Cheating vs. Polyamory: Merged Threads, General Discussion

Sorry, ethics to me means keeping the promises you made, and what you are describing is most definitely NOT keeping them. You can't single-handedly abandon those promises for whatever reason and then claim to be ethical. The sickness of a partner is almost the worst, least-ethical reason I can think of.
one of my pillars of poly, integrity.

Did you read my story above Ciel. Sometimes its hard to know.
Not that I'm disagreeing as a whole about what you say. Just the last sentence here. Its a confusing and relationship specific one for me.
 
It's funny how people presume cheating can only take place without the cheater's SO's knowledge.
The definition of cheating, to me, is quite simple - breaking the rules of the relationship that you have. If the SO knows and agrees to what happens and then that happens, then it's not cheating. If someone goes beyond the boundaries agreed-to, then it's cheating.

What if a sanctioned, blessed upon poly arrangement with limits is taken beyond those limits by one of the parties involved? Say there's a "no overnights" rule and, tada, the sun rises and one of the primary partners isn't home yet?
Unless there was some sort of emergency and the person could not contact the SO, then cheating.

Or if the SO sees their partner going too deep into NRE (or beyond) with a new person?
Since that is difficult to quantify it's not an agreement I would ever make, unless it involved specific actions. If specific actions violate negotiated boundaries, then cheating, yes.

Sometimes its hard to know.
Not that I'm disagreeing as a whole about what you say. Just the last sentence here. Its a confusing and relationship specific one for me.
I guess for me and my own values it's not hard to know. The only time it gets difficult is when the boundaries are left undiscussed, and assumptions are made, based on some sort of societal norms. For this reason I am extremely careful to discuss as many possibilities with my partners before they become an issue, so that we can discuss them with level heads.

Redpepper, yes I read your story and no, it doesn't seem at all hard to know. His partner was not in a position to consent to changing the rules of the promised relationship. I don't think that a lack of ability to consent should constitute a legitimate reason to be able to throw whatever rules out of the window that don't suit at the time.

The whole purpose of a committed relationship is commitment - a set of promises are made with an expectation that those will be honoured by everyone involved. Too many people make promises without really thinking what they mean, and even whether they can really honour that commitment. This is, to me, what is what is primarily wrong with marriage today. "Defence of marriage", rather than being about who should marry whom, should be about enforcing the idea that a committment made for life is exactly that, otherwise the commitments should be phrased differently.

If I make a monogamous commitment to someone (which I wouldn't, just sayin') and that person gets very, very sick, then my commitment to that relationship trumps any desire of mine to get laid.

This is (obviously! ;) ) a subject I feel very passionately about - it's showing me that others have a lot more flexible idea of what ethics, integrity and honour mean. So it's showing me that I need to have a few more detailed discussions with my current partners and in future with any potential partners, to find out where they stand on this.
 
Right, because having sex is more important than any promise you make, right? :confused:

Sorry, don't buy it.

Most of these people made a solemn vow along the lines of "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to you until death parts us."

So those promises suddenly stop meaning anything when sickness comes along? How does THAT work?

Sorry, ethics to me means keeping the promises you made, and what you are describing is most definitely NOT keeping them. You can't single-handedly abandon those promises for whatever reason and then claim to be ethical. The sickness of a partner is almost the worst, least-ethical reason I can think of.

If we're following this line of logic then you can never divorce someone either, since that would be breaking your promises to them (until death part us). You can also never fall out of love with them, since that would be breaking your promise as well (to love and to cherish). So, therefore, by your logic, divorce and falling out of love are as unethical as cheating.
 
I can't get the multiquote feature to work, but I wanted to address this.

"Most of these people made a solemn vow along the lines of "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to you until death parts us."

So those promises suddenly stop meaning anything when sickness comes along? How does THAT work?

Sorry, ethics to me means keeping the promises you made, and what you are describing is most definitely NOT keeping them. You can't single-handedly abandon those promises for whatever reason and then claim to be ethical. The sickness of a partner is almost the worst, least-ethical reason I can think of."

I guess to me, if your spouse become ill, incapacitated physically or mentally, and you stay with them, take care of them, etc., than you are keeping to your commitment. Say that they are in a vegetative state; are you saying that you would remain celibate until they die? That you would be able to go for potentially years without having any intimate relationships?


If we're following this line of logic then you can never divorce someone either, since that would be breaking your promises to them (until death part us). You can also never fall out of love with them, since that would be breaking your promise as well (to love and to cherish). So, therefore, by your logic, divorce and falling out of love are as unethical as cheating.

I agree. And that could be the reason for the trend to write ones own vows or exclude parts of traditional vows that no longer fit what people are wanting out of marriage.

In my own vows, I committed to sickness and health and til deal do us part, that we would love, honor, and respect each other, and continue to game together. We didn't do the whole forsaking all others part. And even if we had, we both agreed that it wasn't something we wanted. Alot of the traditional stuff in our vows was for the benefit of our families; to let them keep the illusion of us having a traditional relationship and lifestyle.
 
I guess to me, if your spouse become ill, incapacitated physically or mentally, and you stay with them, take care of them, etc., than you are keeping to your commitment. Say that they are in a vegetative state; are you saying that you would remain celibate until they die? That you would be able to go for potentially years without having any intimate relationships?
If that was the agreement that I CHOSE to make with them, then yes, absolutely, because that is exactly what such a vow means. I shouldn't make that promise if I know I can't keep it. I have no such agreement in place, nor would I ever agree to anything like that.

Part of the issue is that everyone feels pressured into making those standard vows, and then has to break them if they don't work out. I would very much like it to be more the norm to actually have a deliberate discussion about the vows and what they mean, so that they CAN be truly lived-by a serious commitment and not one that can be overturned when either love or health fades.

If both parties say to each other that they will make public vows (for the family, and the like) but that there is a different set of vows that they make each other, than that is perfectly fine. I don't care what society thinks, I care about making every effort to keep promises made.

If we're following this line of logic then you can never divorce someone either, since that would be breaking your promises to them (until death part us).
Yes, exactly.

You can also never fall out of love with them, since that would be breaking your promise as well (to love and to cherish).
Yeah, when you think about it like that, these standard vows are quite ridiculous, aren't they? :)

So, therefore, by your logic, divorce and falling out of love are as unethical as cheating.
Marriage vows are a contract, which is a set of promises. If both parties agree to change that, then no harm, no foul - that would include a mutually agreed-upon divorce, realising that they had fallen out of love with each other etc. Single-handedly upping and changing the rules is violating the terms of the agreement that you made with this person. Doing it behind their back is cheating on the rules of the marriage that they agreed to, and is therefore unethical, yes. I am not going to try to get into degrees of ethical behaviour, though.

When it comes to looking in the mirror and deciding what sort of integrity you have, it's important to look at the weight that your promises have in your life. Your marriage vows are a set of promises and should be included in that list.

Look, I'm not trying to make any massive global pronouncements, here - this is just the way I think about promises and commitments and ethics. I'm certainly not presuming to tell anyone else how to live their lives :)
 
"i was told that monogamous relationships are abusive because they established a slave like ownership over you partner"

But wait, lots of people happily engage in relationships that involve slave-like ownership in the BDSM community and these aren't considered abusive for one reason -- informed and enthusiastic consent. Same deal with monogamy!

I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek, because of course I don't consider asking your partner not to sleep with anyone else to be a remotely "slave-like" situation (that just seems so absurd), but the same standard does in fact apply -- if both partners are enthusiastically consenting to monogamy then it's hardly abusive, is it. Of course if one partner is NOT happy about being monogamous, well, that could potentially be considered unhealthy or even dysfunctional, but I still would never consider one partner making a simple request of another about the way they do or don't share their body with others to be abusive.
 
Hubby on the other hand doesn't have an issue with it. He feels that there is no way of knowing the extenuating circumstances. He says he would not necessarily become involved directly with someone who is cheating & not being honest. But, he does not think its an issue of character or have an issue to be involved with a partner who is also involved with someone who is cheating with them.
I feel like him. I`m not responsible for other people`s relationships. Anyway, meeting women who are openly single or poly is exceedingly rare. I`ve been involved with at least one partner who was married. Actually, more, but one in a regular fashion. I don`t remember how long it lasted. Anywhere between 6 months to 2 years. We were off and on.

That being said, I have never cheated myself. Or, at least, by my ex-girlfriend`s definition I haven`t. I had a scrap with another woman at the beginning of that relationship, before "the so...-where-do-we-stand" talk, and I had my roommate tell her a few times I went to the supermarket when I was with this other girl. Eventually, I told my ex all about it and she released me of all culpability saying simply, that we weren`t committed then. Phew! :D

I think not cheating myself is already a great accomplishment since there is a lot of pressure on men to cheat. I know it`s a strange concept, but I feel women often pressure me to cheat in all manner of passive-aggressive ways.
 
Last edited:
The definition of cheating, to me, is quite simple - breaking the rules of the relationship that you have. If the SO knows and agrees to what happens and then that happens, then it's not cheating. If someone goes beyond the boundaries agreed-to, then it's cheating.

I guess for me and my own values it's not hard to know. The only time it gets difficult is when the boundaries are left undiscussed, and assumptions are made, based on some sort of societal norms. For this reason I am extremely careful to discuss as many possibilities with my partners before they become an issue, so that we can discuss them with level heads.

Redpepper, yes I read your story and no, it doesn't seem at all hard to know. His partner was not in a position to consent to changing the rules of the promised relationship. I don't think that a lack of ability to consent should constitute a legitimate reason to be able to throw whatever rules out of the window that don't suit at the time.

The whole purpose of a committed relationship is commitment - a set of promises are made with an expectation that those will be honoured by everyone involved. Too many people make promises without really thinking what they mean, and even whether they can really honour that commitment. This is, to me, what is what is primarily wrong with marriage today. "Defence of marriage", rather than being about who should marry whom, should be about enforcing the idea that a commitment made for life is exactly that, otherwise the commitments should be phrased differently.

If I make a monogamous commitment to someone (which I wouldn't, just sayin') and that person gets very, very sick, then my commitment to that relationship trumps any desire of mine to get laid.

This is (obviously! ;) ) a subject I feel very passionately about - it's showing me that others have a lot more flexible idea of what ethics, integrity and honour mean. So it's showing me that I need to have a few more detailed discussions with my current partners and in future with any potential partners, to find out where they stand on this.

I agree with pretty much everything said here. Commitments and vows made to a person should be respected until a mutual decision is reached to change them.

.... And that could be the reason for the trend to write ones own vows or exclude parts of traditional vows that no longer fit what people are wanting out of marriage.

In my own vows, I committed to sickness and health and til deal do us part, that we would love, honor, and respect each other, and continue to game together. We didn't do the whole forsaking all others part. And even if we had, we both agreed that it wasn't something we wanted. Alot of the traditional stuff in our vows was for the benefit of our families; to let them keep the illusion of us having a traditional relationship and lifestyle.

We wrote our own ceremony where we promised to cherish, support, etc. the other "as long as the love may last." :D None of our parents noticed the lack of "til death do us part," but we couldn't in good conscious say it since we have no idea how long we'll love each other or be able to maintain a healthy relationship and once we can't do those things, we'll call it. Sure, we hope it never happens and don't believe it will, but we do believe in being prepared. Kind of like setting up our living wills and such. Wasn't pleasant to think about needing them, but it's nice to know they're there.
 
No. I simply think some people are monogamous, and some others (a minority) are polyamorous. I'm wont to shun the wing of polyamory that facies itself a revolutionary movement.
 
me and bf had a closed relationship for eight years, we were very happy just being with each other however we did start swinging and then we joined a poly relationship. so my answer is no....
 
Re (from feelyunicorn, Post #13):
"I simply think some people are monogamous, and some others (a minority) are polyamorous."

LOL, damn ... I thought the "debate" was over whether the majority or *everyone* was intrinsically polyamorous (or nonmonogamous). Kind of refreshing hearing a different viewpoint indeed, thanks for posting that.

As for me, the jury is out. I simply don't know what approximate percentage of intrinsically monogamous or polyamorous people there are. I can't prove that all monogamous/closed relationships are not, well, an abusive form of slavery. But I'm also a big believer in the vast uniqueness of individuals, so I'm usually really skeptical about blanket statements.

I should also note that my sitch is poly-fi; that is, no sex is allowed outside the three-person circle. It's possible that the circle could become a four-person circle, but that would be a painstaking process, and in the meantime, casual hook-ups (or any hook-up without a huge commitment and intro to the circle) are a big no-no (for us). That's kind of another definition for the word "closed."

So, are we abusively subjecting each other to sexual slavery? I guess I can't "prove" we're not, but I can say I don't feel like a slave (or abused).

Anyway, I reckon there's many kinds of closed and/or monogamous relationships. Some are dysfunctional, some not. I'd hesitate to throw out any percentage estimates, you'd really have to be a mind-reader to know for sure.
 
Everyone's different. For some a monogamous relationship will be perfect and for some it will be restrictive and painful. Equally for some a polyamorous relationship will be ideal and for others it will cause suffering.

I guess the possibility of "abuse" (if you want to call it that) can arise when one partner forces the other into a type of relationship that they explicitly do not want. But that's another thing altogether...
 
Re (from feelyunicorn, Post #13):


LOL, damn ... I thought the "debate" was over whether the majority or *everyone* was intrinsically polyamorous (or nonmonogamous). Kind of refreshing hearing a different viewpoint indeed, thanks for posting that.

As for me, the jury is out. I simply don't know what approximate percentage of intrinsically monogamous or polyamorous people there are. I can't prove that all monogamous/closed relationships are not, well, an abusive form of slavery. But I'm also a big believer in the vast uniqueness of individuals, so I'm usually really skeptical about blanket statements.

I should also note that my sitch is poly-fi; that is, no sex is allowed outside the three-person circle. It's possible that the circle could become a four-person circle, but that would be a painstaking process, and in the meantime, casual hook-ups (or any hook-up without a huge commitment and intro to the circle) are a big no-no (for us). That's kind of another definition for the word "closed."

So, are we abusively subjecting each other to sexual slavery? I guess I can't "prove" we're not, but I can say I don't feel like a slave (or abused).

Anyway, I reckon there's many kinds of closed and/or monogamous relationships. Some are dysfunctional, some not. I'd hesitate to throw out any percentage estimates, you'd really have to be a mind-reader to know for sure.
I`m going by people`s own definitions (as opposed to what`s allegedly intrinsic). I think of social forces as being "natural" if you`d excuse the word. Or, rather, of nature being "unnatural." So, the back-to-nature argument doesn`t vibe well with me.

I know what is. What coulda shoulda woulda been if <insert utopia>, I couldn`t tell you. Nor, could anyone else, I would think.

Among bisexuals there`s the same deal, everyone should be bisexual. Do I really need the whole world to bestow verification upon my sexuality? About those who do, I can`t help but ask myself, "Are they any good in bed?"
 
Last edited:
Do I really need the whole world to bestow verification upon my sexuality? About those who do, I can`t help but ask myself, "Are they any good in bed?"

LOL!

It's obvious from reading ancient literature, or even old lit, such as Shakespeare, the Bible and Victorian/Edwardian lit, that marriage was a form of slavery for a long time. Women were considered to be outright chattel of their husbands, in a class with the children and the owned slaves, to be done with as the man willed, including imprisonment, rape and beatings.

This is still true in many parts of the world where these traditions still hold. Of course, it might not even be monogamy, but polygyny, with attendant punishments meted out upon the wives and the men that prey upon them.

Our Western culture still holds onto vestiges of these practices.
 
LOL!

It's obvious from reading ancient literature, or even old lit, such as Shakespeare, the Bible and Victorian/Edwardian lit, that marriage was a form of slavery for a long time. Women were considered to be outright chattel of their husbands, in a class with the children and the owned slaves, to be done with as the man willed, including imprisonment, rape and beatings.

This is still true in many parts of the world where these traditions still hold. Of course, it might not even be monogamy, but polygyny, with attendant punishments meted out upon the wives and the men that prey upon them.

Our Western culture still holds onto vestiges of these practices.
Fair enough. I would agree.

Of course, women were also rescued out of sinking ships and burning buildings before men. Nor did they have to burrow through granite to make the New York City subway grid. Inferiority seems to have its advantages.
 
Last edited:
Re (from feelyunicorn, Post #17):
"Among bisexuals there's the same deal, everyone should be bisexual. Do I really need the whole world to bestow verification upon my sexuality?"

I've noticed a certain amount of that coming from the "pansexual community," something along the lines, "You're hung up on genitalia, whereas I love people as a person." Sigh, okay. Arguing does no good in that scenario, nor reasoning. Trust me; I've tried.

Re (from Magdlyn, Post #18):
"Our Western culture still holds onto vestiges of these practices."

Agreed, we do.
 
Arguing does no good in that scenario, nor reasoning. Trust me; I've tried.
qft. As though intellectual persuasion ever convinced anyone to fuck anyone else. I wish it did...or do I? :p

Either we`re in the same league or we aren`t. Full stop.
 
Last edited:
The whole purpose of a committed relationship is commitment - a set of promises are made with an expectation that those will be honoured by everyone involved. Too many people make promises without really thinking what they mean, and even whether they can really honour that commitment. This is, to me, what is what is primarily wrong with marriage today. "Defence of marriage", rather than being about who should marry whom, should be about enforcing the idea that a committment made for life is exactly that, otherwise the commitments should be phrased differently.

If I make a monogamous commitment to someone (which I wouldn't, just sayin') and that person gets very, very sick, then my commitment to that relationship trumps any desire of mine to get laid.

This is (obviously! ;) ) a subject I feel very passionately about - it's showing me that others have a lot more flexible idea of what ethics, integrity and honour mean. So it's showing me that I need to have a few more detailed discussions with my current partners and in future with any potential partners, to find out where they stand on this.
Yes, I understand this. I agree. Monogamous marriage is a broken system for many. I am also big on integrity and honour too. I am also passionate about this topic, especially right now in my life. All I am trying to convey in sharing the story I did is that its a struggle. This man has so much left to give and to live and a wife that is out of reach mentally and physically. He struggles to do the right thing by her and the right thing by himself. To me its just all around sad and hopeless... I don't at all feel I can be preachy when faced with stories like his.
 
Oh I agree that it can be a struggle. Sticking to the promises we made isn't always easy, but in my opinion that doesn't lessen the promise. I can't say what I would do if I found myself in a situation like that, I don't know if I could be strong enough or have the fortitude to see it through.

But I think that a lot of people get themselves into situations like this because they absolutely don't think about the promises that they are making, and are, effectively, setting themselves up for failure.
 
Back
Top