Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old 05-31-2012, 05:06 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post

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.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 05-31-2012, 11:59 AM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzels View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzels View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzels View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
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.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 05-31-2012, 12:32 PM
zylya zylya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
Right, because having sex is more important than any promise you make, right?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 05-31-2012, 12:59 PM
BrigidsDaughter's Avatar
BrigidsDaughter BrigidsDaughter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 822
Default

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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 05-31-2012, 05:17 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrigidsDaughter View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
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
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 05-31-2012, 06:41 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,244
Default

"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.
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 06-01-2012, 03:05 AM
feelyunicorn feelyunicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyCurious4 View Post
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!

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.
__________________
Independent, sex-positive, bi-curious, private, atheist, elitist, athletic dude.

Last edited by feelyunicorn; 06-01-2012 at 03:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 06-01-2012, 03:32 AM
km34 km34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrigidsDaughter View Post
.... 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." 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.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 06-01-2012, 03:33 AM
feelyunicorn feelyunicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 151
Default

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.
__________________
Independent, sex-positive, bi-curious, private, atheist, elitist, athletic dude.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 06-01-2012, 07:25 PM
jones's Avatar
jones jones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: stoke
Posts: 125
Default

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....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
affairs, agreements, casual sex, cheaters, cheating, cheating and poly, dadt policies, dating friends, dating issues, deceit, deception, dishonesty, drama, encouraging cheating, ethics, fuck buddies, fwb, honesty, meeting people, mono, mono / poly, mono-poly, mono/poly, monogamy, monogamy and polyamory, one true way, poly, poly vs. mono, poly vs. open, polyfidelity, sneaking around, std's, sti's, swingers, swinging

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM.