In the case I propose, all other aspects of the marriage are great. There is no abuse or lack of hygene or anything like that. Let’s say Spouse B refuses inimacy because it is simply not enjoyable. I would agree, there IS something wrong with the marriage. That’s why I have no problem with Spouse A’s infidelity.
Sorry, but that is a huge “something”. Why not either get the spouse’s permission or walk away? If the spouse refuses, then they are essentially lowering you to the status of property. They are holding your body hostage to their whims, and that is revolting. Disgusting as that behaviour may be, it does not justify breaking a promise and being a sneak on the side. The cheating spouse is either greedy, a coward, or both.
you mean the spouse consents to your suffering?
You been talking to my ex-wife?
Marriage is a contract, and violating the terms of a contract (unless all parties agree) is wrong even if you inform the other party. If it is a deal breaker, there is nothing wrong with ending the marriage - just staying in it and violating the wishes of the other party.
This doesn’t apply to just sex. If you’ve agreed to not make big purchases without mutual consent, going out and buying a Mercedes is wrong also, even though you tell the other party you have. “I need it” is not an excuse.
ETA: And, on topic, if the partner agrees with someone messing around outside if marriage because of a lack of interest, it is still adultery but not wrong.
I think he’s more likely to join ranks with the Phelps Phamily. He’d be a lot better off if he did embrace the philosophy of good old Timothy Leary, though.
Yep
You stood at an altar or before a judge and repeated vows, if those vows were real and meaningful to both marital parties, then sexual relations outside the marriage are wrong and immoral.
If those vows were not real and meaningful to either marital party, then the marriage itself was immoral, and all you have is a marriage of convience.
Declan
But you are assuming what those vows are. Spanish civil marriages do not require a vow of fidelity.
I can get the fact that the state does not care if your playing around in a marriage, but are civil marriages common enough in spain ?
I am more used to the idea of a church marriage with a civil license to do so , but we have enough people that use the civil marriage that it has to be added to be inclusive.
But to me , bottom line is that either the pomp and ceremony of a church wedding , or the antisceptic Justice of the Peace office, essentially you gave your word in front of witnesses, that you were now married, off the market and so forth.
Relations outside the marriage bed may well be acceptable to some , but I believe that most everyone would expect fidelity.
Declan
I’m not catholic. Whoever will conduct my marriage had better stay out of my sex life, thank you very much.
I agree that if both partners promise (or imply) to be sexually faithful it’s not a good idea to break that promise. I would still not go as far as saying it’s always immoral.
That was my point, regardless of who conducts the ceremony. Its between you and whom ever you are going to marry(ied). Otherwise you are just looking for , or creating loopholes to justify playing the field. I say this in the generic you, as I don’t know you or your situation, and that would be presumptous.
Declan
Declan has a point.
Marriage is not necessarily sexually exclusive. There are lots of cultures which practice polygamy, most obviously, and others in which a married man can properly practice concubinage.
But what determines whether a particular relationship infringes what marriage requires is not so much what one’s spouse thinks of it, as what society thinks of it.
The whole point about marriage is that it’s not a private arrangement between the couple concerned and no-one else; it’s a step that the couple take so that what would otherwise be a purely private relationship becomes the concern of the entire community. The couple make public commitments, in the presence of witnesses, to conform their lives to certain standards; they ask for recognition of those commitments, support in adhering to them, social reinforcement of them, and even some degree of legal enforcement of them.
The fact that the ceremony may not involve an explicit commitment to sexual exclusivity doesn’t necessarily mean that marriage involves no such commitment. In at least some US states the bare essentials of the civil marriage ceremony involve simply a spoken agreement to take one another as husband and wife. What “husband and wife” means is not set out. There is, for example, no reference to material or financial obligations towards one another. But if the couple separate it will not be possible to resist a claim for maintenance simply by pointing out that nothing was said in the marriage ceremony about maintenance.
So, the question is, does the status of marriage, in a particular society, carry with it an expectation on the part of society that the couple should endeavour to be sexually exclusive? My impression would be that in Spain sexual exclusivity is generally seen as a concomitant of marriage. I’m happy to be corrected by those who know Spanish society better than I do, but I’m certainly not persuaded simply by being told that there is no explicit commitment to this effect in the Spanish civil ceremony.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that every act of sex outside the marriage will always be immoral. But in general it will be morally problematic, even if the spouses both freely consent, because of the the additional dimension of failing to adhere to a freely-undertaken solemn commitment.
snip.
I see what you are getting at, but I have to disagree. While common social definitions of the word imply sexual fidelity, there is no reason to assume that any activity outside of the marriage is unethical /immoral. Ultimately, the only arbiter of that is the couple themselves. While it should be socially assumed by the community that the couple is now “off the market”, the actions of the married are only accountable to each other. In my marriage, for example, my wife is bisexual though she leans strongly hetero at most times. Occasionally she wants to indulge the portion of her sexuality that I, as a man, cannot provide. We have a mutually beneficial arrangement for these occasions that everyone is happy with. Since everything is done with consent and trust, there is no unethical/ immoral behaviour. It isn’t about the sex, it is about the disrespect and lack of trust cheating demonstrates.
Other couples have different arrangements and limits to their permissiveness. It takes far more than sexual exclusivity to make a successful marriage, and it shouldn’t be presumed to be an iron clad prerequisite to the state.
No. There are plenty of non-monogamous couples who don’t consider it immoral. Morality is extremely subjective, however, so your mileage will vary.
Indeed, my impression is that in some contexts the “success” rate may even be higher, because there is an expectation that working to make a successful marriage precedes love.
I think adultery is immoral only if the marriage is still intact and there is no permission. Of course I don’t think it is intensely immoral as in many cases the harm involved is not radically different than simply telling your spouse you want a divorce.
Yes, precisely.
No, of course not. Mine is the voice of experience.
23 years with my husband
21 years of that married
10 years with my girlfriend
7 year old daughter
3 year old son