Debate:Is adultery always wrong?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by Some Person.

It was said in the Ten Commandments Article:

“”Is adultery always wrong? Almost always it is. If your spouse is seriously abusive and/or chronically insane finding someone else mightn't be wrong.

—Whoever wrote it

So. IS ADULTERY ALWAYS WRONG?

Can we have definition of what you mean by "wrong"? Genghis^mutating 13:38, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Holy crap. That sounds like something CLinton would've said. Ehm. Bad. Not nice. Evil. Harmful. Something to get in a tiffy about. Cause for shoving feet up asses. Divorcible. Immoral. Any more? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 13:42, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Well what I meant was; morally, practically or legally? It might be "right" for me but "wrong" for my partner. What about someone who is extremely disabled or can no longer function sexually? Their partner may still love them but have a need for sex. Is dishonesty just telling lies or being economical with the truth? Genghis^mutating 14:22, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be going against their wishes or not telling them. If you had a need for sex and told them and they understood, then it wouldn't be adultery. It seems. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 14:31, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately both sides may not have the same POV so telling them that you wanted to do it may have a negative effect whereas keeping quiet may actually be the best all round. Sometimes ignorance is bliss and I tend to side with the utilitarian view. However, this is purely an ethical issue and legally (in some countries) it may be wrong (against the law) and you could be jailed. So that is why I asked for clarification of the wrongness. Genghis^mutating 15:07, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, as law is often influenced heavily by biblical right and wrong, it would seem that everyones view of right and wrong are different. Which is why law can't use the bible. Because my views of morality are different from JIm The Catholic's. So why not subscribe to Kip's philiosphy. Can adultery ever be healthy? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 15:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

No

Being dishonest with your partner in a relationship is wrong. If a person wants to be intimate with someone other than their current partner, they inform their current partner of that desire, and the partner is ok with it, then there is nothing wrong. This should not be interpreted to mean that I would be ok with such a thing, if it were my relationship; this is purely a hypothetical example. The part that is definitely immoral in most cases of adultery is lying about it. Someone on RW seems to consider "informed consent" very important (I've noticed it comes up in a lot of articles); in principle, I agree with them and consider this basically a corollary on informed consent. OneForLogic 13:49, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't see that as adultery myself. I've always been fine with that one, open relationships and such. I've just always seen adultery as not telling them. Eh. Ohwell. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 13:51, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

See, that's why these things are rather loaded questions. On its face, if you have multiple partners and everyone shares, it's still technically adultery, but "ok" adultery. I think the crime, as Storyteller says, is the deceit that is present. If your partner knows, or says "it's ok but don't tell me", then it's fine and healthy. if your partner does not know, and you don't want to tell them, then something else is happening and it's not ok or healthy. By the way, i tend towards "healthy" rather than "right" or "wrong". I don't believe in duality, much less moral duality of good and evil. You can have a healthy marriage with adultry if that is what both partners are ok with. I do know of one couple where the woman really dislikes sex, finds it uncomfrotable. She is fine with her husband having sex with other women, but that comes at a cost that he doesn't spend lots of time with them, nor does he take them out to eat, or to movies, etc., cause that's what he does with his wife.--Waiting for Godot 14:29, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Reminds me of a man I met once in the UK. He was with two ladies whom he introduced as his wife and mistress. Everybody seemed cool about it. Though my younger self was a bit shocked. --Bob^{bing up} 15:17, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

The statement lacks logic

The question includes: "If your spouse is seriously abusive and/or chronically insane finding someone else mightn't be wrong." Under these circumstances I would have thought the most obvious reaction would be divorce.--Bob^{bing up} 14:14, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

or, you know, a rolling pin. I'm just saying.... I've been married a LOONNGGG time. --Waiting for Godot 16:25, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

That's what I though. Why cheat on them and make them even more insane. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Double Standard

Why does society permit women to commit adultery? ^{— Unsigned, by: User:Marcos1997 / talk / contribs}

Yeah, married women should all be assigned a chaperonage to keep an eye on them when they are not with their husbands to ensure they are not committing adultery, or better yet they should be forced to stay at home unless they are being accompanied by their father or husband outside. We should create a police force just to enforce this. - π 01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said that. I was just pointing out a double standard. Just because I am against women cheating doesn't mean I think that.

Wait.... what? Where is there a double standard? Quaru^{snorkel - You can't explain that!} 21:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pointing out that there is a double standard stating it is okay for women to cheat. The user above thinks that simply because I don't think cheating is right for any gender, means that I think women should have a chaperonage.

And I think it's absurd to think women have a double standard in this regard.. I've never thought it acceptable for a woman to cheat and not a man. And I've never seen that in US culture, at least. The only double standard I've noticed (recently) is it's okay for a woman to harm a man for cheating, but not the other way around (don't get me wrong, I'm saying it's wrong for women to be able to hurt a man for it, not the other way around) Quaru^{snorkel - You can't explain that!} 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what really annoyed me was the reaction of the guy before you.

Trust me, I got that. My question still stands... "The fuck are you on about?" Quaru^{snorkel - You can't explain that!} 23:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bitches and whores. --85.78.125.67 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You ended a sentence with two prepositions! Still, I personally think there is a double standard. User:Marcos1997 / talk / contribs

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Clearly you've thought this through, and you have swayed me with your arguments. Quaru^{snorkel - You can't explain that!} 01:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the book "Eat, Pray, Love"?

First off, she divorces her husband and then runs off.. how is that adultery? Second.. What about "Mad Men"? What about "Californiacation"? "The unbearable lightness of being"? "Doctor Zhivago"? Adultery exists in fiction. It's hardly an example of a Double Standard. A double standard would be if, say, Men are allowed to have mistresses, and the wife has no recourse, yet if she cheats on him, she's stoned to death. THAT's a double standard. You need to try to come up with a societal link, not just some trash work of fiction. Quaru^{snorkel - You can't explain that!} 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No one gave a fuck when Jen Lopez had an affair. Everyone got pissed at Woods. User:Marcos1997 / talk / contribs

While we're on the subject, does anybody else think that the person from "Eat, pray, love" is incredibly selfish?101.165.71.7 (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wife Swapping

Ok, so it's not my cup of tea and it's definitely not Mrs Hughes' cup of tea but,as long as you have informed consent from all involved then where's the problem? It's still technically adultery. It's also noticeable which of the partners is 'swapped' - I guess nowadays it would be spouse swapping. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this like Wife Swap the TV series or just plain swinging fun? Because the latter is kinda sexy. ADK^{...I'll jostle your milquetoast!} 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Too. Much. Information. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If your an old far like me then you remember the seventies and the car keys in a bowl at the parties I didn't get invited to. Ah, the heady days between the popularisation of the pill and the onset of herpes and AIDS. Jack Hughes (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

honesty and trustworthiness

I believe it depends on your marriage vows. If they included the "forsaking all others .. " part then the act of adultery is a breaking of a promise, and if you cheat on your wife,(or she cheats on you), then what else would you cheat on, how can you be trusted in anything ? Hamster (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Marriage is an Institution of Contract

If husband and wife agree on a particular apparent breach of vows (e.g. swinging, wife-swapping), then no. They're free to agree to (or not) whatever is freely agreeable to the both of them. If someone has already breached the obvious covenants of marriage (e.g. screwing around outside of the marriage without advance consent, or by some form of violence), I think not, as the contract may be viewed as already invalidated.

I make one additional exception, on which I can only provide what is for now a hypothetical personal perspective, which is the case of some serious illness. I have known certain marital vows to be breached in this case, and I suspended judgment at the time. Since for various reasons some degree of disability is my own probable fate over the long term, and since I cannot yet imagine what it might be like to be or to care for someone so disabled, and further since I would want any wife of mine taking care of me under those eventual circumstances to find some happiness in the situation, I judge it likewise acceptable in this instance. Frostbyte (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes

Adultery is wrong because it will lead to lack of chastity. Monogamy limits sexual activity and is the the step leading to complete chastity. Chastity gives a person good memory, strong intellect, bodily strength and gives good qualities to the mind such as kindness, patience, trust etc (through hormones. All our feelings are because of hormones. For example, scientists have shown that oxytocin plays a role in trust. People who are overly sexual and are easily irritable). Therefore, chastity is considered the cornerstone of character. Adultery undermines all these, and makes the person a spiritual wreck. No spiritual experience is possible without absolute chastitiy (Complete chastity in thought word and deed).^{— Unsigned, by: Mohan2014 / talk / contribs}

I agree, chastity is essential for preserving precious bodily fluids. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also a good way to preserve your eyesight. We all know that masturbation and lewdness make you blind. Octo8 (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it all brings back fond memories of Stanley Green. @AMG, did you ever come across him. Most of my memories are from the early eighties. Placeholder (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

a bit before my time. I have only encountered more fire and brimstone types and one loon blaming Freemasons for killing princess Diana. I think I am going to purchase some protein supplements and sprinklke them on a nice steak. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)