In politics a decade ago, if you were caught in bed with someone that you are not married to, then you get royally roasted by the press in countries. Today, things seem alittle different and almost half-expected/half-jokingly from politicians to have a half a dozen affairs. John Edwards, who could have been the vice-president, is now under heat for the exact problem over his infidelity. Eliot spitzer is another in a row of politicians with an interest in hookers.

This issue transcends sexuality and parties as we have seen with Senator Craig of the Republicans.

What are your opinions of infidelity? Not just among straight politicians or closet politicians either. Is it right to be unfiathful to some one you love or atleast are bonded to?

I do not have the answers, but it is an odd dichotomy if you look at it. People say they hate infideity, but most water cooler talk or stories among men usually revolve around how hot some one is or their personal desire to seek a sexual exchange with them. Are we really lying to ourselves or is there a limit to what we define as infidelity

Bill Clinton changed that. He didn't consider oral sex to be intercourse; therefore he wasn't unfaithful. Had he and Monica used the Lincoln bedroom rather than the oval office...different story. (Also, Bill Clinton thinks that, if you don't inhale when you smoke marijuana, you haven't broken the law.)

Of course infidelity is morally wrong. You have to subscribe to a very loose, liberal moral code and definition of infidelity to conclude otherwise. It doesn't matter if a married man cheats on his wife with another woman or another man...it is infidelity.

Infidelity is certainly wrong, but there's a massive list of politicians (gay, straight, and everything in between) who have been exposed as philanderers. While is it usually not helpful to a politician, it certainly is not political suicide in most cases. However, I think it is morally wrong for anyone to be infidelitous, and the fact that so many people in this country have been known to "have their fun on the side", is a reflection of the US's increasing tolerance of infidelity overall. People often follow the examples of celebrities (including politicians), and there's definitely not a shortage of those who cheat.

Infidelity is not morally wrong. Being unfaithful is. The distinction is in the expections of the other half. If fidelity is not requested, or if there is some variation of an open marriage, then infidelity is okay. It is the cheating that is the wrong -- not the act of sex itself. I've heard people describe it as a betrayal -- a breach of trust. That is what is morally wrong.

heterosexism- the application of heterosexual norms to gay people in the mistaken belief that they are superior.

In the book I just finished (The Golden Notebook), infidelity was the norm, rather than the exception.

The concept of infidelity is pretty amusing. Take, for instance, a man married to his wife. If he loves another woman more than he loves his wife but does nothing, he's still faithful. If he has a one night stand with someone else, he's being unfaithful. The moral: infidelity is rooted firmly in the realm of sexual politics, and like everything else related to heterosexual sex politics, is pretty amusing.

I agree with Graeme that being unfaithful -- i.e. breaking faith -- is morally wrong. The problem arises from the fact that most people enter relationships and marriages with the assumption that both parties are going to be sexually and emotionally (in a romantic way) monogamous. Nobody really talks about how to tailor relationships to fit individual needs. Participants want to conform to a normative gold standard -- monogamous romantic love. To do otherwise would be embracing sexual deviancy and being a failure.

On the other hand, because the feelings of romantic love and the actions and responses to sex often overlap a great deal, the implicit transitivity between sex and love is a reasonable assumption. Still, humans are perfect, and are more often than not going to fail when stuffed into expectations of a "perfect" relationship.

I'll now stop talking about something I know nothing about and go feed cells.

You and graeme bring up really good points! I agree that the breaking of trust is the biggest problem with infidelity. It is heterosexist norm to be in a monogamist relationship, but it also provides a stability that some people seek.

I am going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment (not the Al Pacino Version, hehe!), I know that some people here are older and/or were or once married to women. Suppose you meet the love of your life one day and you fall quickly in love with this man. Then, you got two different problems: on one hand you are debating whether to pursue such a relationship that makes you happiest, then on the other hand you have an obligation to your wife and family.

The Chinese have an old idiom for people like that, "A man with a foot on two boats", which applies to polygamy more, but the idea stands that infidelity is a difficult subject.

I don't think I could ever be in an open relationship, but it's not because I am conforming to a heterosexist norm. I simply don't think I can handle anything like that. I also agree with everyone that there is a difference between being unfaithful and being infidelitous. Some couples seemingly cannot survive without openness. If that is the case, then obviously there is a need for openness. Otherwise, there is bound to be unfaithfulness.

As for politicians, they are expected to live by higher standards than average Americans. Is it fair? I don't really have an answer. However, I do think that the US is not ready for an openly gay president. By the time the US is ready for that, there will still be an expectation for potential gay candidates to be in monogamous relationships.

Several comments here have noted that fidelity and faithfulness are heterosexual (or heterosexist) norms. Wouldn't they also be normal conduct for two gay men in a committed relationship? By "committed", I mean married, in a civil union, or committed to one another in any extra-legal sense.

Or, is everything accepted by heterosexual society to be rejected by gays?

That depends on why. If you adopt the "morals" of heterosexual society in order to be accepted by that society, it will never happen.

If you adopt those same morals because they seem right and correct to you, then more power to you.

We waste too much time and effort trying to appease people that will never accept us when the proper response is tell them to f*ck yourself.

Then should we establish our own set of morals? So adultery is in or out according to the idea. Without social morals, what type of order should we establish to replace it or if we abandon order, can chaos bring a better alternative?

Without appeasing or copying heterosexual society, we have no frame of reference in terms of understanding what is right and wrong. We can experiment and try it our own way, but in the end we will just create another type of order to substitute the one that we casted out. Then, what?

Adultery is a construct which was created to punish those who cheated within their marriages. Gay people, unless you live in Europe, Canada or a few odd states can't marry so we got the other side of that stigma: any sex that we had was adultery because we weren't married.

Now you want to embrace the whip-hand? This is like the beaten child that tries to excel at everything to appease a drunken abusive parent.

I don't think so. All we owe heterosexual society is the finger. Appeasing or copying heterosexual society will do nothing but create another set of in and out groups and a new criteria for sexual oppression by the very people who should know better.

Of course- this is generally the way it works. The Puritans left England to escape religious persecution and were world class practitioners of religious persecution shortly after establishing themselves in the New World. I would like to see us skip this step but from the sound of it, it seems inevitable.

So who is acceptable in the new order? Will it be the Stepford fags living in wedded bliss the suburbs and the leathermen are going to be the new perverts? Where do the drag queens and S&M scene people fit?

Stepford Fags, haha!

Well, if we want to escape the social prison of heterosexual behavior, then a new order has to be created not based on any previously established ideal. However, Can such an order be made without anything from the heterosexuals?

There is a very odd dissonance between the ideal of faithful relations and freedom of choice. To be in a relationship is to keep a type of faith in between the two. However, it inhibits personal free will to pursue people that you might love more. There is a possessive nature to relationships that many people understand and some embrace as a defensive mechanism, but if we truly abandon heterosexual ideals, then relationships must be changed and lose the possessive faith element to create more freedom. I can understand the desire to follow one's heart and love another person, but it creates a lot of anarchy that mankind's feeble civilization is not ready to take in.

Without faith in a one another, a relationship can not stand and by further extent it will destroy our fragal group's integrity as well. Fidelity is not simply a case for the bedroom, but I submit that it is a case of all relations from friendships to business relations. Without fidelity, what can we do?

As I said before, I am not opposed to polyfidelitous relationships for those who choose such a lifestyle. However, I tend to think of the idea of being antithetic as inherently conformist. I say this, because when we decide to live in a way that is the opposite of society's "norm" just for the sake of being different, then we are conforming to the subgroup who feels the same way we do. There really isn't a difference. James, I realize that you have been mistreated by straight people where you live, but that doesn't mean that they're all incarnations of evil. There are decent non-gay people in the world even if it's not the majority of them. There are quite a few straight women on GA, and they're certainly not the ones who want to beat us with baseball bats.

I cant see any merit to what you are saying, I think that your ideas are just overly reactionary and wholly unconducive to co-existing with our fellow humans.

We may have to adopt a new structure for our society; but doing it for the sake of being different, or doing it because its what 'the enemy' arent doing is quite silly.
Like anything, if done it must be done for the right reasons.

Cal Thomas has an interesting article on infidelity and politics titled "Mama Mia" without the Music". Yes, I know, he is a (gasp!) conservative, but I think you will find the article thought-provoking. Be sure to watch for the term "traveling pants".

I've read more conservative works, but it is quite interesting. He mentions the religious argument against infidelity, but there is a line right after using God that is more universal than Judeo-Christian beliefs:



Infidelity hurts the trust in people and it hurts the reputation through example.

I want to let people have their own choice of lovers, but it is hard to say that if it was a guy I really loved. This issue is hard to put down a proper course for.

Let's put it this way.

Suppose we get your moral gay utopia. Who do we throw under the bus because they don't fit in this world? GLBT is a tapestry of odd little subcultures- some of which the idea of fidelity is an alien concept.

A handy trait for being part of a counter-culture is not giving a flying f*ck what other people think. Just let me know when being gay is mainstream and I'll start worrying about keeping up with the Jones.

THAT is where your problem lies: We are not a 'counter-culture' (at least not any more, with the advent of vague equality looming), we are a different culture. So like I said, if things change they should change for the right reasons, not because people are bitter and resentful.

Says the 20 year old kid who has not seen a fraction of the stuff that I have and lives in a place where he'll have a normal life.

You haven't paid the price that many of us older gay people have. If I am angry about it, it's because I am one of the very few left alive out of my generation and friends.

When you have been:

• beaten
• tortured
• watched your friends waste away or blow their brains out

Then I'll listen to your wisdom because it is born in the same fire as mine. Otherwise you are enjoying what other people paid for so STFU.

I imagine African Americans having similar discussion in the late 1960's when victories for the Civil Rights movement in the US. Where do we go from here and how should a new culture be born? Should it abandon everything the old racist prejudices had? or Is assimilation from both sides of mutual characteristics the right way to move?

Gay Rights have won only minor victories, which at best can be compared to Brown v. Board of the 1950's. There is still no set principle on what we can agree on and what society we want to live in.

I believe that an inclusive dream may be the best option for both communities, but it will also entail inclusive restrictions. Fidelity can work under different circumstances, but there must be some type of fidelity or else there will be no culture to speak of.

Now to James point:

I hear you; I understand your unhappiness. I might not have lived the life you have lived, but I have heard more than my fair share of stories. Electro-shock therapy, lobotomies to eliminate your homosexual urges, open violence by law enforcement, and much worse. I do not deny that I live in a better time because of the martyrs of the past, but I think they would have wanted us to live a better life. I agree with you James, but I feel that we can not separate ourselves from humanity, because of our differences. We are all human beings for better or worse, why should we separate from one another due to that hatred.

Do I not feel the urge to grab one of those counselors or psychologist who had done such things to gay adults and kids, then wrap my hands around their necks until they suffocate to a painful death? No, I am human and I have my own desires for vengeance, but I know that it would not help anyone. Hatred and fear leads to more suffering than it is worth.

Well... i can't see throwing anyone under buses. Even Bill Clinton....

I don't see fidelity as a political issue but as a personal one.

I think people, regardless of their orientation, should be honest about the boundaries of their own relationships and be true to them.

What is mainstream? It's changing, at least up here in urban Canada. For which I am grateful. To be honest, I feel pretty mainstream most of the time.... which doesn't mean that I don't recognize and value that others who have gone before paid a harsh and tragic price for that.

As gays obtain new standing in society (e.g. marriage), it might be better to fit into the mainstream than to appear too counter culture. More equality and benefits may ensue.

This is your one warning to stop the personal attacks. Remain on topic and do not attack other members. Any violations will be an immediate warn increase, no exceptions.

Thats what I think. Its better for the majority to see that we are people just like they are and have the same basic desires. Then we can be empathised with.

After that can come the wacky or the unusual.

Edit: I havent actually answered the topic yet!

So..

I think that being unfaithful is not inherently wrong, but whether it should be accepted or not really just depends on the status of the relationship between those involved. A personal decision, not something that can be generalised into 'wrong' or 'right'.

(Sorry guys, but I had to go off on a tangent again):

James has a right to be angry; I can not fault the last generation for their dislike of heterosexuals. There might be another debate out there that I do not want to raise about generation gaps between gay people.

Please do not fault James for his remark, I can imagine being angry too if our positions were reverse.

Xeran, Jsmith, and I are part of the current generation that had seen less hatred and wrongs done onto gay people than the previous generation.

I ask the younger crowd of GA to look at it this way; imagine Andrew Shepard was killed without reason, but multiply that by a hundred times more and the society at the time was more than just happy to eliminate another gay man from itself. Then think about situations like friends, who you loved dearly for years and their parents found out they were gay or bi in some instances, then they shipped him/her to a facility or camp to "convert" them to the norms of society. They come back more screwed up than when they left with a deep seated self hatred that haunts them every day and every hour. This feeling lead to emotional distress and depression, which ends in suicide being a major problem for gay youths even worse back then. Finally, I want everyone to think about what it would be like to hide who you are from society if everyone you knew had met such a fate. You are scared and alone in the world, there is no place like GA or other gay friendly forums or the internet. Would you not resent those who caused this upon you? Would you not hate those that have shamed you and force you to live such a life?

I can imagine possibilities in my head and live them out, I know so can you guys. These series of events are not so uncommon for the last generation and I would never be critical if they are angry now.

(Well there is my support rant, back to infidelity)

_______________________________________________________________________________


Xeran, then do you submit that infidelity should never be a social issue even if let's say 50% of all marriages end in divorce or separation. (This statistic has gone down according to gallop poll to about 42% last time I checked in their quarterly journal review)

While the previous generations have made a notable contribution to the cause, new methods for new times are needed.
I am not faulting anyone, WL.
I feel that this isnt an appropriate place to discuss this any further, PM me if you like, or catch me in chat.

(so lets draw a line under it)_______________________________________________________________

I do so submit to the floor!
I dont see how the state of your relationship is anybody's business, least of all the government.
I think you have a duty to be honest with your partner, but thats it.

Marriage is optional. If you want to live up to the promises you make, then fine, you can choose marriage. If you don't want to abide by those promises, then don't get married.

While it may not be a convenient option for gays in many places as of now, for people who are free to marry, the same principle applies.

The reality is that a significant portion of those who meant their vows at the time will not be perfect in keeping them. But that is no excuse in itself.

I'm replying quite late to this, Ive only just noticed the thread. I don't mean to stir as I notice that a line has been drawn. I believe infidelity is complicated, its not black and white. I think it is ok for somepeople and not the big taboo it is sometimes seen as. but i would want a monogamous relationship because I havent really imagined it another way and so not used to the idea. my big problem with it though is when it hurts the other partner if they hadnt realised and they found out and were dissapointed.

about the other topic of discussion, I agree with James really. I also understand the other point of view of moving forward and embracing some of the benefits of being accepted and inline, and people shouldnt be held back from enjoying that, I think its a sign of progress. but i agree about not conforming, to me it becomes bad when we get comfortable and in that draw new lines of what we find acceptable and not, as the new mainstream. james also said its inevitable, and I agree, whatever model you use, a brand new one, or an adapted version of the old, will produce this problem where some are always outside of the then ideals. so, I think I will always try to be someone who defends those just outside, who is going to try anad push the boundaries. its our duty to be aware of when we become slack. but thats only my opinion.
celia

I have some thoughts on this topic.

First of all, let me say that I define 'fidelity' as not cheating on your romantic partner and not knowingly cheating with someone who has a romantic partner even if you yourself are single.

I define 'romantic partner' as anyone with whom your are in a relationship in which there is an explicit understanding that it is exclusive OR in which there is a reasonably understood implicit expectation of monogamy. To me this is not contingent upon any sort of legal status or any sort of ceremony the individuals have made. Violating such things may be 'worse' if you want to think about it that way, but it's still 'cheating' regardless of any legality or ceremony if there is a violation of an explicit or implicit expectation of monogamy.



First off, I think that the original post in this thread is hitting quite a few different points which I personally think are unrelated to monogamy. For example the above may only apply to 'fornication', or having sex outside of marriage. Honestly, I don't consider that a moral wrong or a 'misdemeanor'; that's completely up to the two (or more) individuals involved and I attach no moral or social judgment to it.

The 'cheating' is what is wrong, what consenting, unattached adults do in their private lives is perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned.


Now we're talking about politics? OK, fair enough since this is the soapbox, but I was expecting a topic that was merely controversial on moral/social issues not one about politics. Personally, I prefer to keep it out of politics, because it's more interesting without tying it to politics (or religion), but since you brought it up here's my brief opinion about it politically:

I couldn't care less. I think that cheating is a very serious moral wrong, but just because someone commits a 'moral wrong' in one area of their lives is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant to the other areas. I would be upset if my minister or other religious leader committed adultery. I would be upset if someone cheated on a friend or family member. I do not care, at all, who a politician, actor, athlete, or other celebrity sleeps with. Nor do I care whether or not my taxi driver, cashier, fireman, or hairstylist is having an affair. As long as they can make policy decisions, get their lines right, keep their eye on the ball, sing properly, stay inside the lanes, make correct change, spray the blaze, or get my highlights right I really DON'T CARE.



That also seems off-topic to me. That's more or less dealing with gossip and plain old lust. I don't consider these to equate to infidelity either. I personally don't think it's inappropriate for someone in a relationship to lust after someone else, particularly in the casual, checking them out, brief fantasy way. It would be more problematic if they actually became fixated on the person, but if it's just thinking "WOW! He/she is hot! I'd like to bang them." Well whatever, that's just human nature and that's not, in my opinion, being disloyal to your partner. I'll throw in that nor is pornography as far as I'm concerned. It's what people actually do that matters.



Now that that's covered, I think that infidelity is awful. I think it's one of the worst things a person can do. It's definitely a 'moral wrong' and a very serious one. I would never tolerate infidelity in my relationships.

However, I would be very clear about my expectations. I would let my partner know how serious I think this is and I would explicitly tell him that I WILL NOT tolerate it and that the relationship WILL be over if he cheats. I have a similar policy on verbal, physical, and emotional abuse. I'm not tolerating it and if it happens, well don't let the door hit you on your way out.

That said, I don't have any problem at all with 'open relationships'. It's not how I would be likely to conduct my own relationship, precisely because monogamy is important to me, but if it works for other people than more power to them. Furthermore, if it really does work for them, then I wouldn't feel bad about messing around with one or both of them. I wouldn't get involved in any long-term sexual relationship with either because I think that could get too complicated, but it's their relationship not mine, and as long as they're playing by the rules and happy then I don't care either.

I would be perfectly willing to date someone who had previously been in open relationships. I would be very hesitant to date someone who had cheated in a monogamous relationship. To me it's all about playing by the rules in the relationship in which you're in. The open relationship person wasn't doing anything wrong (IMO) and there's no evidence that he can't play by the rules of a monogamous relationship. The person who cheated on the other hand DID do something wrong and there IS evidence that he has trouble playing by the rules of his relationship. So all things being equal I'd definitely trust 'open relationship guy' more to be fateful.


Do I make exceptions for sexuality or 'true love'? Hell no! Sorry if that sounds harsh but if you're in a monogamous relationship with someone of the 'wrong gender' or if you suddenly meet your 'real' true love. Well tough! You can either deal with the consequences of your past decision to enter your present relationship and do nothing OR you can leave your current relationship and pursue the person you're interested in. But that does not give you a right to violate the terms of your current relationship just because 'something better came along'.

Of course that opinion is highly biased by my own preference. I would much rather be broken up with than cheated on. I would respect someone who was man enough to tell me he was in love with someone else, or simply that he didn't think our relationship was working for him anymore. I could imagine still liking that person and maintaining a friendship with him afterward. If I'm cheated on then frankly I lose all respect and trust for that person and while I would definitely expect to forgive him, I doubt I'd want him in my life anymore, even as a friend and that goes back to trust, honesty, and betrayal.



Anyway, addressing the other points in this thread, I don't think what heterosexual society deems appropriate should have any bearing on gay relationships. Of course I don't think it should have any bearing on straight relationships either. Who cares what society thinks is appropriate? I don't live my life to satisfy 'society' and I don't expect anyone else to either. Morality is far more complicated than what 'society' pushes down people's throats. It's up to individuals to establish their own system of morality and their own concepts of right and wrong. Those ethics, IMO, should be based on the simple premise of not doing harm to others or to oneself. The 'Golden Rule' really makes a lot of sense. I'm not going to consider something 'moral' or 'immoral' simply because society deems it so; I'm going to work it out for myself.

Anyway, as far as relationships go, it's definitely important for the individuals involved to work out how they want their relationship to work and what they expect. It's fine if they don't want and expect what I want and expect. All that matters is that they want and expect the same things and that they stick to them.


So that's my opinion of infidelity

Take care all and have a great day!
-Kevin