Fidelity is Impossible

Commit yourself: yes or no?

Quote :

Here is more American fun. Spitzers replacement is sworn in and before he even drives back to the governors mansion he admits that he had a 3 year affair. Then his wife admits to having numerous affairs as well. This happening the same week as the exwife of McGrevey from NJ was crying about how shocked she was when he got caught banging a man. Then this other stud is after letting the cat out of the bag and she has had to admit the the young stud was porking her and the husband in threesomes. As Obamma's pastor would say Haaalllilloouuia, God damn America.

This quote from youngdan on another thread this morning got me thinking (and grinning): is it reasonable in this day and age to expect people to be faithful?

We get all hot and bothered when we hear about married people having relationships with people they 'shouldn't'. Is that an outdated attitude?

Is it possible that the expectation of fidelity is more damaging than the reality of infidelity?

The story is told in Plato's Symposium (though not given any great credence) that once upon a time, couples were joined: four arms, four legs and two heads. They were so blissfully happy together that they cartwheeled through life.

Naturally the gods were unimpressed with all this human happiness and sent down a thunderbolt to split the pairs - with the result that we now roam the earth, according to that myth, trying to find our other half.

Most of you won't accept that story as it's romantic and utterly unrealistic - but are we being equally unrealistic in expecting partners to remain faithful to one person?

Dictionary.com provides the following definition

faith·ful (fāth'fəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Adhering firmly and devotedly, as to a person, cause, or idea; loyal.
   
2. Engaging in sex only with one's spouse or only with one's partner in a sexual relationship.
   
3. Having or full of faith.
   
4. Worthy of trust or belief; reliable.
   
5. Consistent with truth or actuality: a faithful reproduction of the portrait.
   

Is a person any more 'faithful' to a spouse by not following through on a desire to have sex with another person? Is that more honourable, less worthy of criticism?

Where exactly do we draw the line - if, indeed, there is any point in drawing a line at all anymore?

You old cynic you. Let down by one Donegal man too many? To suggest that fidelity is an outdated attitude is ridiculous. Believe it or not, it's the norm for a lot of people/.

It's a bit like saying truth is an outdated attitude. No one expects you to be truthful the whole time, but that doesn't make it any less of a treasured virtue.

I'm not being cynical - I'm very happily married as it happens, with no intentions of straying. Not that most of those who embark on affairs ever harbour intentions.

But the post from youngdan just made me wonder.

Maybe someone else knows if there's some science behind monogamy, but at the very least, anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that for a lot of people it's not the default setting.

Perhaps the better question is, is fidelity natural ?

The problem with asking that however, and expecting the debate to remain rational, is that when those who consider fidelity from a "moral" standpoint feel they are losing the arguement, they immediately revert to the accusatory mode.

The concept of fidelity and marriage is reasonably recent in the organisation of social relations, and has an important role to play in the continuation of humankind.

But it can still be construed as "unnatural"

I thought this was going to be a thread about the dilemma of cheating on M-N with P.IE or vv. I must think again.

As far as I understand, primates are not monogamous creatures. 'Natural' is all well and good but rape is natural too, if chimpanzees are anything to go by. Just because something is natural, that doesn't make its opposite impossible or outmoded. Look at space travel.

If you look at societies around the world, you'll see that monogamy is not, as you charmingly put it, the 'default setting'. But it's a cherished Western ideal and anyone who says otherwise is an Islamist crazy, so there.

905 wrote:

As far as I understand, primates are not monogamous creatures. 'Natural' is all well and good but rape is natural too, if chimpanzees are anything to go by. Just because something is natural, that doesn't make its opposite impossible or outmoded. Look at space travel.

If you look at societies around the world, you'll see that monogamy is not, as you charmingly put it, the 'default setting'. But it's a cherished Western ideal and anyone who says otherwise is an Islamist crazy, so there.

Better start calling me Akbhar-Rock-Kash-El so....

While I wouldn't make a case for rape, where there is consent and free will, it does slightly change the debate, don't you think

I think I remember reading that swans mate for life. I also think I remember reading that nearly all of us are descended from Ghengis Khan. I don't think he was much of a swan.

The Diplozoon Paradoxum seems to have it all sussed. Method might be a bit extreme for most of us though?

I enjoyed that, He3. Thanks.

I have to confess to a sneaking admiration for the handbagging female Scarab beetle...

This article has comes up with an interesting way of measuring the inherent promiscuity of human beings

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article504245.ece

cactus flower wrote:

This article has comes up with an interesting way of measuring the inherent promiscuity of human beings

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article504245.ece

Feckin monkeys - now I understand your carnival of faces..

should bring this one back to P.ie.. open it out to a wider audience

cactus flower wrote:

This article has comes up with an interesting way of measuring the inherent promiscuity of human beings

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article504245.ece

The article was good enough to say that the scientists only 'claim' to have explained promiscuity.

I read an interesting article that suggested that a lot thinking about prehistoric mankind could be regarded as myth. The difference between myth and history is that while one is set in a particular time and is often verifiable, myth happens in some timeless past and often involves explains modern-day behaviour.

The times article was interesting, but it sounded a bit like a just-so story to me.

This Governor Patterson is nearly totally blind as well. What the hell point is there to a blind man having an affair when he can pretend that the missus is anyone he likes. This guy is blind, he is obviousely dumb so I wonder will be he deaf as well.

Quote :

What the hell point is there to a blind man having an affair when he can pretend that the missus is anyone he likes.

Indeed.
He should keep his eyes open like the rest of us...

cactus flower wrote:

This article has comes up with an interesting way of measuring the inherent promiscuity of human beings

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article504245.ece

I went to a lecture on that about 20 years ago - gives you some idea of how long it takes for scientific information to reach the mainstream if it's a little declassé. At that, they've left out the stuff about penis sizes and shapes (ladies, you may consider yourselves lucky that we are a relatively monogamous species).

It's weird for us as a species, unlike apes we have a fuller social structure which allows children to be born and raised without the net of having full families around them.. so you'd imagine we'd lean towards infidelity as a race... procreate and go as it were ..

But maybe there is something else that keeps us together ..

Does serial monogamy count as fidelity?

cactus flower wrote:

Does serial monogamy count as fidelity?

except for the ad breaks, probably yes.

I'm giving this a bump because the poll on the Latest Discussions page reminded me of it and I heard part of a discussion on the topic on Ray D'Arcy's programme the other morning.

A couple of questions to promote further thinking:
Does a partner have to have sex with a person other than his/her spouse to have been unfaithful?

If not, where is the line drawn between being faithful to your partner and being unfaithful?

Kate P wrote:

Does a partner have to have sex with a person other than his/her spouse to have been unfaithful?

If not, where is the line drawn between being faithful to your partner and being unfaithful?

Very interesting question... I don't think one would have to have sex with another person to be unfaithful. Would they even need any sort of sexual contact maybe? I don't know, I'll have to think about it. If one's partner was always incessantly and purposely leading other people on, at work or whatever, constantly flirting etc but never touching - I think their partner would have every right to be very annoyed and even question their faithfulness.

I guess the line depends on each couple and the importance of sex in their relationship. On a more general level, sex is seen nowadays as the linchpin to marriage and I reckon sex outside marriage is therefore the threshold of infidelity.

A few coy glances would have been regarded as infidelity once, but not any more.

johnfás wrote

Quote :

Very interesting question... I don't think one would have to have sex with another person to be unfaithful. Would they even need any sort of sexual contact maybe? I don't know, I'll have to think about it. If one's partner was always incessantly and purposely leading other people on, at work or whatever, constantly flirting etc but never touching - I think their partner would have every right to be very annoyed and even question their faithfulness.

Hmmm.

The word 'deliberately' is the key one, isn't it? And the interpretation of the word 'flirting' is important too.

Maybe the line is crossed with the advent of intention?

I think intention is the key word yes. Very legalistic of you Kate - plenty of Mens Rea there