Why I believe cheating can be ethical

[MisterMcGee]

This is called swinging or being in an 'open relationship'. It's not news or anything.

 

[SXS]

It is not swing, because swingers usually have control about who their partner gonna **** and also where and how.

 

[Johnny Soporno]

I would like some statistical or scientific grounds for such an extreme and highly unprobable affirmation

Here's a few different sources: Article 1 Article 2 Article 3

The entire articles are worth reading, from top to bottom.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[Johnny Soporno]

It's actually natural for women not to cheat with others.

Um, that's certainly contrary to my information, both empirical and anecdotal, as well as contemporary scientific research.

Link 1 Link 2

Men want women to have their babies and not get pregnant by other men.

I presume you mean, they want the WOMEN not to be impregnated by other men. Yes, that's true enough, but they only have the woman's word to go on, in most cases.[/quote]

I'm not sure unlimited sex is natural either.

It's certainly natural, but it's EXHAUSTING! Take it from me, I've been there...

I don't think that you can have a deep connection with a girl if you both are having sex with others.

Again, my experience proves different. That said, it might well be that not EVERYONE can have parallel deep relationships, I can't speak for others.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[ketostix]

The only way "cheating" would truely be ethical is if all parties involved were aware and approved. For example, your girl knows and/or agrees to you having sex with a certain other girl and she's single or if not her significant other knows and/or approves. This would actually be swinging or an open relationship, and there wouldn't be anything unethical about it per se. But otherwise cheating in an relationship that is under the perception that it is exclusive would be breaking a contract and deception and not ethical.

 

[SXS]

The only way "cheating" would truely be ethical is if all parties involved were aware and approved

Then it would not be cheating

 

[Johnny Soporno]

Johnny, you say that you never agreed to exclusivity. But what do you do when a girl has agreed to be exclusive with a guy?

I wish her luck, and tell her that when she is no longer constrained by that relationship (either through its evolving into a non-exclusive one, or their breaking up) I'll be happy to renew our relationship.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[Johnny Soporno]

You cannot focus on sex just because the woman has the power in sex.

I think you've missed the point her, Don -

Women DON'T have the power in sex; THAT'S the point!

Your post can be relating to anything.

Don, what Izza is speaking about is that WOMEN DO NOT BELIEVE that they have the power - because they have been duped into believing that their MOST SIGNIFICANT social power comes from the quality of man she can find to purchase (marry) her.

The resistance to the shame of being branded as a slvt is SO powerful for most women, they can't accept that they COULD have sex freely with worthwhile guys, and not need to worry about the number of partners they have had.

If you tell a woman "You're free do drugs, I won't judge you." Well, then she may do drugs. If you tell a woman "You can be lazy and not get a degree." Well, then she will be lazy and not get a degree.

Only if A) she believed you, and B) she wanted to, and C) she considered you authoritative. Otherwise, you could tell her anything, and it wouldn't matter

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[Johnny Soporno]

The only way "cheating" would truely be ethical is if all parties involved were aware and approved

Then it would not be cheating

Bingo.

JS

 

[ketostix]

Then it would not be cheating

I know that, that's why I put it in parenthesis. For simplicity, I used the word cheating to address the OP's point about cheating being ethical..

 

[SXS]

I know that, that's why I put it in parenthesis. For simplicity, I used the word cheating to address the OP's point about cheating being ethical..

I think it is all Ok with the logic of creator of the topic, except for the use of the word cheating. Cheating is never Ok, because it is breaking some personal agreement you have with someone. Now if we are talking about just multiple sex partners, that is ok really, if its your and your partner/friend/lover thing. But even swingers have rules, and of course, its not ok to break them.

 

[slaog]

It's actually natural for women not to cheat with others

Um, that's certainly contrary to my information, both empirical and anecdotal, as well as contemporary scientific research.

Link 1 Link 2

You can find scientific evidence for anything. It talks about animals etc and it's the women who behave like animals who are more likely to cheat ie the women who cannot control simple urges or don't care about their man. A woman with high standards is unlikely to cheat.

 

[oakraiderz2]

Uh...no its not. I didnt read this but it just seems like a way to rationalize and justify behavior.

 

[2.0]

I have to disagree with you on this one izza.

I think a better analogy would be:

A man offers another man $10,000 on the condition that he agrees to remain in a room for 24 hours. The man takes the $10,000 then goes into the room.

Cheating is like breaking out of the room as soon as the first man leaves and taking the $10,000, thus going against the agreement he previously made.

 

[izza]

I have to disagree with you on this one izza.

I think a better analogy would be:

A man offers another man $10,000 on the condition that he agrees to remain in a room for 24 hours. The man takes the $10,000 then goes into the room.

Cheating is like breaking out of the room as soon as the first man leaves and taking the $10,000, thus going against the agreement he previously made.

I hear you. That's a fine analogy too. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the line of reasoning I outlined in my post above - and I definitely wouldn't call it ethically conservative.

I do believe that our society, even to this day, puts women under a lot of duress to get into exclusive contracts that ask them to act against their natures and their true desires, in exchange for security and society's approbation.

I want people to be aware the unspoken duress that cause a lot of women to enter social contracts. Most of us believe that a contract made under duress (aka classic example, a gun to our head) is of questionable to no binding value. Anyway, that's why I put duress into the analogy I used (again, yours is another way of viewing the situation, and the point you bring up is crucial.)

That said, I have never helped a girl cheat, I don't think it's an ethically conservative thing to do, and with so many women in the world, there's no real reason to try.

Thanks for the feedback. I think this post is good kind of wake up call - sometimes the best way to make a point is to overstate it. But I agree with you that I'm not sure it expresses what I truly believe.

Izza

 

[Warrior74]

I wonder how many of you idiots in this thread have children. And actually love your children. Now think about what this sort of reasoning does to families. There is a reason for the way things have worked for thousands of years.

That being said. I've been cheated on. And I know what that is like. And later I became the opposite and seduced married women, and I know how easy that is and how crappy I felt about it.

At the end of the day, you have to look in the mirror and decide how you feel about what you are doing. If you are happy with what you've done then go for it. Just be prepared for the consequences because everyone is not going to think like you and someone will blow your freaking head off. Come back to the real world gents. Mental masterbation will get you fvcked up out here in real life.

 

[Ganondorf]

very interesting points by the OP. I love an intelligent, flame free discussion

 

[Ganondorf]

..however, i must bring up my own counter points

Damn site,

stupid double post

 

[Ganondorf]

..however, i must bring up my own counter points

I actually heard this while visiting a single philosophy class Wisconsin University, about eight years ago. I never thought I would be discussing that course's content now.

Anyway, here is the analogy the professor was also discussing in class that I want to focus on:

"Suppose a man is brought to a prison cell, and thrown inside with his companion, and the captors say, "you cannot leave the door is locked." But the captors lie and they never actually do lock the door. So the man sits in the prison cell, believing he is not at liberty to leave when in fact he is. Let's say he never tests the door to verify that he is in fact locked in the room for whatever reason, perhaps due to the good company of his companion."

This doesn't seem to apply to relationships, as asking a chick to be your gf is not forcing her to be with you. she has complete freedom to leave and come as she pleases, even if she is with you

Is he really free to leave? In a sense, yes he was at liberty to leave, but he was not free in some sense to choose to leave. In other words, assuming the man would have left if he'd known he could have, he did not choose to stay there. The point is, he did not choose this. He would have chosen to leave had he known this were an option.

(Let's leave aside the question "well why didn't he try the door." There are many ways to set up the thought experiment to get around that question, for instance, by locking the door but hiding the key inside, or whatever. I use the door being unlocked keep the analogy simple and focused.)

Getting back to women, I think this second analogy with the secretly unlocked room illustrates the choice women face in their social contracts. Many people in society often "inform" them that they need to get into a relationship, not be sleeping around, if they have a lot of sex they will be seen as dirty and not marriage material etc. But the real consequence is that if a girl has sex with a guy for her own reasons, she believes she should feel bad about her self.

Some people choose to sleep around, some people choose relationships. it's all relative. Society does not inform use that one way is better than the other, it just shows us the risks of going either way. if you sleep around, then you have a higher risk of catching something, having a baby, etc. if you choose relationships, make sure you are prepared and mature enough to handle the work it takes to make it work, and always look out for your mate, not just yourself

I suppose you could say the consequence is real in some sense. And that's true. I would just point out that once enough people adopt more progressive values, the consequence of feeling bad about herself vanishes. And in reality, if YOU adopt more progressive values, she will just sleep with you, without telling anyone, because she is free to do at least that without consequence. Does that make sense?

In the words of the analogy, I find that if you ask women "is the door locked?" they say yes. But if you open the door, they walk out.

That is why I question the validity of these social contracts, these social contracts the women entered into "voluntarily". Because the moment you say, "I won't judge you, I will admire you for doing what you want" they don't want follow the social contract anymore. And that tells you something about whether or not that particular woman entered this social contract under compulsion or not.

Another analogy that is perhaps simpler is the old favorite: "are you choosing freely to do the laundry if you have a gun to your head and someone says they'll shoot you if you don't do the laundry."

That person is not freely choosing to do the laundry, especially if they would have preferred to do the ironing.

Again, once you say to a woman, "I will not judge you for doing what you want," many will sleep with you. That really tells you something in my opinion, about how women live in fear of this slut label - partially from men, but ESPECIALLY from women. Keep in mind that some women HATE other women who "just give away" sex - because it lowers the return value on women who are investing their time not doing what they really, actually want. "Sluts" are slightly afraid of men, but terrified of women.

I agree with you that women should be more upfront with their boyfriends and people in their life. But I think it's also fair to say that society would need to become much more progressive before women would be able to talk about this more openly without unfair consequences to her.

In other words, I think we need to stop pointing the slut label at a woman's head. Again, keeping in mind that this social contract was "signed" under compulsion - the woman believing exclusivity the best compromise way to have sex acceptably - I'm not sure that it's wrong in all cases to break this contract.

This is a generalization. lol. Since when have women used a relationship just so they can have sex "acceptably"? Again, what a person chooses to do is completely up to them. Look at the amount of women sleeping around and you will see that they are not official with alot of these men. The only reason that they want a relationship is because sex forms an emotional bond. this is hard to avoid, especially for women. after a while, she wants to be something other than your sex toy

I really encourage you to check out the videos in my signature. That is where I got this "sex cartel" stuff from - and it covers these social contracts as property agreements, which is pretty shocking too.

Best,


Izza

This concept of cheating is relative also. People all have different views on it, and they view different things are wrong, so i say that cheating is never ethical. If you think that extra marital sex is cheating, and someone else does not, then to that person it is not cheating

I many cultures across the world, such as the Bari in south america, extra Marital sex is excepted as part of tradition. They hold the idea that children survive if they have multiple fathers. So after the husband implants his seed in the mother, she goes and chooses other fathers to "wash the child with sperm" in order to insure it's survival. These men are friends of the family and are also responsible for the child, even if they have their own children.

Is this always practiced? no way. some Bari woman don't do it, while some Bari men are not ok with the idea, but it just has to do with their separate views also. Even though it is very much a part of their tradition, some do not agree with it, Just like the whole women are sluts if they sleep around thing

I stress the point again that we as westerners are obsessed with sex, as in we get too hung up on the sexual aspect of things. such as the example with the bari i gave, it is NOT about the sex. Not at all, It's about the survival of the child.

Also, with cheating. Most cheat has nothing to do with sex, but with insecurities and getting something that you are missing in a relationship.

Cheating is breaking a vow to stay commited to a person. If a person can not keep their word, then why commit in the first place? So thus it is not ethical if you do something that you essentially promise that you will not. No matter what you view as cheating, doing it is always dishonest and wrong, and thus not ethical

 

[Trajhenkhet01]

There is a difference between an open relationship and an exclusive one. In fact I advocate an open relationship when first dating someone, but to each their own. Why lie about what you want? 2 rules to remember:

1) Game is always on
2) Expect no faith from the faithless

One last thing, the society "prison" in most first world nations is only name calling. No one actually gets in legal trouble for having an open relationship (barring anything really weird)