h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think I may have pondered this question for most of my short(ish) life... Most people would agree that having sexual intercourse (or even for some people a passionate kiss) constitutes being unfaithful, but what about written things? If you are in a 'meaningful' relationship with someone, yet write hot emails or letters to others, is that also cheating?

Is it the action, or the thought that counts?
And then obviously we are all human and may mentally consider sex with someone else but NEVER be attracted to it with anyone than our partner...
And, could unfaithfulness be more a question of sharing all those intimate little moments with someone else, not necessarily sex at all? (although sex is pretty intimate in my opinion)

my guess is that it is the action, because thoughts are only that, unless you act on them. there are many people that you will be attracted to in life, that you wont act on. but also if you go so far as to have virtual sex with someone, you are still acting on the idea of having sex with them. you are letting yourself get more involved with the other person then is safe because you are connecting in a sexual way with them. be it you and the other touching yourselves with the idea of sex together, or actually being physically unfaithful to the person. maybe because i have just been cheated on, that this has been in my mind lately. i just hope that you can communicate with the person that you are with. wildiris

Anything that makes you feel guilty.
If it bugs you, it probably should.
If it doesn't bug you, it won't make any difference what we say.

I'm not talking about morality. I failed that course.
I'm talking about personal standards.
Everybody makes mistakes and experiments happen.
But to be caught up in the thrill of being naughty is best done with someone you can trust, who understands when the game is over.
Titillation by proxy suggests that one might need to spruce up one's fantasy life.
A fantasy life, unless one seeks to act on it or act on it outside your personal standards, is not unfaithful. Some things you need to keep yours. Unless you choose to share with someone close.

If you're close to a lot of people, take precautions.

I'd say that unfaithfulness is indulging in behaviors that threaten the stability of your relationship with your partner. Different couples are going to assess different values to different things. For example, I'd have no problem with my fella having textual intercourse with another woman.... and I've been known to flirt outrageously on IM. It would be a problem if it occupied too much of his (or my) attention.

i have forgotten what i was going to say, i have to read your replies, just a sec.

yes as long as the two are consenting in the situation, it is not unfaithfulness because both are aware of the risks of someone being involved with someone else. you can never know what the other is thinking and wanting to do, unless there is good communication, and complete trust of the other person. but i also think that if you have found your true love, soulmate so to speak, there would be no need to look outside of that relationship to fulfill you. they will be everything that you need. i have a question to put out to you. do you think that if someone considers themselves bisexual, are they able to have a lasting long term relationship with another? very curious to see what others think about this. thanks wildiris

Threesomes have been know to occur, sometimes for years, but I don't know anything about them, not being a Mormon.

no i was wondering if you believe that people can be considered bisexual? i know that 3somes occur all the time. i have heard of people that have been content in a 3 way relationship for years. i dont think that that is fair to all concerned in the relationship... but who am i. i dont know anything about mormons, really i dont know much about any faith, except christinity, since that is what our world seems to see as the norm. we use the christin calendar, and such. im guessing that a mormon is a form of christinity though. maybe you can explain what a mormon is for me? thanks wildiris the reason i dont know much about faith and religion is that i dont like to judge people for thier beliefs. i dont think that it is right to think that there is a better god. all the religions seem to fight about whos god is better, when i think it is just thier interpretation of the same higher power. we are all here together, for some reason or another and we are to enjoy this exerience we call life.

The Judaic and hence the Christian commandment is Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Interesting word. You adulterate food by mixing it with non-foodstuffs, like the landlords who mix water in with the vodka bottles. I suspect that this is as much or more about bloodlines than relationships.

The Buddhist precept is Refrain from Sexual Misconduct - but sexual misconduct is not so far as I know defined. Difficult, a challenge for you to decide from within, instead of taking direction from outside.

Mother of God is right: infidelity is about anything which undermines your relationship.

Two different situations:

Situation 1 - you are newly single, still bruised from your divorce, and a friend who is a married man makes a pass at you. His marriage is in deep trouble. He is still living with his wife, but it is an unstable situation. He is taking forever to either heal the rift between them, or to finalise things, move out and fill out the paperwork. You know very little about his wife, because he has the decency not to talk to you about her. You have the chance for a one-off that evening, and maybe other chances for other meetings at other times. He is a nice guy, and it is a long time since you have had sex. What do you do?

Situation 2 - you are working on an assignment away from with a large number of extremely sexy married men. Most of them are close colleagues and happily married. But one of them is not such a close colleague, and while his marriage is not exceptionally happy, it does seem to be stable; he clearly likes and respects his wife. He does not talk about her much, but from the little he says it is plain that he feels he needs more space and privacy than she is able to give him at this time, and this is one of the reasons he is working away from home. It is clear that he has been unfaithful to his wife in the past, and he makes it obvious that he wants to have a fling with you while the logisitics of the situation make it easy to do, and easy to be discrete. He is a nice guy, and it is a long time since you have had sex. Is there a difference? What do you do?

Ben

On the subject of sexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. (I should state here that I have not done any focused reading or research on these subjects, on the other hand I have paid attention to what I have seen and read, and to myself, and the people I know).

It appears that sexuality is different from a sense of gender. Transsexuals feel from a very young age that they are trapped in the wrong body. They may or may not also be homosexual.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are lables that are required by a society which needs to compartmentalise sexuality. They are useful lables: without words how can we discuss things?

In the earliest stages in the womb all foetuses are physically female. During pregnancy genetically male foetuses then develop male genetilia and male hormonal glands. As I recollect, there is a release of testosterone to the foetus from the mother, which triggers this change. If there is 'too much' testosterone released to a genetically female foetus, the resulting adult is more likely to be lesbian. If there is 'too little' testosterone released to a genetically male foetus, the resultant adult is more likely to be gay. ('My mother made me a homosexual' - 'If I gave her the wool, would she make one for me?')

Moving out of the womb and into the world of real live adults - a massive amount of our response to any situation, sexual or non-sexual, is predicated by context. There was an experiment done in the 1970s when students were randomly split into jailers and prisoners. The jailers felt permitted to inflict all sorts of humiliations and cruelties on the prisoners - and did so. The experiment was curtailed after a few days, because the behaviour became so extreme. (This goes a long way to explain group reactions like the mob attacks on peadophiles in Portsmouth in the late 1990s, and also how the guards in the concentration camps felt that what they were doing was acceptable).

Take this into a sexual arena - many people who consider their sexuality to be clearly defined can be surprised to discover that they are attracted to people and to sexual activities which they do not consciously desire. They step outside their conscious norms. And this can happen because of context.

Hell, I am beginning to bore myself. Let's just say that sex is sex, and bi-sexuality is just part of that.

Ben

"(This goes a long way to explain group reactions like the mob attacks on peadophiles in Portsmouth in the late 1990s, and also how the guards in the concentration camps felt that what they were doing was acceptable)." Have seen frequent allusions to the experiment
of student role-playing of "prisoners and jailers" but what about this real incident in Portsmouth? What happened and did it result in change?

Well, if someone is looking for extra-marital sex they are going to find someone willing to join them. I've always felt it was better to indulge his need (which is often a need to talk uninhibitedly as much as anything else) and do all I can to shore up the marriage than to let him fall into the clutches of some predatory woman that would try to do the opposite.

(And, in my opinion, being unfaithful is doing anything you will have to lie to your partner about. Lying is the worst thing you can do in any relationship)

The Zimbardo Experiments were done by Dr Philip Zimbardo in the 1970s - here is his home page, with links to information about the experiments. http://www.zimbardo.com/

In the summer of 2000, a 9 year old girl called Sarah Payne was assaulted and murdered by someone who had previous convictions for sexual offences against children. Her parents, and a British red top The News of the World started a campaign for Sarah's Law - the equivalent of Megan's Law in the US, where parents would be told if there were known paedophiles living in their community.

This is a complex issue.

The News of the World started Naming and Shaming individuals. In some parts of the country these individuals were attacked. Attacks were also made on someone who had the same name as one of them, and on a paediatrician. The paediatrician was attacked because the rioters did not know the difference between a pediatrician and a paedophile.

The most sustained, violent and self indulgent of these attacks took place in the Paulsgrove Estate in Portsmouth.

The riots in the Paulsgrove Estate in 2000 were followed up by the Guardian 7 months later. http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,434149,00.html

The debate about Sarah's Law continues: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D37F.htm and http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D37F.htm

I have not followed events closely, and I have only skimmed the pages linked to. I found them via Google and Hotbot. I have not attempted to find or present a balanced view. It is, as I have said a complex issue, and one which I have not thought about in depth.

The Guardian and the BBC are both useful sources of information on this subject.

Ben

Ben, sexuality IS different from a sense of gender.

If there is 'too much' testosterone released to a genetically female foetus, the resulting adult is extremely likely to be 'male'. If there is 'too little' testosterone released to a genetically male foetus, the resultant adult is extremely likely to be 'female'.

sexuality apart.

There are areas in the brain, called the SDNs (Sexually Dimorphic Nodes), that are very different in men and women.
The main one is about twice the size in men.

An excess of testosterone around the 8th week of pregnancy causes the SDNs in a genetic female's brain to attain the male size and a dearth of testosterone supplied to the male foetus at this time causes his SDNs to remain at the female size.
Recently there have been extensive experiments performed on rats that show the same process takes place.

Another size difference caused by testosterone is that of the index fingers.
Men have index fingers that are shorter than their ring fingers and women's index and ring fingers are generally the same size.

Interestingly this is also a pointer (no pun intended) for autism, which seems to add weight to the theory of an excess of testosterone being one of the contributory factors.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999509

Male to female transexuals have female sized SDNs (and normally female sized index fingers as well) and female to male transexuals have male sized SDNs (and index fingers).

One of the things I love about h2g2 is that you can trot out some half remembered facts, and someone here provides the details.

Thank you Myriad Silver.

B

WRT Ben's comments in post 10 - I hadn't heard of this explanation for homosexuality beginning in the womb... is this current medical thinking? Personally, I'm inclined to believe that people, especially in an increasingly hedonistic world, are predisposed to be bisexual, and it is the culture we are brought up in that has the greatest influence on our eventual sexual orientation (ie. the majority are, or claim to be, heterosexual). In a world where bisexuality was considered the 'norm', wouldn't those who chose to stick to having sex with members of the opposite sex (or their own sex, for that matter) be considered 'deviants'? Also, I can't see any reason why someone who considers themselves 'bisexual' can't have a stable relationship with one person. Otherwise, you are implying that heterosexual people are naturally monogamous, which as we all know is generally not the case! I don't think sexual orientation has much to do with stability in a relationship. Indivdual personality, and to some extent 'society', are the key factors. But I guess this is a whole different topic...

Where were we...

I think MoG summed it up very well:

"I'd say that unfaithfulness is indulging in behaviors that threaten the stability of your relationship with your partner."

I don't think having sex with someone else, or even engaging in it via the Net, or simply thinking about it is 'unfaithfulness'. However, lying to your partner, not taking appropriate precautions, and doing something you know they would disapprove of would show a total lack of respect for your partner. It's all about the kind of relationship you have with someone, and not crossing the boundaries of what is acceptable to both of you.

What would bother me about a partner being 'unfaithful' would be a) him not taking proper precautions - it's my health and happiness he's risking too, and b) finding out about it from someone else. Trust and respect are crucial parts of any relationship, and they can't exist if one of you is 'hiding' something, in my opinion.

Post 9 from Ben - I don't think there is a difference. In both scenarios the man is married and planning 'adultery'. Unless he has consent from his wife, should he be doing it? Or more accurately, should he be married? For the woman in the case, I can only say it depends on what she is hoping to get from the relationship with this married man. Marriage is supposed to mean 'forsaking all others', and whether you believe it in a religous sense or not, you should keep the vows you make. If you can't, then your partner should be allowed the chance to find that kind of commitment (if it's what they want) with someone else.

In an ideal world we would all be happily monogamous, fall in love only once and spend our lives with that one person. Well, that's one version of an ideal world. For some, an ideal world would be full of sex with 'no strings attached', and maybe someone to come home to at the end of the day. Not many people would choose to be entirely alone, or to go without sex. Hence the frequency of 'illicit affairs'... the best of both worlds supposedly. So long as you ignore the guilt, the lies, the broken trust...

Actually we are all assuming that infidelity is ipso facto morally wrong.

I think that is probably so. But I would just like to point out that it is an assumption that we are all making here. And I would also like to point out that infidelity suits some individuals, and some relationships, and that it does not necesarily damage them. But it IS playing with fire. You are deliberately allowing one or more people to be vulnerable for the sake of pleasure.

Pegasus - re posting 9 - you are right that both men as described were proposing infidelity; and that both men's marriages were troubled. The difference was that one marriage was obviously unstable, and the other was apparently stable. But do not forget marriages can be terminally damaged - as mine was - by things other than infidelity.

Re: Bisexuality as the norm and as deviation - the Ancient Greeks and to some extent the Romans valued homosexuality higher than heterosexuality. Who knows what they considered 'normal' or if 'normal' was even a concept they had.

And of course bi-sexuals can have committed and monogomous relationships. We have already touched on fancying someone else when you are already in a relationship. I am comfortable with the idea that a bi-sexual in a monogomous relationship would fancy or fantasise about other women and other men, instead of about just one sex.

Re: Post 10 - so far as I am aware it is current medical thinking, but I am getting my information from the media - magazines, tv, and so on. I don't follow the medical journals.

Ben

I love a good clean dsicussion.

I'm pretty certain I don't assume that infidelity (whatever the definition is) is morally wrong. What *is* morally wrong imo is deliberately doing something that your partner would not feel is acceptable, or lying about it afterwards.

What happens if someone has a one-night stand when they are in a 'stable' relationship? Does it depend on why it happened (eg. drunk; fancied the other person for ages; the opportunity was there)? Should they own up? Should it not have happened in the first place? Should they be forgiven, if forgiveness is deemed necessary? Is the relationship irrevocably damaged/doomed?

I think infidelity within marriage is, on the whole, a symptom, rather than cause, of deeper problems.

Actually, on the subject of 'norms' I suppose it revolves around the human need to categorise things or maybe to 'fit in'.

I think it's interesting to read what people have said in this thread, and how much more liberal the people on h2g2 generally are. In most cases IRL, it seems that unfaithfulness is summarily condemned as wrong.

Sus

I agree with you that infidelity is a symptom, not a cause, Sus. Absolutely.

Dunno about the one night stand thing. Haven't been there or done that. No t-shirt.

More dilemmas...

A male friend of yours tells you that he is having an affair. You know and like his wife. Do you tell her, and sling a bomb into their unstable marriage, or do you keep quiet and let them work out their private lives in private? What do you do?

You discover that your partner has had an affair; your marriage was in deep trouble at the time, and has since lurched to its end. You find out that two other people, one of whom has since come to be a friend of yours, knew about it. Neither of them told you. What do you do?

The marriage of a friend of yours is over. Their ex is running wild. You like them and fancy them, and they make a pass at you. They make it clear that they want friendship and sex, but not a relationship. A brief encounter - free sex, with no strings... You are torn between friendship and desire, and you know that their relationship is over. What do you do?

*Feeling more and more like Anthony Hopkins in Speed*

a welsh movie actor called Ben

One night stand... hmm, have been there, done that, and er... I think it's fair to say that it was a symptom of what was wrong in that relationship. On that basis, maybe it's possible to conclude that they don't, or shouldn't, happen if a relationship is right? Or maybe it varies with the case again? Hmm...

Ooh... dilemmas... I love a good dilemma.

First one - very tricky. Used to think the answer was simple... tell her (it's what I'd want someone to do for me). Now I'm not so sure. People vary... some would want to know, and some wouldn't... and the majority would shoot the messenger.

Second one - again, once I would have been angry/upset at them (indeed, I did feel that way about a mutual friend who knew things he never told me until it was 'too late'). Now I think I would at least endeavour to understand their reasoning, and hopefully not let the past spoil the future.

Third one - probably the trickiest of all. I think I'd be inclined to take the 'safe' route and preserve our friendship, rather than risk losing it for a 'fling'. Even when people split up by mutual agreement, seeing your ex with someone else can be painful, and it's pretty difficult to ignore if that someone also happens to be a friend of yours. But as with everything, people differ and maybe you know your friend would be okay with it.

The moral of all this? That I've learnt and accepted that people are different. Damn, I must be growing up after all!

Anthony Hopkins on Speed eh? Oh... my mistake...

Sus