[Greta Christina] Is Cheating Ever Okay?
Is cheating on your partner ever okay?
For a long time, I thought the answer was “no.” And a pretty unequivocal “no,” at that. I thought that people should keep their promises — especially important promises — and if one of those promises was a promise to be monogamous, then so be it. If you weren’t willing to be monogamous, I thought, then you shouldn’t make a promise to be it.
But as the years have gone by, my thinking on this has been changing. My thinking has been changed a lot — or rather, has become clarified — by a series of columns that sex advice columnist Dan Savage has been writing about sexless marriages and relationships . . . and the unfairness of denying your partner sex and then getting outraged when they seek it elsewhere.
And my thinking was put into sharp focus by, of all places, a recent episode of “Secret Diary of a Call Girl,” and a passing comment made on the subject by the main character, the call girl Belle.
The comment:
“Yeah, he’s married. But his wife hasn’t had sex with him for five years, so I suppose they’re both breaking the marriage contract,”
Which is the crux of my new, revised thinking about cheating.
In a perfect world, everyone would spell out their sexual desires and expectations — their Yeses and No’s and Maybes, their Must Haves and No Fucking Ways and Only If You Get Me Drunk And Buy Me Diamondses — early on in their relationships. It wouldn’t solve all these little misunderstandings; needs and desires can change, and people in love can be first-class experts at deluding themselves into thinking their piddly little problems will work themselves out. But the misunderstandings wouldn’t be quite so prevalent as they are now.
In reality, though, we don’t live in a perfect world. The imperfect reality is that there are a whole host of default assumptions that most people make when they get into relationships.
One of those assumptions is monogamy. In modern American culture, it’s generally assumed that a romantic and sexual relationship will be monogamous, unless you agree otherwise.
But another of these default assumptions, I think, is sex. It’s also generally assumed that a romantic and sexual relationship will be . . . well, sexual. (With reasonable exceptions to be made for times of illness or great stress, of course.)
And now, let’s take a look at ethics . . . and contracts.
Because another thing that’s generally understood in our society is that, if one person breaks their side of an agreement, the other person is under no obligation whatsoever to keep theirs.
I don’t know enough about the law to know if this concept always holds true in legal contracts (although my understanding is that it usually does). But I would argue that it does hold true in the social contract. If you promise to sweep the sidewalk on Tuesdays if your neighbor does it on Fridays, and you start blowing it off, you have no right to expect your neighbor to keep it up. If I promise to help you move if you take me out for pizza after, and I flake out on helping you move, I have no right to expect pizza. If you skank out on your half of a bargain, you have no right to assume that the other party will stick to theirs.
And I think this concept applies to sex — and monogamy — in relationships.
I wish with all my heart that more couples would spell this stuff out: talk about it openly, negotiate agreements they can both live with . . . both early on in their relationships, and as things shift and change. It bugs me that so many people make unthinking default assumptions about the most important decisions in their lives.
But the reality is that people do make default assumptions about relationships. Monogamy is one; continued sex is another.
And if you dance, you have to pay the piper. You lie in the bed that you make. Plus whatever other cliches you can think of about taking responsibility for your actions. If you make unspoken default assumptions about your relationship — such as the assumption of monogamy — you have no right to take umbrage if your partner also makes unspoken default assumptions . . . such as the continuation of sex.
And if you break your side of the unspoken agreement, you have no right to act the injured party if your partner decides that they’re therefore no longer bound by it.
I realize this stuff is complicated. I realize that it’s changing. And I realize that it’s not always as clear-cut as I’ve made it out to be here. Sure, you have a right to look elsewhere for sex after five years of a sexless marriage . . . but what about after one year? Six months? At what point does the contract become void? Plus, I realize that unilaterally backing out on a monogamy agreement carries some responsibilities of its own. Safer sex is one; making a scrupulous, good- faith effort to repair the problems in your relationship before you go a-wandering is another. It’s no fair reneging on monogamy in a sexless marriage if you haven’t told your partner there’s a problem.
I’m just saying: If you’ve given up on sex in your relationship, you have no right to object if your partner gives up on monogamy. Yes, they broke their promise. But unless you specifically spelled out at the beginning of your relationship that your partner shouldn’t expect the good sexy times to keep rolling . . . then so did you.
This entry was posted on Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 5:18 am Ephemeriis wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree that some degree of sexual intimacy is implied in a monogamous married relationship. And if you haven’t had sex for five years it is probably time to reconsider the relationship. But that doesn’t make it OK to cheat on your spouse. That doesn’t make it OK to sneak off and do things behind their back. That doesn’t make it OK to betray their trust in you, even if they’ve already broken their half of the contract.
The proper response to such a situation, I think, would be a very honest discussion. Something along the lines of “Honey, we haven’t had sex in five years, I’m going to go find a mistress.”
Of course much screaming would ensue, and it might be the end of the marriage… But if you’ve reached the point where both of you have broken the contract isn’t it already over? And maybe such an honest statement might spark helpful discussion in the relationship, which could lead to things being fixed.
But cheating on your spouse, I think, is always wrong. This is someone that you’ve agreed to spend the rest of your life with - the least you can do is be honest and up-front about your problems.
on Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 6:49 am Joan wrote:
Unfortunately, having sex outside the relationship will not solve the problem neccessarily and will not save the relationship. I think the key to trying to mend a sexless marriage is communication and a commitment to telling the truth (in a caring way) on the part of both parties. And a continuing commitment to each other. Be prepared if you do seek partners outside of the relationship (even having been honest with your partner) to find out some things about him or her that you might not have wanted to know and to having the relationship fall apart anyway.
on Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 6:58 am Tom Allen wrote:
Congrats on being one of the first people to actually speak up in public on this side of the question.
I have a friend - no, seriously, it’s not me - an older gentleman who’s wife hit menopause in her late 40s, and immediately afterward decided that she no longer had any desire for sex. Period. She refused to go to counseling, claiming that it was natural and that nothing was wrong with her. The guy was only 52 and very active. For several years he was devastated. He considered divorce several times, but the fact was other than sexually, he loved her and they had a good relationship. She did not work; they had 2 grown children, a house, a vacation cottage, investments - after several years he believed it to be wrong to walk out on her.
Instead, he began meeting up with colleagues who were in similar circumstances. He had some code of ethics - strange as it sounds - of only having sex with married women, so as to not worry about the relationship side of the affairs. He made the mistake of telling another friend who freaked out about it, including telling him that at 55, he shouldn’t be thinking about sex so much anyway.
He’s now in his 70s, and while opportunity doesn’t come along as often, he tells me that he does still have an occasional dalliance. He and his wife still have - by all appearances - a good marriage. And I have often asked myself if their lives would be any better if they had split up. Looking at them now, I tend to think not.
Thanks for writing this, if only to point out that not everyone cheats out of spite or inconsideration.
on Friday, 4 July 2008 at 12:25 pm Tara wrote:
After 13 years of a clinically sexless marriage I finally broke down and had an affair. It wasn’t a proud moment, but it was a wonderful, liberating moment.
My husband broke our vow repeatedly when he failed to love, honor and cherish. Is that an excuse? No. But the fact is, the marriage was dead.
I tried for 13 years to talk openly with him, sought counseling, and finally told him (as did our counselor) that this would end in me having an affair.
I had thought I was strong enough to tough it out because I did truly love my husband. But when I finally broke - mentally, emotionally and physically - it was like a wave crashing over me. It wasn’t really a gradual process. One day I was hanging on, the next I was desperate for the love and affection I’d been deprived of for more than a decade. Yes, there were warning signs. But hindsight is 20/20.
I don’t regret my affair. Yes, my husband was hurt (I’ve never been anything but honest to him and told him about the affair shortly after it started) and I’m sorry for that, but even he doesn’t hold it against me.
We’re divorcing, but not really because of the affair. After having the affair I’ve realized that I can never go back to that sterile relationship. My husband wants to keep the marriage intact, but it’s time for it to end.
on Friday, 4 July 2008 at 1:34 pm Joe Perez :: An Integral Blog » Blog Archive » The new ethic of cheating (green) vs. an ethic of evolving sexual values (turquoise) wrote:
[…] Savage’s defense of cheating seems to be seeping into the culture. In a post on the Blowfish blog, Greta Christina opines that she has recently had a change of heart about whether or not it’s okay to cheat in monogamous relationships. She writes: I wish with all my heart that more couples would spell this stuff out: talk about it openly, negotiate agreements they can both live with . . . both early on in their relationships, and as things shift and change. It bugs me that so many people make unthinking default assumptions about the most important decisions in their lives. […]
on Friday, 4 July 2008 at 1:53 pm joe perez wrote:
hi greta,
i’m a new reader of your blog (and fan, so far). i responded to your post on cheating on my own blog
here.
on Saturday, 5 July 2008 at 7:58 am Penny wrote:
I have to say I’m still on the “unequivocally no” side of the cheating question. Cheating is, by definition, breaking the rules of what-have-you and should not be done. I do however agree that denying a partner sex is also a form of cheating, if you think about it. What needs to follow in that situation is a pretty long conversation about the desires and needs of both individuals and if one of them decides to seek extra-marital sex as a result of it, then it’s no longer cheating because at least his/her partner knows about it. Skipping off to have sex without the important discussion beforehand is very wrong, in my opinion.
on Saturday, 5 July 2008 at 9:25 am Ola wrote:
While I wholeheartedly agree with your position that cheating is not always wrong, it seems to me that your defense of it doesn’t work.
Your argument is as follows: the relationship includes a (mostly implicit) contract, by which it is expected that both partners do A (have sex) and B (be monogamous); therefore, if partner 1 doesn’t deliver A, partner 2 has the right to not do B. Correct?
I see two problems with this reasoning. The first is that relationships, if viewed as contracts, include lots and lots of expectations, which may include: spend time with each other, try to understand each other, tend to each other in times of sickness, take care of the kids, provide money, be honest about everything, live together, be nice to each others’ relatives, make occasional gifts, have sex sometimes, help with the housework, be monogamous, be mentally healthy… many, many things. And much more don’t’s than do’s are implicitly expected, most of which are the usual don’t’s one expects from a friend, or from any decent person in general: don’t murder too many neighbors, don’t steal, don’t talk bad things about me behind my back, don’t lie to me, etc, etc. Formally, we could say that a relationship contract looks more like this: each side is expected to provide A1, A2,…, A456, B1,…, Z127, (some of these requirements are positive (do’s) and some are negative (don’t’s)). So what you are saying is that as soon as one of the sides fails to provide, say, A23, this immediately means the other side can consider the contract annulled and finally murder some of those pesky neighbors. If it looks like a wide stretch of what you’re saying, that’s precisely the point: the weakness of your argument is its generality. No, not every clause of the huge implicit contract can trigger an implicit deal breaker. Actually, I don’t think a deal breaker should ever be implicit, even if most the contract is. When the contract terms are not met, you should renegotiate the contract — not violate it.
Another (small) problem with this reasoning is the tacit assumption that whenever two people don’t have sex for a long time, only one of them is entirely at fault; and then it’s OK for the other one to cheat. OK, maybe you don’t assume that, but then I just note that your reasoning applies only to this situation. But consider this: as you said, “It’s no fair reneging on monogamy in a sexless marriage if you haven’t told your partner there’s a problem”. Even in this situation, the person who wants to have sex with the spouse and doesn’t get it, can come forward and talk about it, ultimately saying “OK, ultimatum: either we work on the problem, or I seek sex elsewhere”. And the key thing is that after this ultimatum, if he does have sex elsewhere, it is not cheating. Not in my book, anyway. Cheating=deceit. If you honestly inform your partner up front, it’s not cheating. That’s exactly the crux: by cheating, he breaks a completely different clause of the contract, unrelated to sex: the honesty clause. Which, frankly, is much more important, at least to me, than all the sex related clauses altogether…
on Saturday, 5 July 2008 at 6:51 pm Tess wrote:
Cheating is one thing. The lying that often goes along with cheating is another. I don’t think it’s ever okay to lie to your partner.
For one thing, should the partner who is no longer having sex decide that they wish to work on the relationship, they are not making informed consent. When I have sex with my partner I believe that he is not exposing me to anything, as we are in a monogamous relationship.
Honestly? It’s not fair to stay with a partner that you are no longer happy with. To either of you. The world is not so small to make it unreasonable for both partners to find someone they’re better suited to. And kids are smart enough to figure out when one parent is cheating, and this isn’t a great experience when they’re trying to figure out the whole sex thing. So I don’t think staying together for the kids is a great reason to stay together.
Basically I think one should be able to suck it up and tell one’s partner how unhappy one is. If it fails to make any difference the contract should be formally annulled, not implicitly.
on Sunday, 6 July 2008 at 9:57 am Joreth wrote:
I’m gonna side with the “two wrongs don’t make a right” camp here. I’m not arguing at all that the partner witholding sex has broken some clause in the relationship contract. Of course, I bristle at the thought that sex ever becomes an obligation in a relationship - something that I owe to another person, but that might just be me. If we go with the assumption that sex is an obligation, something a mono couple signed up for with the I Dos, then one person reneging on the sex does NOT then entitle the other person to breaking a separate clause.
If the contract is now “broken”, null, void, then the marriage contract is broken - meaning, they are no longer married. Can’t file joint tax returns, can’t have hospital visitation rights, can’t refuse to testify in court.
But that’s not the case, unless the couple actually goes into divorce proceedings.
I’m not defending the sexless person here, I’m saying that my code of ethics does not allow me to treat someone in an unethical fashion simply because *that person* has broken an *implied* agreement that they may not even be aware they broke, particularly if they do not consider that agreement to be part of the relationship contract in the first place (as I do not).
Again, I’m not saying the person withholding sex is in the right here - I think it’s reasonable for many people to assume that ongoing sex is part of the relationship contract, particularly if they never talked about it explicitly beforehand. But to turn around and break another section of the contract with the reasoning of “she started it!” is patently unethical in my book.
I wholeheartedly believe that each person deserves a say in what their relationships look like. If a person wants regular sex out of his relationship and his spouse appeared to want the same thing, but appears to have changed her mind lately, he deserves a say in whether he gets regular sex or not. But *she* also deserves a say in whether she remains married to a man who is willing to put her own health and future at risk. Neither one of them are in a consentual relationship, IMO.
It’s true that the reality we live in doesn’t include the majority of people having explicit and honest relationship negotiations. But continuing to condone cheating for a “good reason” will not change that, it will encourage further lies.
Yes, there are some times when lying is not unethical. To save another’s life, for example. I choose the path of greater courage. Does it take more courage for me to be honest or to lie? If the Nazis are beating down my door asking where the Jewish family next door went to, and I have them hidden in my basement, lying is the path of greater courage. If I don’t tell my wife that I’m having an affair because she might get mad at me and divorce, that’s not the path of greater courage, that’s the path to cowardice.
And I believe these excuses for when some times allow “cheating” (by definition, lying about outside sexual affairs - those relationships that allow an outside sexual partner to compensate for something like a medical illness are not cheating, even if it is structured to appear “discreet”) only encourage our society to bypass the path to greater courage.
http://tacit.livejournal.com/90763.html - Some Thoughts On Truth And Virtue
on Sunday, 6 July 2008 at 1:47 pm TentacledBeast wrote:
Your argument has a manifest flaw: How on earth am I supposed to know I broke a contract I never actually agreed on? Like Joreth says above, many people (including yours truly) never consider sex as part of the “relationship contract”.
What is more, some people do not even think of sex as important, as they do not feel great need for it (any more), and thus simply cannot empathise with their partner’s feelings. In that case, they will probably not realise the magnitude of the partner’s problem unless the latter makes an effort to explain how they feel.
Since a relationship is based on love, not power-play, ultimatums of the “either we work it out or I start an affair” sort can only be harmful to both parties involved. If that is the point where the relationship has come to, better end it and stop hurting each other.
on Sunday, 6 July 2008 at 11:08 pm Seth Manapio wrote:
Many people never consider sex to be part of the relationship contract? Really?
In that case, what’s their beef with their other half gettin’ some strange? I mean, if sex isn’t part of the contract, it isn’t part of the contract, right?
As for telling your partner you’re getting a mistress… been there. Done that. Got the divorce papers… and that’s after the long, frank discussion and the agreement that my getting laid was in our joint best interests. The fact that I actually DID it was a deal breaker and caused a lot of pain. It would have been more courageous of me to either hide an affair or end the marriage. The route of having the long, frank discussion was the worst possible choice.
So… there are no perfect solutions. The best thing you can do, in this or any situation, is try to make sure that the person who bears the cost of your decisions is you.
on Monday, 7 July 2008 at 1:44 pm The Countess wrote:
Hi, Greta Christina. I love your articles and your blog.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think there are better ways of handling a sexless marriage than cheating. My husband and I have had very long dry periods, which I never talk about on my blog, and we’re still trying to deal with it. I have a higher than average sex drive, which I take care of by masturbating and using lots of sex toys (I’m a sex writer whose gigs include reviewing sex toys). However, I would love to have a warm body around me. I even had some men and women in mind (I’m bi), but I couldn’t bring myself to cheat. Cheating would devastate my husband, and I would feel terribly guilty, which would ruin the moment for me. Besides, I love my husband. He’s my best friend and I’d never give him up. Too much to lose, although the lack of sex is a problem.
What about opening a sexless marriage so that the sexually active partner can enjoy his or her sex life again? That requires communication to become polyamorous, which I think is better than subterfuge. It’s one possibility that could work for many couples, as long as they are open and honest with each other.
I used to have affairs when I was in my 20s. I dated several married men. One of the most popular lines used on me was, “My wife and I don’t have sex any more. She doesn’t understand me. I need sexual release!” Bud, your wife understands you all too well. While I recognize lack of sexual desire and sexless marriages as a real problem, I’ve heard the line given to me as an excuse to get in my pants. Those marriages were in serious trouble before I came into the picture. Cheating is more than a sexual violation. It’s a violation of trust.
I think that other options could be looked at that both partners could enjoy, such as polyamory or sexual experimentation outside the usual heterosexual coitus. Food for thought.
on Monday, 7 July 2008 at 4:23 pm katagoshi wrote:
Excellent post, Greta. I’ve been following your blog for a while, and I always enjoy your candid writing style and willingness to openly address the ‘tough topics’…like cheating.
I personally feel that ‘cheating’ falls into the catagory of unforgivable offenses in a relationship - in a relationship understood by both parties to be monogamous, it is a serious breach of trust and is grounds for a break-up. That’s the black and white of it, in my opinion.
Quite frankly, if you’re in a viable romantic relationship with someone, doesn’t there have to be, by definition, some kind of sexual attraction? Granted, sex is not the defining factor in a relationship, but I think its pretty important, both as an expression of intimacy and (for most people, I’d say) something of a biological need…
I, for one, like sex. Quite a lot. So unless there is some medical reason why either of us can’t have sex, its pretty unlikely I’m going to be purposely denying my partner what we both want any time soon (he’d call my bluff anyway ^ ^) But that’s the important part: “we both want”. When the “want” part of that becomes off-kilter, for one or both of us, then its a problem that needs to be addressed. If its not something that can be resolved, or if both people are not committed to working things out, then the relationship needs to end…preferrably before sex with other people is initiated. I think that’s just a matter of fairness and decency.
on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 at 9:15 am Joreth wrote:
Seth Manapio:
Yes, some people do not consider sex to be “part of the contract”. What that means, though, is that one person is not *obligated* to give the other sex as a marital duty. To some of us, that went out with the 50s as part of male domination and subjugation of women. I will give you sex when I want sex, just as you will give me sex when you want sex - it’s not a job or a duty that one owes another, it’s something to be shared between willing parties, even though it might be an important aspect of the relationship. To some people, what this smacks of is this scenario:
“Honey, how about sex tonight?”
“I’m sorry, I’m not feeling like it. Ever since I had the baby, my sex drive just dried up and I’m just not into it. I can’t get turned on, so I can’t get wet, so it’s just painful”
“Well, you promised me 10 years ago when you took those vows, so lay down and get ready, cuz you owe me sex”
It’s not always explicit like this, but to someone who does not accept that “sex is part of the contract”, this is what it feels like. And when someone is already predisposed to not want sex, making him or her feel like he or she is now obligated in spite of his or her personal interest is NOT going to help them get past whatever their difficulty is. It will probably prolong the disinterest.
The problem here is that people’s sex drives change over time and with certain circumstances, and to expect that one’s spouse owes one sex on a regular basis regardless of what might be going on either physically or mentally simply because 20 years ago they were both hopped up on NRE happy brain chemicals is just as insensitive as requiring one’s partner to forgoe the sex along with the partner who lost interest. I’m not saying it’s fair, but then one of the many reasons I’m poly is because I recognize that people have varying sex drives and I don’t prevent my partners from having other lovers if their drive is higher than mine.
However, in a monogamous relationship, what *is* part of the contract is that neither partner will have sex with anyone else. How often a couple has sex and what to do if either of them changes their feelings on the subject is rarely discussed and, consequently, people have different assumptions about that subject. Without that discussion, the spouse who is not interested has no way of knowing what he or she is doing is considered a “breach of contract” if the rejected spouse believes it is. Although many, many things about a monogamous marriage might be tacit or implicit and therefore each partner might be on a different page about it because of their own assumptions, what is always understood (and even explicitly stated in the marriage vows) is that having sexual relations outside of the couple *is* a breach of contract. Assuming anything to be “part of the contract” always leads to trouble. If you find yourself assuming without explicitly discussing it, you might as well also assume your spouse has a different opinion and go have that talk.
If one person tries the honorable thing and tries to talk to his or her spouse before cheating, with the hopes of opening up the relationship in an honest and consensual way, and the spouse breaks up with him or her because of it, the marriage was doomed whether there was cheating or open relationships. Because the two people have a fundamental difference of opinion in how they feel their relationship should work. The couple could probably limp along indefinately as long as the infidelity was never found out, but lies block paths to intimacy (not to mention being unethical in forcing one’s partner - who one professes to love and not want to hurt - to exist in a nonconsensual relationship).
on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 at 9:24 am Joreth wrote:
katagoshi wrote:
Quite frankly, if you’re in a viable romantic relationship with someone, doesn’t there have to be, by definition, some kind of sexual attraction? Granted, sex is not the defining factor in a relationship, but I think its pretty important, both as an expression of intimacy and (for most people, I’d say) something of a biological need…
Well, no, actually, there doesn’t have to be. This is widely accepted, of course, and a reasonable assumption, IMO, but there are lots of people who profess to have all the same feelings that fall under the category of “romantic” without actually having a sexual relationship - for many reasons. The relationship just naturally doesn’t include sex. One or more is of the wrong sexual orientation. One or more has medical complications. One or more has psychological issues. One or more has a low sex drive. One or more does not use sex as an expression of intimacy (there are other paths - this is just one of the more common). Time and age has diluted the “biological need” or the focus of sex as important.
While *you* might think that sex is pretty important (and I’ll grant you that a majority of people in our society agree), there are some who do not, and it’s rather presumptious for anyone to look at someone else’s relationship and tell them that what they profess to feel is not true.
The key, here, is for those *in that relationship* to discuss with each other what is important and what is not and to reach an agreement that meets everyone’s most important needs. If there is a significant mismatch in the importance of sex, then the agreement could be a breakup. What is important is to be in relationships with people you like. Be in relationships that are meeting everyone’s needs. Be in relationships that bring value and happiness to those in it. Having a difference of opinion on the importance of sex in the relationship is sure to bring about tension and unhappiness, regardless of whether one actually cheats or not. I suppose some people see value in remaining in relationships that do not make any of the participants happy, but that’s not my preference.
on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 at 4:51 pm Franklin Veaux wrote:
I gotta say, I don’t find this argument particularly compelling.
Now, I can totally see where you’re coming from. I’ve long thought that relationships which say “You agree that you may not have any of your sexual needs met from anyone except me–and I refuse to meet your sexual needs” are profoundly broken, and the fact that the default assumptions about relationship allow for precisely this sort of thing–in fact, make it likely, even–is pretty messed up.
That said, your analogy about contracts breaks down pretty quickly. In most relationships, monogamy is an explicit, agreed-upon covenant, but availability of sex is not. An explicit agreement is not the same as an unstated expectation.
If you promise to sweep the sidewalk on Tuesdays, and you expect your neighbor to sweep the sidewalk on Thursdays but you never tell your neighbor to sweep the sidewalk and he never agrees to it, then you don’t have a contract. Your neighbor is not failing to discharge his obligations by not sweeping the sidewalk. If you stop doing it, it’s not because he didn’t hold up his end–it’s just you breaking your word.
And the situation changes when deception enters the picture.
If you feel your needs aren’t being met, and you violate the terms of your agreement because of that, okay, fine. You’re in a sexless, loveless marriage that’s already dysfunctional, and you’re exercising your ability as a grown adult to take care of your needs. I get that.
But the instant you lie to your spouse about it, you have committed another wrong–and this one is not justified by any considerations of contractual obligation. The moment you decide to abandon your agreement but you conceal this decision and allow the other party to believe you are still adhering to it, you are R-O-N-G. Cowardly, selfishly wrong.
You and your neighbor have an agreement to sweep the sidewalk on alternating days, and your neighbor refuses to sweep the sidewalk on his appointed day? He’s broken his agreement, and you are free to do so as well. You stop sweeping, okay, fine. But then you tell your neighbor that you’re sweeping the sidewalk, you pretend to sweep the sidewalk when he looks out the windows? That’s just f*cked up. That’s refusing to step up and take responsibility for the consequences of your decision, is what it is.
And the situation gets stickier still when you consider that cheating potentially exposes your spouse to the risks inherent in sexual activity without consent. Regardless of whether or not the decision to break the agreement of monogamy is ethically justified, the day you break it and then refuse to admit you’ve broken it, and then transmit an STD to your spouse because you’ve refused to admit that you’ve broken it, is the day you’ve left any hope of ethical validation so far behind that it’s a dim and distant memory.
(This isn’t a hypothetical, by the way. A person of my acquaintance did just this when she cheated on her husband, contracted hepatitis, and gave it to him. She died a couple of years ago.)
At that point, what we’ve got is a situation where you promised your neighbor you’d sweep the sidewalk, but he didn’t promise to sweep it himself and engaged in no such agreement with you. Ten you get all pissed off because your neighbor isn’t meeting your expectation, even though you’ve never stated it, so you’ve decided to stop sweeping. But you’re still pretending to sweep the sidewalk, you’re telling him you’re sweeping the sidewalk…and one day he comes out, and slips, and busts his ass because the sidewalk isn’t swept.
Think he’d be right to be pissed? I do.
Expectation does not rise to the bar of agreement, especially when it isn’t even spoken. You’re right to say this is a flawed and imperfect world–but a number of those flaws and imperfections can be laid squarely on folks who are too frightened, too insecure, or too intimidated to speak their minds and assert their needs. To say the world is flawed and imperfect, and therefore it is OK to engage in the very behaviors which make it that way, seems a little strange to me.
Say what you mean, ask for what you need, and take responsibility for your decisions. That’s what ethical behavior is about.
on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 at 7:57 pm Seth Manapio wrote:
Yes, some people do not consider sex to be “part of the contract”. What that means, though, is that one person is not *obligated* to give the other sex as a marital duty.
If you and I form a contract in which you are my sole supplier of ice cream, and you refuse to supply me with ice cream for a period of years, you are condemning me, unilarerally, to an ice cream free nightmare of an existence. A contract in which one person is given sole control is not an agreement between equals. It is exploitation at best and slavery at worst. And it isn’t a reasonable position to have about ice cream.
Furthermore, ice cream damn well is part of the contract, you’ve made it clear that the parties have signed an agreement concerning ice cream. It is either naive or simply amazingly self-centered to think that with that agreement comes the right to stop the ice cream trade altogether. That certainly isn’t in the contract.
For those who think that its the lying that is the worst part… be honest. There are so many things going on in a relationship besides ice cream that to put all of it at risk by demanding either ice cream supply or ice cream freedom is an incredibly expensive proposition. And we already know that the other party is completely unreasonable about ice cream. Discretely obtaining ice cream elsewhere might be the best decision for everyone.
on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 at 8:05 pm Mister Harvest wrote:
Isn’t there a fundamental contradiction in saying, on the one hand, “Sexual availability is not part of the contract” and on the other hand saying “Sexual exclusivity is part of the contract.” One rather implies the other, no?
on Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 3:30 pm Franklin Veaux wrote:
Isn’t there a fundamental contradiction in saying, on the one hand, “Sexual availability is not part of the contract” and on the other hand saying “Sexual exclusivity is part of the contract.” One rather implies the other, no?
If the people involved in the relationship are up front and open about their sexual needs, yes.
But that doesn’t describe the majority of relationships, the cynic in me suggests.
“You can only get sex (or ice cream, or sushi, or Huffalump feed) from me” is not the same statement as “I agree to provide you with sex (or ice cream, or sushi, or Huffalump feed) whenever you like.” Now, it would be foolish in the extreme to enter into an arrangement where you have only one exclusive supplier of sex or ice cream or whatever if that supplier isn’t going to supply it…
…but whether or not the people involved are foolish isn’t what’s at question here.
What’s t question is whether or not it is OK to break an agreement while pretending to stick to the agreement.
If you and I have an agreement where you may only get ice cream from me and from nobody else, that’s one thing. If we make this agreement, and you are dissatisfied with the amount of ice cream, the quality of ice cream, or any other aspect of the ice cream service you get from me, hey you’re a grown adult perfectly capable of sorting out your own interests, and as a grown adult you may say “Hey, this arrangement isn’t working for me. I need ice cream, you’re not giving it to me; I’m going to get my ice cream somewhere else.” That’s fine, and reasonable, and is certainly a decision that you are within your rights to make.
However, what you may not do is go get your ice cream elsewhere, then say “Oh, no, I’m not getting ice cream from anyone except you.” That’s just cowardice. That’s making a unilateral decision, then refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences of that decision.
Nobody can compel you to stay in a relationship that doesn’t meet your needs; that’s just silly. However, at the same time, pretending to abide by an agreement that you’re actually breaking because you’re fearful of the repercussions of telling the truth? That’s the sort of thing one would hope we outgrow by the time we’re six. Pretending to abide by an agreement that you’re actually breaking because you’re fearful of the repercussions of telling the truth, and then potentially endangering the health of your lover ’cause you’re too scared to tell the truth? There are words for that sort of behavior, but I don’t know that they’re suitable for a public forum.
The way I see it, this entire issue isn’t really about sex, it’s about responsibility. If your spouse doesn’t give you what you want, it’s perfectly reasonable to renegotiate the agreement, or to void it completely, but pretending to abide by it without accepting the consequences for doing so is just plain irresponsible. You want the benefits that you get from continuing the relationship, but you don’t want to abide by the terms of the relationship, and you lack the courage to discuss those terms.
And that’s wrong no matter what the sex is like at home.
on Friday, 11 July 2008 at 5:43 pm Ezekiah wrote:
I’ve got two things. Both related to gender and (quite possibly) the fact that I’m trans.
First. I realize that recent posters haven’t done this, but what’s with the fucked up heterosexist “he” as the cheater (in all the hypotheticals that specified genders) and “she” as the cheatee? Seriously Blowfish Blog readers. Especially since (though I only did a cursory second glance to check) it seems like of the actual, real life, anecdotal stories, about half of them were of potential (or actual) “him” cheatees?
In case this isn’t obvious, I find this messed up for two reasons, the first being that assuming heterosexual relationships is just rude, the second reason is the equally obvious fact that assuming women are “pure” or more “chaste” then men is rude to people of all genders, in effect refusing women the recognition that their status as sexual people is their own to decide, while also basically bad-mouthing men: “bad men! you can barely keep your dicks in your pants!”.
Second. What would you do (for those hypothetical people) if you told your spouse: “I need more sex, if you don’t give it to me I’m going elsewhere” and ze refused you sex (but also refused you the posibility to get it elsewhere), and then asked you later: “are you having an affair”? If you aren’t having one I suppose its easy (though there will always been the suspicion, and that’ll fuck shit up fast), but if you are? Do you tell zer: “yes?”, or do you lie because you know that ze refuses to hear the truth.
Ok, to take it one step removed (out of relationships) and just to issues of trust and “responsibility” (as so many are bandying about). My boyfriend is also trans, a summer ago ze told zer mother that ze didn’t feel like a girl, zer mother responded with threats (we won’t go into them) and anger. Ze went into the closet when at home. Now, we’ve started dating since then, and zer mother asks about whether we are (fairly frequently, it’s clear on some level that she knows). My boyfriend knows in advance how zer mother will react to this sort of thing. One time, after denying it, ze asked her how she’d react if ze *was* dating a female bodied person. She said she’d probably puke. She didn’t want the truth, she wanted a comforting lie… Which is what she got and continues to get.
Is someone really going to tell me and my partner that the best thing for zer relationship with zer mother is honesty and renegotiating the mother-child contract?
Franklin wrote: “However, at the same time, pretending to abide by an agreement that you’re actually breaking because you’re fearful of the repercussions of telling the truth? That’s the sort of thing one would hope we outgrow by the time we’re six.” and “pretending to abide by it without accepting the consequences for doing so is just plain irresponsible” and “You want the benefits that you get from continuing the relationship, but you don’t want to abide by the terms of the relationship, and you lack the courage to discuss those terms.”
I’d suppose that my boyfriend is pretending to abide by an agreement to not be (gender)queer, and ze is most definitely fearful of the reprecussions of telling the truth (cleaning puke off shoes doesn’t count). But seriously, does this make zer not as mature as a six year old?
And who says that only one party in a situation gets to set the consequences. Couldn’t I just as easily say that the consequences of refusing your partner sex, for years on end, even when ze has expessed to you how profoundly unhappy it makes zer, be that you get cheated on? No no no you say. Why not? Because it’s the accepted way things are that only a cheaters’ actions have “consequences”? Bullshit. In terms of my boyfriend, the consequences of my boyfriend’s mother being trans/homophobic means that she doesn’t get to know about this part of her child’s life.
And what’s this about lacking courage? No one I’ve noticed has yet written about the total lack of courage it takes to say: “I refuse to talk about this, la la la I can’t hear you” Which is what Greta was talking about in the first place and certainly the case with my example.
Then there’s the benefits we get from relationships. My boyfriend gets numerous benefits from continuing the relationship between zerself and zer mother. And I don’t think that ze should be required to abide by the terms set by zer mother. Similarly, there are benefits that we can’t imagine when we set up hypothetical situations and judge the participants. There are friendships, children, jobs, happiness, healthcare, (you name it) at stake in marriages, oftentimes affecting (as others have said), more than just yourself.
Perhaps y’all will say that it’s totally different. But many of you are the ones who also say: “it isn’t a matter of sex, it’s a matter of honesty”. So where does the honesty stop and the sex begin? Or perhaps I’ve misjudged and you’ll all know that lying in this and every instance is an “unforgivable offense” regardless of circumstances.
(Sorry if I seem to be picking on Franklin, just a lot of my feelings coalesced when I read that particular post)
on Friday, 11 July 2008 at 6:38 pm Joreth wrote:
The problem here is that there are two different things being compared.
1) “You will get your sex from me and no one else” - this is an explicitly-stated rule in monogamous relationships.
2) “You will provide me with said sex on a regular schedule for the rest of your life” is NOT an explicitly-stated rule in monogamous relationships. It’s an expectation and an assumption.
Personally, I think it’s pretty fucked up to say “You are not allowed to get your sex from anyone but me - and I won’t be giving any to you from now on”. But I’m not monogamous for this (and many other) reason.
However, only one of these statements is an actual agreement. The first one. The second one is not actually an agreement, it’s an assumption. And in the case of whether or not it’s ever OK to cheat, it’s an assumption that only one partner made.
I am (and everyone else I’ve seen is) not defending the person withholding sex in this scenario. I’m only saying that the response of cheating is not justified in return. The cheater is a coward who is not willing to live up to his or her responsibilities. It is NOT actually the sexless spouse’s responsibility to provide sex because the sexless spouse never explicitly agreed to do so. It’s perhaps unfair of the sexless spouse to withhold sex and simultaneously deny other avenues for his or her partner. But it is not actually his or her responsibility. It IS, however, the responsibility of the cheater to honor the explicit agreement, which is sexual fidelity, or renegotiate the contract.
Even if the wedding vows included “I promise to love, honor, obey, and provide you with sex ’til death do us part”, it would still not be justified, because at least the sexless spouse would have stated clearly that he or she is no longer providing the agreed-upon service. The cheater has absolutely no justification that I can agree to that gives him or her the right to tell the sexless spouse that he or she *is* still following the agreement while breaking it behind the spouse’s back. That’s irresponsible to say the least, dangerous and life-threatening at its worst.
on Friday, 11 July 2008 at 8:30 pm Christine wrote:
Really? I know plenty of monogamous couples who have never negotiated the terms of their relationships. In fact, that probably describes the majority of romantic relationships I’ve observed. Both parties seem to just assume that once you’ve passed some arbitrary point of ’seriousness’ or time spent together or whatever, you don’t fuck other people. You know. An expectation and an assumption. As was stated in the original post: “In modern American culture, it’s generally assumed that a romantic and sexual relationship will be monogamous, unless you agree otherwise.”
Also, I think this has been clarified, but Greta wasn’t talking about “sex on a regular schedule for the rest of your life.” She was talking about sex, like, ever again.
on Friday, 11 July 2008 at 9:43 pm Seth Manapio wrote:
““You will provide me with said sex on a regular schedule for the rest of your life” is NOT an explicitly-stated rule in monogamous relationships. It’s an expectation and an assumption.”
Monogamy means having a single mate. A mate is someone you fuck, by definition. Agreeing to be monogamous is an agreement to fuck each other and not to fuck others. A different relationship would have to be formed to agree to mutual celibacy. You are simply wrong, based on, history, and the definition of the word monogamy.
Your entire position collapses, once we realize that your party trick of separating the two mutually supporting parts of the word monogamy is just a trick. The party of the second part (who is denying the sex) is, if they think like you describe above, completely unreasonable about sex. Therefore, if there are other entanglements that make confrontation stupid, expensive, hurtful, and detrimental to all parties, the ethical choice is to cheat.
on Saturday, 12 July 2008 at 6:28 am Cajunjay wrote:
I found your postings most interesting, but one side perhaps missing. (I haven’t finished reading ALL the posting yet.)
Now almost 23 years in a sexless relationship, and spent $$$$ on counseling, I’m still faced with a ‘take it or leave it’ scenario. We both care about each other deeply. Financially it would be ruinous to separate.
But while cheating or sleeping around might seem a good solution, I think there are elements missing.
In a prior marriage, we both (by mutual agreement) slept around. When the marriage was failing, good sex with another partner was never able to replace the caring, loving intimacy we sought.
Now this was 25-30 years ago, and perhaps today’s social situations are different.
on Saturday, 12 July 2008 at 5:45 pm Joreth wrote:
1) “You will get your sex from me and no one else” - this is an explicitly-stated rule in monogamous relationships.
Really? I know plenty of monogamous couples who have never negotiated the terms of their relationships.
I never said it was “negotiated” - in fact, that’s part of the problem here. Monogamy is rarely “negotiated”, which allows arguments like this to exist, where some people assume sex forever is obligatory and some people do not. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is still an explicit agreement in a monogamous marriage. It’s the line “forsaking all others” in the marriage vows and enforceable by adultery laws even if you leave that line out. It doesn’t get any more explicit than governmental enforcement. Of course some people renegotiate those rules on their own, but without that renegotiation, the default is an explicit agreement to not seek outside sexual partners. BECAUSE of the lack of negotiation, who is obligated to fuck whom and for how often/long is an assumption, not an agreement.
Seth:
Of course monogamy means having a single mate. But it does NOT say anything about the frequency of the sex that happens with that mate, which is what makes the situation so unfair for one person to deny his or her spouse sex while simultaneously denying that same spouse other outlets. For many generations, it was expected that the sex was not often and/or dropped off with time. It’s only recently that regular sex past a certain age, or childbirth, or menopause, or whatever, was started to be assumed.
And it’s not assumed by everyone. Obviously, it’s assumed by you, so I hope your spouse understands that she’s obligated to fuck you even if she loses her sex drive due to menopause. I, however, have made no such agreement with my partners. But I’m also not monogamous, so my partners won’t have to consider cheating either.
You might not want to accuse an anthropologist of being wrong about the history of monogamy. Just a suggestion.
on Saturday, 12 July 2008 at 5:51 pm Blowfishies wrote:
We’d like to take a moment to thank everyone who is participating in the discussion of this issue; it has certainly been the most-discussed pair of topics on the board. Please, we’d like everyone to:
1. Keep the conversation civil, and not veer off into who is accusing who of what.
2. Please do not allow this to start drifting into statements of poly or monogamy triumphantism.
Thanks!
on Saturday, 12 July 2008 at 5:54 pm [Greta Christina] Is Cheating Ever Okay? Part 2 | Blowfish Blog wrote:
[…] I’m not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn’t that. My column from last week, Is Cheating Ever Okay? — the one suggesting that cheating in a sexless relationship might be morally defensible — generated more comments than any other column I’ve written for this blog. By a considerable margin. […]
on Sunday, 13 July 2008 at 6:30 am Seth Manapio wrote:
“You might not want to accuse an anthropologist of being wrong about the history of monogamy. Just a suggestion. ”
Merely being an anthropologist doesn’t give you any particular expertise on the history of monogamy, you might be studying any number of topics that have nothing to do with the history of monogamy. And its not like we’re talking about the sexual mores of a specific tribe in subsaharan Africa, or some other highly technical area. This is a very broad and easily understood area, perfectly accessible to laymen.
But since you’re playing your expertise card, please point me to a monograph or paper that you’ve written on this topic, so I can evaluation your research. Or start citing some sources that back up your comments. Because I think that you aren’t portraying an accurate or academic viewpoint.
on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 1:13 pm [Greta Christina] Morals, Deprivation, and Prioritizing Sex: Is Cheating Ever Okay? Part 3 | Blowfish Blog wrote:
[…] When I wrote my first piece on this topic, I put the question in terms of a social contract. I argued that yes, cheating is a violation of the unspoken (and in some cases, spoken) terms of a relationship agreement. But I also argued that unilaterally and permanently depriving your partner of sex is also a violation of those terms. And I argued that, when one person violates their half of an agreement, the other person is no longer obligated to keep theirs. […]
on Friday, 18 July 2008 at 6:33 pm Christine wrote:
First, I wasn’t talking about marriage, though I guess that’s probably the context in which the situation we’re discussing most often arises. But lots of committed couples aren’t married, or aren’t legally married.
Second, it’s clear now that I should have said “I know plenty of de facto monogamous couples who blah blah blah.” And I probably should have said “discussed” instead of “negotiated.” Meaning, I know plenty of couples who don’t who don’t have sex with other people who have never so much as said, “Hey, so are we exclusive now or what?”
It’s just plain stupid that, if you don’t take the time to discuss this, you default to monogamy. What purpose does this serve?
And for many generations, women turned a blind eye while their husbands screwed around with other people. (And vice versa, though that wasn’t as common and isn’t as widely acknowledged.) The way we conduct relationships now is radically different from the way they were conducted a few generations ago in many, um, ways.
on Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 2:44 am Ruminations on cheating « I could fall madly in bed with you wrote:
[…] July 19, 2008 at 9:46 am (relationship, sex) (cheating, sex, swinging, what is?) I’ve been reading these great posts by Greta Christina. She brings up many valid points and for the most part, I do agree with her. However, perhaps I’m tainted by my own experiences, things aren’t always as simple as breaking a “contract.” There are many variations of the “contract”, depending on the particular circumstances. This begs the question, ‘What is cheating?’ For me, it is more an issue of what leads to cheating and what constitutes cheating. Let me share one of my experiences. […]
on Friday, 16 January 2009 at 3:18 am bin There wrote:
I wish the solution were as simple as those who promote it.
For some, talking doesn’t solve anything. I have been with my wife for over thirty years, and yet whenever I say something that my wife doesn’t agree with, I’m wrong. There is no shade of gray in this - I’m wrong. period.
I once tried to discuss my discontent with our sex life only to receive a three hour lecture on all the things she “did for me” while sitting in a bar. I’m sure the other patrons had better things to hear than us discussing a bad sexual relationship!
It took a long time, but I finally found someone who meets my needs without expecting me to disrupt my entire life and make enemies of my family. I wasn’t looking for a relationship, but I did. I’m glad, for it has made life more bearable and I can actually say I have moments of happiness now.
Some will denounce my arrangement as not being honest, but let’s look at this from a pragmatic angle. Everyone gets what they need in my life. I do not neglect my wife, whose interest in sex is minimal. She gets as much sex as she wants. I get the sex that I need without having to engage in a lot of argument and acrimony. I don’t feel rejected anymore, for I have an option worth waiting for if my wife isn’t “in the mood.” I don’t have to resort to Dennis Prager’s “you women owe us men sex” bullshit to get my needs met.
I won’t take this much further, only to suggest that a less-than-traditional relationship may well be the only solution for some of us, and those who feel otherwise would be better served by attending to their own lives and leave the rest of us alone.
on Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 11:50 pm [Greta Christina] Sex, Moods, and a Wife’s Selfless Duty: And We Are in What Century Again? | Blowfish Blog wrote:
[…] I’ve even argued — very controversially — that if a person unilaterally and permanently refuses sex to their partner without being willing to discuss or negotiate it, it is not automatically the worst moral choice for that partner to seek out sex elsewhere. An argument that was based on the idea that sex — not sex on demand whenever and however you want it, but some amount of some kind of sex — is one of the things we have a right to expect in a romantic relationship. (And no, I don’t want to start that argument again. Please, for the sweet love of Loki, let’s not start that argument again.) […]
on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 at 11:47 am He’s A Super Freak: Tiger Woods and Sexual Compassion | Blowfish Blog wrote:
[…] For starters: While I don’t generally condone cheating, there are a handful of situations where I understand why people do it, and feel some compassion for people who do it, and recognize that a reasonable person might decide that it’s the least bad choice available to them. The main one I’ve written about before is the situation where one partner in a deeply tangled relationship turns off the tap on sex — unilaterally, non-negotiably, and permanently. (And yes, I know, not everyone agrees with me about that. Please, can we not start that argument again?) […]