, would you break your promise, before 
God and man, of for better or for worse, till death do you part?  last I heared, those were still sacred vows of marriage, and some people really take them seriously, though their partners apparently don't... 

wouldn't it be better not to marry then? or even have a serious relationship?


----------



## 'alexcia'

I got what you mean, society is the one that gave the definition or the label that it is not right to love two different people. Same could be the reason why one can only love one man/woman, because society said so. But isn't it society also considers it when the unfaithful is the man, but if it is the woman it's like a very big shame. Why is it if the man has another woman, he is viewed as macho and the unfaithful wife as disrespectful? 
I'm thinking that when one falls for somebody else, he/she is not in love with the other one anymore. So, that means you are not loving them both (at least at the same time). This is getting confusing, I must admit..


----------



## Artrella

julienne said:
			
		

> if you're already married, would you break your promise, before
> God and man, of for better or for worse, till death do you part?  last I heared, those were still sacred vows of marriage, and some people really take them seriously, though their partners apparently don't...
> 
> wouldn't it be better not to marry then? or even have a serious relationship?




Well Julienne, I don't believe in that promise to God.  In fact I believe in God, but I don't think it's against God *to love*. I'm talking about love, and not about hurting anyone.  That's why I say that "infidelity" is the worst invention.  If "infidelity" didn't exist... love will be great.  But we are so repressed about limits, and society and religion, that sometimes it seems that love is something dirty.


----------



## Artrella

alexcia said:
			
		

> I got what you mean, society is the one that gave the definition or the label that it is not right to love two different people. Same could be the reason why one can only love one man/woman, because society said so. But isn't it society also considers it when the unfaithful is the man, but if it is the woman it's like a very big shame. Why is it if the man has another woman, he is viewed as macho and the unfaithful wife as disrespectful?
> I'm thinking that when one falls for somebody else, he/she is not in love with the other one anymore. So, that means you are not loving them both (at least at the same time). This is getting confusing, I must admit..




I fully agree with that of machos and "dirty women".  
I can fall in love with a man today, and find someone else tomorrow and love him as well.  Cannot find an explanation as to why I should stop loving one to start loving another.


----------



## ILT

Artrella said:
			
		

> Infidelity is the worst invention of society!! Why can't you be happy with more than one person?



Hi Art:

I don't really understand your comment.  Did want to say: Why can't you be happy with only one person?


----------



## 'alexcia'

I actually know someone who loves his wife and another woman. He loves them both, obviously but most of the unfaithful I know said that they do not love their partner anymore that is why they are having an affair with someone else. Maybe one should not stop loving one but the new love simply was inevitable.


----------



## Artrella

I love translating said:
			
		

> Hi Art:
> 
> I don't really understand your comment.  Did want to say: Why can't you be happy with only one person?




No no ILT, I say that you can be perfectly happy loving two people at the same time without feeling unfaithful...


----------



## 'alexcia'

> loving two people at the same time without feeling unfaithful...


 
did you mean here loving without touching which qualifies to be emotional infidelity? or there is touching which falls to be sexual infidelity? but if it is both love and touch, what shall we call it?


----------



## modgirl

julienne said:
			
		

> i can't help but wonder though, how you would tactfully broach the subject to the individuals involved and get them to seek counsel.. this is after all a delicate situation.


 
Exactly. If you point a finger in someone's face and say, "YOU!! YOU are wrong," how will most people react? Whether or not I were guilty, I'd want to defend myself!

In a family situation, I'd not point fingers and approach it from another angle, such as,

"Hubby, lately, we seem to be growing apart as a family. I love to spend time with just you, and I love all of us participating in fun events like picnics (_or whatever it is that your family does_)."

Then, ask directly, "What do you think are some ways that we can spend more time together?"

That approach is overly simplistic, but if you act like the solution is something that is the responsibility of you both (whether it is or not), it's hard for him to be defensive or try to argue against you.


----------



## julienne

> Why is it if the man has another woman, he is viewed as macho and the unfaithful wife as disrespectful?


 
 i'm having a mental picture of a herd of wild  horses with just *one *stallion and a lot of mares!



> I'm thinking that when one falls for somebody else, he/she is not in love with the other one anymore. So, that means you are not loving them both (at least at the same time).


 
I guess the difference is here is_* loving someone*_ and _*being in love with someone*_, huh?  there are different levels of love after all...the depth of love i feel for one person may not be the same as the way i feel for someone else..but i love them both.. I mean, i love my best friend but i'm not *in love* with him...I'm in love with my boyfriend


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Meili*Those who say that this is justifiable, IMHO, is also saying that looting or robbery is justifiable when you are hungry.


I have to vehemently disagree with you on this point, Meili.  Infidelity is an act of complete *selfishness*, when you disregard the legal commitment you have made to another person in order to take care of yours, and only your needs.  

Looting for food or other amenities necessary for survival _is a matter of life and death_. In fact, if put in a situation where mine or my family's life was in peril and looting was a the only option for providing sustenance, I would not think twice about it. Is it right? No. But given the circumstances, it is certainly justifiable. 

I would *never cheat on my husband, but I would loot*, or do worse if I had to, in order to ensure the survival of my child.


----------



## meili

Hello, Jen-Jen!

Hmm, come to think of it - you have a point. Thanks for opening up my rather clouded mind today.  (I am feeling sleepy: weekend dilemna).

I compared (or differentiated  ) infidelity from looting because I spoke of freewill and conscience - for that matter.

I think this conversation brings us back to this thread. I have to admit, when I posted that remark I was selfishly thinking of thine own self, and not other people or family members. However, again, through freewill and conscience, and determining which is right or wrong as regards to looting (off topic!!! - Sorry!) - I surrender for the meantime.

I agree with you that infidelity is an act of selfishness. (Again, as being the product of such and such and so on and so forth).



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I have to vehemently disagree with you on this point, Meili. Infidelity is an act of complete *selfishness*, when you disregard the legal commitment you have made to another person in order to take care of yours, and only your needs.
> 
> Looting for food or other amenities necessary for survival _is a matter of life and death_. In fact, if put in a situation where mine or my family's life was in peril and looting was a the only option for providing sustenance, I would not think twice about it. Is it right? No. But given the circumstances, it is certainly justifiable.
> 
> I would [b/]_never_* cheat on my husband, but I would loot, or even kill if I had to, if it meant guaranteeing the survival of my child.*


----------



## Mitcheck

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> . Infidelity is an act of complete *selfishness*, when you disregard the legal commitment you have made to another person in order to take care of yours, and only your needs.
> 
> It is a complete selfishness.
> However, what if you are no longer happy and can't give your partner the satisfaction that he needed, would you think this legal commitment idea will still work out?


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Meili*
> I think this conversation brings us back to this thread.



Pssst!  (_whispers_).  I started that thread, Meili.


----------



## meili

Mitcheck said:
			
		

> It is a complete selfishness.
> However, what if you are no longer happy and can't give your partner the satisfaction that he needed, would you think this legal commitment idea will still work out?


 And who determines if what you are giving out is already not satisfying him or her? (I know this will work out. It will just have to work out, _sigh_).



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Pssst! (_whispers_). I started that thread, Meili.


 ji ji ji.. I know.  (It just feels so good that somebody understands).


----------



## 'alexcia'

Mitcheck said:
			
		

> However, what if you are no longer happy and can't give your partner the satisfaction that he needed, would you think this legal commitment idea will still work out?


I think it will workout if both still wants it to workout! It has to be a two-way street! I've not yet met anyone who can do the tango alone..


----------



## Artrella

alexcia said:
			
		

> did you mean here loving without touching which qualifies to be emotional infidelity? or there is touching which falls to be sexual infidelity? but if it is both love and touch, what shall we call it?




Love includes sex.  But sex not always includes love.  If they touch and love (as you say Alexcia) and are happy, for me that is great.


----------



## 'alexcia'

Artrella said:
			
		

> Love includes sex. But sex not always includes love. If they touch and love (as you say Alexcia) and are happy, for me that is great.


Perhaps, then, we should call it great Infidelity? jejeje  so much for labels..


----------



## GenJen54

> However, what if you are no longer happy and can't give your partner the satisfaction that he needed, would you think this legal commitment idea will still work out?



Chances are, no.  But if that is the case, the way I see it you have some choices:

1.  Do what you need to do with your partner to work things out;
2.  Dissolve the commitment through divorce and/or annulment. 

I realize that for people in some countries and cultures, this is more easily said than done. I can't speak for others in their situation, nor would I judge them if they did not have the option of a divorce and sought refuge in an outside relationship. 

However, given that context, I would have to wonder about the stability of the family home for any children that are involved. What kind of message does it send to the children when the mother or father is having a relationship with another person? 

In my opinion, it serves little but to provide emotional toxicity to the marriage and family home.

I have to contend, however, that every situation is different. What works for one person and/or culture does not necessarily work for another.


----------



## modgirl

Mitcheck said:
			
		

> However, what if you are no longer happy and can't give your partner the satisfaction that he needed, would you think this legal commitment idea will still work out?


 
It depends on what kind of a person one is.  Some people place duty (such as duty to provide children with what they need) above their own desires.  Others can't do that and must satisfy their own desires and ignore their responsibilities.


----------



## modgirl

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> What kind of message does it send to the children when the mother or father is having a relationship with another person?


 
Not a good one, which is why children should not be involved or told about intimate affairs of their parents!

However, if a marriage breaks up, it gives one more message to children (and I'll get blasted for this): *when the going gets tough, I'm outta here*.

(That isn't the case for all divorces by any means, but it is for far too many who don't fully think through their decisions)


----------



## Beautiful Princess

modgirl said:
			
		

> That approach is overly simplistic, but if you act like the solution is something that is the responsibility of you both (whether it is or not), it's hard for him to be defensive or try to argue against you.


 
Hi, I certainly agree! Relationship is a two-way street, I think media plays a big part that influence infidelity/fidelity for that matter, but it's the two of you who's responsible to keep it... It's against all odds.. A partnership...


----------



## julienne

modgirl said:
			
		

> It depends on what kind of a person one is. Some people place duty (such as duty to provide children with what they need) above their own desires. Others can't do that and must satisfy their own desires and ignore their responsibilities.


 
i've been thinking...

although it one of the wife's duty to keep her man occupied, the man also has the duty of treating his wife as a person, not just a someone to provide him with children.. i read somewhere that a person reacts just as the way you treat him... and of course people respond to positive stimuli...

see...i read somewhere that generally men desire a wife to care for the house and his children and a mistress to occupy him in bed... couldn't the one he married play both roles? i mean if the wife just stays around the house in a robe and curlers, and cooks and cleans and takes care of the children, what husband would like to go home to that scenario? who would want to go to bed with a hag??  would it not be a plus for the wife if she could meet her husband at the door with a smile, smelling and looking nice, with just pleasure in her foremost mind, kids not withstanding?? 

Guess that would mean that wives also have a responsibility to their husbands.. infidelity is not just the husband's fault, as it does take two to tango... and if the guy could find something that satisfies him outside the home, couldn't his wife make the effort to provide him with it and thus not make him rove? 

*thinking faster than typing... sorry...  do i make sense?


----------



## modgirl

Hello Julienne,



			
				julienne said:
			
		

> i read somewhere that generally men desire a wife to care for the house and his children and a mistress to occupy him in bed... couldn't the one he married play both roles?


 
Certainly, and many do! I'd be a bit leery of what you read. People come in so many different sizes and shapes. I think what a "man" wants is determined by each individual man! Most men I know (in the US) do not want a wife who stays home. Most (that I know; huge qualification) want their wives to have independent careers. My impression, and I could be very wrong, is that the situation in the Philippines is a bit different.

As to your last question, your post makes perfect sense! And, it is the responsibility of both people in a romantic or marital relationship to "keep the fires alive." The responsibility of the relationship should not depend solely upon one person. As someone said, it takes two people to make a relationship; thus, both parties need to make it work.


----------



## cuchuflete

This ball of thread has careened all over the place.  The diversion into discussions of love and the digression into discussing what marital relationships should comprise are fine topics.  However, the original question was about, if I recall, "*Infidelity*".

Now and then this forum pretends --in the Spanish sense of the word--to address language.  So what do fidelity and infidelity mean?  I will not go to the dictionary but tell you what pops into my head:  loyalty and honor, to one's self and to one's partner, or disloyalty and deception and dishonor.

If I make a commitment to a partner, do I not dishonor both my partner and myself if I break the commitment?   I may love lots of people, but if I make a commitment to one of them, then I must subsequently be loyal, faithful and honor that commitment.
If I cannot, or choose not to, then the topic of this thread begins.

Infidelity may be associated with lust, or love, or material pursuits, or any combination of circumstances and emotions.  It may be caused by them, or cause them.  Infidelity stills means being unfaithful to a vow.

So much for definitions.  Now you may have your thread back to discuss whether or how it may be justifiable, or not.

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## mari.kit

let me share this..
I think infidelity is UNjustifiable.. you can't serve two masters at the same time.. however you say, you love your partner much more than your "fling" it is still not right. I value trust very much.. that's the first thing a man (or anyone) should prove to me.

commitment is trust, loyalty and faithfulness


----------



## tey2

mari.kit said:
			
		

> let me share this..
> I think infidelity is UNjustifiable.. you can't serve two masters at the same time.. however you say, you love your partner much more than your "fling" it is still not right. I value trust very much.. that's the first thing a man (or anyone) should prove to me.
> 
> commitment is trust, loyalty and faithfulness
> 
> 
> My thoughts exactly mari.kit!


----------



## Ali-a-baba

I have to agree with Artrella here with the comment that "infidelity" is a function of the laws of the society in which we were brought up in. In many cultures, to remain faithful to only one person is considered "the norm" and is in itself noble. But there are many cultures where it is expected that the man in the relationship will be unfaithful to his wife and keep a mistress or two. There are also many cultures where a man may take in as many wives as he wants, as long as he can support them and their offspring. 

Remember that humans are also animals. We are goverened by the sames drives to procreate as is the lion in the pride or the stallion in the herd. What many hope will keep our significant other in check are the laws we have grown up with, both religious and societal. But as strong as these laws may be, as much as we may know right from wrong, we do not always heed the advice of our conscience. When someone is unfaithful to another, is forgiveness possible? I am sure the level of unfaithfulness will determine this. 

Pardon me if I have gone off the thread, but I believe there is some room in this discussion for the input of a physical and/or cultural anthropologist.


----------



## Estrella

Maybe it is bad luck. But I have never known a sexually "loyal" guy, unless it´s a kid. I have gone through surveys among my girlfriends and all their patners have been unfaithful at least once. I am starting to think that it is "normal". That is very sad, but in my experience and in my enviroment I haven´t seen a 100% loyal guy, not in my family, not in my schools, not in my neighborhood, not in my own experience, maybe that is my *karma* , how hard, huh?


----------



## Ali-a-baba

Estrella,

I don't think it's bad luck! I really think it is the genetic makeup of men to be as they are. I *also* do not know of any man who has been loyal to his significant other. Is this sad or is it evolution? If a man knows it is wrong to kill another and hence does not commit murder, he must also know that infidelity is wrong. Perhaps if the consequences were as extreme as being caught in an unlawful act, he may think twice. 

Many women I know think that as long as they bear a man's children, the husband will stay faithful. The men I speak with say it's just the opposite. All I can say is I am *never *surprised when I overhear the guys bragging while standing in line at the copy machine!


----------



## cuchuflete

Ali-a-baba said:
			
		

> When someone is unfaithful to another, is forgiveness possible? I am sure the level of unfaithfulness will determine this.
> 
> Pardon me if I have gone off the thread, but I believe there is some room in this discussion for the input of a physical and/or cultural anthropologist.



From the view of a physical and/or cultural anthropologist, please let me know if you trust a person who has broken a serious commitment to *YOU.

When trust goes, affection is not far behind.  *

I suppose a masochist might enjoy betrayal, but most others do not.

This still has nothing to do with love or forgiveness.  Those are diversions to hide the basic fact that we are referring to breaking a serious commitment.  

If betraying a partner is 'normal', and if 'normal' is justifiable and to be expected, then what's wrong with other activities proscribed by societal norms, such as incest?


----------



## rob.returns

Ali-a-baba and Estrella, 

NOt all men are polygamous. I know some nice friends of mine thats faithful to their mates. But however the percentage would be great(like 70%-75%, this is just my point of view)

But I think if you are serious in a relationship or if you already have tied the knot. Then that would be a different case. And a serious one..A lot would be affected. Your children, family, friends, and neighbors. Would it be ok to sacrifice all of these just for the satisfaction of your dancing hormones? I think not.


----------



## Estrella

I think there must be loyal guys, that really love their patners, but I have NEVER seen one!

Maybe this can be an analogy: I believe God exist, even dough I have never seen him. And I really mean it, I believe in God.


----------



## rob.returns

just a little correction:



			
				Estrella said:
			
		

> Maybe this can be an analogy: I believe God exist, even  dough I have never seen him. And I really mean it, I believe in God.


 
...instead though


----------



## Ali-a-baba

Cuchuflete,

I have been betrayed many times in the past. And to answer your question directly, I do not forgive. These betrayals have forced me to adopt the following rules of self preservation:

I am an optomist but I never expect anything from life. If something bad happens, if someone disappoints me, I can honestly say, this is life. I shall learn from these experiences.
When good things happen I can only be pleasantly surprised.
That is not to say that I sit around waiting for good things to happen. I make them happen myself. Going the extra mile doesn't always guarantee success, but at least I can say I tried.
I have loved both my husbands. Love was not enough for the first one. It seems to be working now. 

I do not excuse men for their wanderings although I do understand the mechanism behind their actions. I could be crude here to help prove a point, but this is not the place. 

Women think things through more, deliberate on the consequences of an action. There are women who think nothing of infidelity (yes, I know a few) but generally it is the woman who creates the ties that bond. 

In the past, society and religion have gone hand in hand. This is no longer the case. The fear of being judged after death was a great deterent for all. I do not see this fear today.

"_If betraying a partner is 'normal', and if 'normal' is justifiable and to be expected, then what's wrong with other activities proscribed by societal norms, such as incest?"_

Ouch! I admittedly have no answer for this. I can find no excuse it my heart for parents/siblings who sexually abuse those whom they supposedly love (not in the physical sense). I know too many people, both male and female who have suffered from this indignity and are mentally scarred for life to understand or forgive this action. 

But back to the thread of this discussion. Is infidelity justifiable? Justifiable by what standards? To the victim in the relationship, I would say no. But I believe science and history may provide another viewpoint.


----------



## Benjy

mmm.. in my pompous puritanical view, do we really need to ask the question? at the end of the day if you want something bad enough, you will justify it. many people have done many really awful things, that they have justified in their own minds. if this wasnt the case to at least some degree they wouldn't have done it, simple as. the constant running away from responsability that seems to be all rage these days isn't right in my opinion, but give yourself enough time and you will always find an excuse.


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> mmm.. in my pompous puritanical view, do we really need to ask the question? at the end of the day if you want something bad enough, you will justify it. many people have done many really awful things, that they have justified in their own minds. if this wasnt the case to at least some degree they wouldn't have done it, simple as. the constant running away from responsability that seems to be all rage these days isn't right in my opinion, but give yourself enough time and you will always find an excuse.



I leave it to others, if they are sufficiently bored, to judge whether I'm pompous or puritanical, but I agee with every word in your post, Benjy.

In recent months, we have seen posts saying it's ok to steal music [justification, without factual evidence to back it up, of course= music companies make lots of money.], it's ok to take from the homes of the rich [justification=they have more than they need, because the would-be taker says so.], and now infidelity is justifiable, should be forgiven, and follows natural instincts so what's the big deal?

Bull twaddle to all the phoney justifications. They are slickly or badly constructed excuses for somebody just doing whatever they feel like as an individual, without regard to the consequences for other people. It's selfish.

 If someone wants to have multiple partners, go right ahead.  That's your business and none of mine.  But don't vow loyalty to one person, betry them, and then try to justify the actions with hollow words.

Just change the marriage vows to include,

This offer may be modified or cancelled at any time, at the sole option
of the person taking these vows.
Prior or subsequent notice of changes in the rules
may or may not be provided, based soley on
the convenience and whim of the 
person taking these vows.

No warranties, express or implied, are made.
Acceptance of a ring or statements such as
"I do"
constitute full acceptance of these provisions.
Refunds require that the merchandise be returned in its
original condition, normal wear and tear excepted, and must be 
accompanied by the purchaser's original receipt.
​


----------



## julienne

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Just change the marriage vows to include:
> 
> 
> 
> This offer may be modified or cancelled at any time, at the sole option
> of the person taking these vows.
> Prior or subsequent notice of changes in the rules
> may or may not be provided, based soley on
> the convenience and whim of the
> person taking these vows.
> 
> No warranties, express or implied, are made.
> Acceptance of a ring or statements such as
> "I do"
> constitute full acceptance of these provisions.
> Refunds require that the merchandise be returned in its
> original condition, normal wear and tear excepted, and must be
> accompanied by the purchaser's original receipt.​



wow!  I thought marriage used to be "No Return No Exchange".....

now it seems there's a "Three-year Warranty", a "Complete Money-Back Guarantee", plus a "Return Policy"...  hehehehe

go figure


----------



## asm

Is it that bad in your context. I am also from Mexico, and I do not think all men have been unfaithful. I recognize that I almost never talk about this with anybody, and I do not know your definition of faithful, but I do not think you can label all men the same way.





			
				Estrella said:
			
		

> Maybe it is bad luck. But I have never known a sexually "loyal" guy, unless it´s a kid. I have gone through surveys among my girlfriends and all their patners have been unfaithful at least once. I am starting to think that it is "normal". That is very sad, but in my experience and in my enviroment I haven´t seen a 100% loyal guy, not in my family, not in my schools, not in my neighborhood, not in my own experience, maybe that is my *karma* , how hard, huh?


----------



## rob.returns

I 100% agree with you asm, I think women who think ALL and ALL men(including their father) are unfaithful, is manifesting an acute severe-narrow-minded-syndrome that is severely contagious.
Huge Pity on them. But we cant blame them for that, they have experience something that is not good with the wrong guy and thus "All men became demons that day..."
A more wider perspective will be more appreciated. 





			
				asm said:
			
		

> Is it that bad in your context. I am also from Mexico, and I do not think all men have been unfaithful. I recognize that I almost never talk about this with anybody, and I do not know your definition of faithful, but I do not think you can label all men the same way.


----------



## Estrella

Please Guys, don´t misunderstand me.

When you go to Wal mart and buy a TV, and it doesn´t work, that doesn´t mean that ALL TVs at Wal mart, and in the whole entire world don´t work. It is just that you had the bad luck to pick the wrong one.

I bet there are a lot of loyal guys in the world, and even in my same city, BUT i have had the bad "karma" of not going out with one. And that is all that I wanted to express. PLEASE for God sake, I am not sustaining that every guy in the street is not loyal with his woman. 

There must be millions of loyal guys in the word, ok??????


----------



## ane

Reading your discussion made me think of a saying people around here often use:
"If you're cheated on once, you can only blame your partner. If you're cheated on twice, you can only blame yourself"

To me cheating is when one of the parts in a couple breaks the rules set between by themselves. We all have different opinions on what cheating really is, and it's important that you know what your partner considers cheating and talk things through.


----------

