CDZ Whom do you think bears the onus for marital fidelity?

[usmbguest5318]

Preface:

For this thread purpose, marital fidelity means "strict adherence to whatever it be that parties to a marriage vowed to do and no do."

For this thread's purpose "forsake all others" means exactly what it's meant for millennia. It means to refrain from engaging in sexual acts with anyone other than their spouse.

​

Thread scope/topic:

• Not the thread topic --> The factors (literal, tacit, substantive and/or evanescent) pertaining to marriage itself's legal characteristics, antecedents, and/or consequences are outside the scope of this thread.
• Not the thread topic --> One's views on the morality of any given marriage vow or set thereof aren't the thread's topic.
• The thread topic --> The thread topic is whom you think bears the onus for not violating marital fidelity. Posters are welcome to share why thy think "this or that" party bears that onus, and those reasons may indeed come from the types of things that aren't the thread's focus; however, when doing so, one must present such things as reasons for one's answer to the thread question, reasons for one's holding the opinion one does, not as topics of discussion, remarks, etc. unto themselves.
• Not the thread topic --> Anything and everything else that may come into one's mind.

Thread Rubric:
The past pair of years have been rife will news about multiple public figures' (celebs and politicians) apparent marital infidelity..."apparent" because for most of those figures, most of us can only assume the married parties to those very public "scandals" vowed, among other things, to "forsake all others." [1]

Obviously a single person who's taken a shine to a married person cannot know the nature of the vows the wedded person made to their partner, though s/he can ask. I doubt many people do ask that, which, frankly and IMO, is a key question to ask upon learning the object of one's affection is married. After all, folks these days structure their marriages in all sorts of ways, so many, indeed, that about all one can tenebly assume about another's being "married is that s/he has a legally agreed upon and identified partner.

Be that as it may and to put the title/poll question in different words...in your mind and provided the married person in question has vowed to "forsake all others, as it were:

1. Upon learning the object of one's affection is wedded, is one obliged to withdraw one's aspirations toward that married person?
2. As a married person, is one obliged, upon learning another is by one besotted, to nip that sh*t in the bud?
3. Does existential marital fidelity have a mental dimension?

 

[ABikerSailor]

The marriage contract is between the husband and wife, so they are the only two parties that are required to uphold the contract.

Both are responsible for being faithful to the marriage, regardless of outside influences.

 

[OldLady]

Both my parents had affairs. They were decent people who came to a point where the other wasn't giving them the emotional merchandise they needed. Stuff happens because we're human and we're not perfect. Of course, their divorce about ruined my life. But I forgive them everything except how they handled the kid afterward. I personally don't think there are a whole lot of long standing marriages that haven't lived through at least one infidelity, if the truth be known. Which it seldom is.

Both parties take the vow so both should be responsible for upholding it, of course. Why would you even question that?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Xelor: Err, the married people.

 

[martybegan]

It is a 50-50 proposition regardless of any other moral or cultural norms.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Be that as it may and to put the title/poll question in different words...in your mind and provided the married person in question has vowed to "forsake all others, as it were:

1. Upon learning the object of one's affection is wedded, is one obliged to withdraw one's aspirations toward that married person?
2. As a married person, is one obliged, upon learning another is by one besotted, to nip that sh*t in the bud?
3. Does existential marital fidelity have a mental dimension?

Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect.
-- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
​

1. Upon learning the object of one's affection is wedded, is one obliged to withdraw one's aspirations toward that married person?
   • Absent knowing/suspecting the married person has vowed to forsake all others, no. That said, upon learning the person is married, one has a duty to ask whether forsaking all others is among of that person's marriage vows.
2. As a married person, is one obliged, upon learning another is by one besotted, to nip that sh*t in the bud?
   • Absolutely. Temptation is hard to avoid when one invites it into one's presence.
3. Does existential marital fidelity have a mental dimension?
   • Yes.

If the marriage ceremony consisted in an oath and signed contract between the parties to cease loving from that day forward, in consideration of personal possession being given, and to avoid each other's society as much as possible in public, there would be more loving couples than there are now. Fancy the secret meetings between the perjuring husband and wife, the denials of having seen each other, the clambering in at bedroom windows, and the hiding in closets! There'd be little cooling then.
-- Thomas Hardy, Jude the Obscure

​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Both parties take the vow so both should be responsible for upholding it, of course. Why would you even question that?

I'm not questioning it; I'm inquiring about it. I'm curious to know what other people think on the matter.

 

[OldLady]

Both parties take the vow so both should be responsible for upholding it, of course. Why would you even question that?

I'm not questioning it; I'm inquiring about it. I'm curious to know what other people think on the matter.

Well, I'm glad to see that even the dinosaurs here are properly putting the responsibility for fidelity where it belongs.

I fell head over heels in love, in a YUGE way, with a married man who gave me the whole schpiel about an unfulfilling marriage, I love you, it should have been you....
All of it. I never loved anyone like it before or since. I couldn't say no; something was off inside me.
All this moral rectitude is too much for me. I'm bowing out.

 

[Kat]

Both parties in the marriage.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The woman of course. No man wants to raise another's trophy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Been married almost 35 years, both parties to the marriage are responsible to stay faithful. I have delusional paranoia have my whole life worse sometimes then others BUT I always worked it out by making sure I had irrefutable truth of what I suspected BEFORE I acted on the belief I held, did not change the belief but kept me from acting out. I suspected my wife of cheating for years but could never prove it so never did anything about it. Still married. She takes real good care of me so even if she did cheat I have forgiven her.

 

[Syriusly]

Both parties in the marriage.

Not outside parties.

That doesn't mean we can't hold a person in contempt for sleeping with his best friends wife, but ultimately the person's responsible for adultery are the two in the marriage.

 

[Toronado3800]

Preface:

For this thread purpose, marital fidelity means "strict adherence to whatever it be that parties to a marriage vowed to do and no do."

For this thread's purpose "forsake all others" means exactly what it's meant for millennia. It means to refrain from engaging in sexual acts with anyone other than their spouse.

​

Thread scope/topic:

• Not the thread topic --> The factors (literal, tacit, substantive and/or evanescent) pertaining to marriage itself's legal characteristics, antecedents, and/or consequences are outside the scope of this thread.
• Not the thread topic --> One's views on the morality of any given marriage vow or set thereof aren't the thread's topic.
• The thread topic --> The thread topic is whom you think bears the onus for not violating marital fidelity. Posters are welcome to share why thy think "this or that" party bears that onus, and those reasons may indeed come from the types of things that aren't the thread's focus; however, when doing so, one must present such things as reasons for one's answer to the thread question, reasons for one's holding the opinion one does, not as topics of discussion, remarks, etc. unto themselves.
• Not the thread topic --> Anything and everything else that may come into one's mind.

Thread Rubric:
The past pair of years have been rife will news about multiple public figures' (celebs and politicians) apparent marital infidelity..."apparent" because for most of those figures, most of us can only assume the married parties to those very public "scandals" vowed, among other things, to "forsake all others." [1]

Obviously a single person who's taken a shine to a married person cannot know the nature of the vows the wedded person made to their partner, though s/he can ask. I doubt many people do ask that, which, frankly and IMO, is a key question to ask upon learning the object of one's affection is married. After all, folks these days structure their marriages in all sorts of ways, so many, indeed, that about all one can tenebly assume about another's being "married is that s/he has a legally agreed upon and identified partner.

Be that as it may and to put the title/poll question in different words...in your mind and provided the married person in question has vowed to "forsake all others, as it were:

1. Upon learning the object of one's affection is wedded, is one obliged to withdraw one's aspirations toward that married person?
2. As a married person, is one obliged, upon learning another is by one besotted, to nip that sh*t in the bud?
3. Does existential marital fidelity have a mental dimension?

First I'll say on the political level ex CIA Directors are allowed to become President so on one level the least of my concerns is marital fidelity. On another level you like to see a person who can conduct his business in a dignified matter (not getting their sloppily hidden prison/torture camps or affairs revealed). On a the most childish level, since the 90's I've been listening to how much B. Clinton's sex life mattered so its fun to run a hypocrisy check.

To who has responsibility, the husband and wife to whatever they agreed to. It may even change over the years but it is their responsibility.

On a realistic front, it makes a statement towards my character if I KNOWINGLY sleep with a person who is pretending to be monogamous with someone else. My responsibility? I dunno. Depends if you think I have a responsibility to help ppl change their tires along the highway or a responsibility to provide medical care to those who can't pay.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Both parties take the vow so both should be responsible for upholding it, of course. Why would you even question that?

For whatever "lip service" has been for millennia paid to notions of marital fidelity, the reality of many of our ancestors' mindset was that whereby men (married or not), so long as they're not caught with another man's wife, suffered little from availing themselves of life's bounty, shall we say. I'm sure you're well aware the same hasn't really been so for women.

Indeed, my sister told me our great aunt once instructed:

• You must get married and have regular relations with your husband for as long as you want to have relations of any sort.
• You must do that because if you ever have an affair and become pregnant, so long as you have a husband, there are acceptable explanations for everything, but your having a child out of wedlock is not ever acceptable.

 

[yiostheoy]

Both parties take the vow so both should be responsible for upholding it, of course. Why would you even question that?

I'm not questioning it; I'm inquiring about it. I'm curious to know what other people think on the matter.

Without any basis in Christian religion (Catholic or Protestant) the marriage simply becomes a quid pro quo contract.

Contracts depend on both parties to agree.

So both. The answer is both.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Preface:

For this thread purpose, marital fidelity means "strict adherence to whatever it be that parties to a marriage vowed to do and no do."

For this thread's purpose "forsake all others" means exactly what it's meant for millennia. It means to refrain from engaging in sexual acts with anyone other than their spouse.

​

Thread scope/topic:

• Not the thread topic --> The factors (literal, tacit, substantive and/or evanescent) pertaining to marriage itself's legal characteristics, antecedents, and/or consequences are outside the scope of this thread.
• Not the thread topic --> One's views on the morality of any given marriage vow or set thereof aren't the thread's topic.
• The thread topic --> The thread topic is whom you think bears the onus for not violating marital fidelity. Posters are welcome to share why thy think "this or that" party bears that onus, and those reasons may indeed come from the types of things that aren't the thread's focus; however, when doing so, one must present such things as reasons for one's answer to the thread question, reasons for one's holding the opinion one does, not as topics of discussion, remarks, etc. unto themselves.
• Not the thread topic --> Anything and everything else that may come into one's mind.

Thread Rubric:
The past pair of years have been rife will news about multiple public figures' (celebs and politicians) apparent marital infidelity..."apparent" because for most of those figures, most of us can only assume the married parties to those very public "scandals" vowed, among other things, to "forsake all others." [1]

Obviously a single person who's taken a shine to a married person cannot know the nature of the vows the wedded person made to their partner, though s/he can ask. I doubt many people do ask that, which, frankly and IMO, is a key question to ask upon learning the object of one's affection is married. After all, folks these days structure their marriages in all sorts of ways, so many, indeed, that about all one can tenebly assume about another's being "married is that s/he has a legally agreed upon and identified partner.

Be that as it may and to put the title/poll question in different words...in your mind and provided the married person in question has vowed to "forsake all others, as it were:

1. Upon learning the object of one's affection is wedded, is one obliged to withdraw one's aspirations toward that married person?
2. As a married person, is one obliged, upon learning another is by one besotted, to nip that sh*t in the bud?
3. Does existential marital fidelity have a mental dimension?

First I'll say on the political level ex CIA Directors are allowed to become President so on one level the least of my concerns is marital fidelity. On another level you like to see a person who can conduct his business in a dignified matter (not getting their sloppily hidden prison/torture camps or affairs revealed). On a the most childish level, since the 90's I've been listening to how much B. Clinton's sex life mattered so its fun to run a hypocrisy check.

To who has responsibility, the husband and wife to whatever they agreed to. It may even change over the years but it is their responsibility.

On a realistic front, it makes a statement towards my character if I KNOWINGLY sleep with a person who is pretending to be monogamous with someone else. My responsibility? I dunno. Depends if you think I have a responsibility to help ppl change their tires along the highway or a responsibility to provide medical care to those who can't pay.

My responsibility? I dunno. Depends if you think I have a responsibility to help ppl change their tires along the highway or a responsibility to provide medical care to those who can't pay.

Um, no it doesn't.

What's your responsibility really has little to nothing to do with what I or anyone else thinks. It has everything to do with what you assert are your values and standards and, in turn, your living up to them. You have a responsibility to yourself to live up to your standards. Where I'm from, that's part of what we call self-respect. If you want to live up to someone else's, well, by all means, do try. And good luck with that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Both parties take the vow so both should be responsible for upholding it, of course. Why would you even question that?

I'm not questioning it; I'm inquiring about it. I'm curious to know what other people think on the matter.

Well, I'm glad to see that even the dinosaurs here are properly putting the responsibility for fidelity where it belongs.

I fell head over heels in love, in a YUGE way, with a married man who gave me the whole schpiel about an unfulfilling marriage, I love you, it should have been you....
All of it. I never loved anyone like it before or since. I couldn't say no; something was off inside me.
All this moral rectitude is too much for me. I'm bowing out.

I'm glad to see that even the dinosaurs here are properly putting the responsibility for fidelity where it belongs.

Ditto.

Figured it was high time for a thread wherein members might find more common ground than incongruity.

All this moral rectitude is too much for me. I'm bowing out.

Well, okay. Sorry you feel thus obliged.

I don't encounter all your USMB posts, so I may have missed one/some, but of those I've read, I didn't get a sense that you are the sort who's ever so much as alluded to having placed your flag atop a moral mountain.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The problem with modern marriage is not infidelity it is a total lack of willingness to work differences out.

 

[Syriusly]

Both parties take the vow so both should be responsible for upholding it, of course. Why would you even question that?

I'm not questioning it; I'm inquiring about it. I'm curious to know what other people think on the matter.

Without any basis in Christian religion (Catholic or Protestant) the marriage simply becomes a quid pro quo contract.

Contracts depend on both parties to agree.

So both. The answer is both.

Because of course Jewish marriages are just a quid pro quo contract.....lol

 

[ABikerSailor]

Although, this does bring up another question..................

What exactly do you consider "marital fidelity"?

I used to have a friend of mine and he and his wife were "swingers". They both loved each other very much and had been married for a long time, but, when he was in the military, he ended up getting hurt and became impotent and couldn't have sex anymore. She still had a pretty healthy sex drive, so when they went out, she would look around to see what guys she was interested in having a physical relation with. She would go and flirt with the guy, he would come by after they started talking and they would ask the guy if he would like to have sex with her while the husband watched. So, because it was agreed to by both people in the marriage, and she never picked up on married guys, they looked at it as an extension of their sex life and not being unfaithful.

I also know how I felt when I was married. I was in the Navy, and had to deploy on a regular basis. I told my wife that I would be more upset with her if I came home to find out she had been going out for coffee with a guy on a weekly basis and shared her hopes, dreams and fears with him and kept them from me, than if I came home and found out she'd gone and had a physical affair because she was horny.

So, I just gave 2 very different examples of what some would or wouldn't consider cheating.