Why is it that having sex with someone else is wrong?

[shellshocked]

Besides sex creating a bond, does anyone here think that part of it is because you can possibly make a baby with someone else?

 

No.

I'm in a relationship with a woman and I would be upset if she

had sex with another woman and there is no possible way

she could make a baby that way.

 

I think maybe it has to do with intimacy.

With the other person sharing this part of themselves with someone

else.

[Juliana]

It actually isn't about the sex, it's really about the intimacy. Everyone wants to feel that there is someone who values them so highly, their relationship is utterly unique and irreplacable.

 

After all, guys don't worry that their girlfriend got raped -- they worry that she "wanted it." One is forgivable, the other not.

 

If you don't care who your SO sleeps with, that's your emotional reality. Other people are different. The point of the relationship is to understand and honour the other person, insofar as your own values and personality allow that.

[Kalika]

Shellshocked brought up the idea of cheating with a same sex partner.. would most of you consider cheating with someone of the same sex to be infidelity? If so, is it as serious as cheating with someone of the opposite gender?

[Batya33]

Yes- to me cheating is sexual contact outside of the relationship.

[Caterina]

On the first part of your post...I don't think that we developed the sex=love connection from religion. First, I think that its not because of a sex=love connection that we view cheating as bad. Sex does not equal love...begginning with the Greeks we have examples of how there are different types of love. We also recognize that sex is practiced by people who are not in love. Sex creates a bond, but not necessarily a love-bond. Secondly, sexual infidelity is frowned on by many other cultures that do not have specifically the Judeo-Christian perspective. Polyamorous relationships do exist but I think they started from a deviation from social norms that became supported by dogma/doctrine that eventually allowed it to stay. So I think that its in the reverse. Cheating=wrong is normal, viewing cheating =not wrong is what is odd and must be supported by some sort of dogmatic mindset in an enclosed social system.

The biological aspect makes more sense as to part of the reason why we view cheating as wrong.

Mostly, though, I think that the people who made mention of the unique intimacy that takes place between lovers have it. Its impossible to have that sort of special, unique relationship without exclusivity because of the energy, attention, loyalty and sacrifice that is involved in it...I don't think its possible to give that sort of love to more then one person at a time...and also the passing of time often serves as a stronger and stronger seal to the bond. Any betrayal of intimacy is cheating. We speak of emotional intimacy...there is also the physical intimacy.

[marathoner55]

If your partners okay on you sleeping around than its okay, otherwise its a betrayal of their trust.

 

We as humans are genetically programmed to stay together as couples for much longer than a season or a year, as do other mammals. This allows for humans to have an extended childhood, lasting about 12 to 20 years, and is one of the developmental adaptations that has allowed humans to become the dominant species on the planet. It is entirely appropriate that emotions (such as jealousy) and human created traditions (aka morality) support this couple bonding.

 

Furthermore, a relationship based on lies and deceit does not last.

 

Now, lets analyze.

First, if one assumes your partner is "OK with you sleeping around" then deception has been assumed out of the picture.

Second, if the family structure is not in jeopardy on account of the sleeping around, then the underlying reason for the (A) emotion of jealousy and (B) morality has been eliminated.

 

How can the family structure meet this standard?

1. First, there must be agreement between both partners. This is rare in most relationships.
   
2. Second that agreement must be based on great communication.
   
3. Third, that agreement must be based on pure truthfulness.
   
4. Fourth, there either must be no kids, or the stability of the relationship must be secured (based on first, second and third above) so that the couple stays together for the kids.
   

 

Who can meet such high standards necessary to get to the point where sex with third parties outside the relationship is OK?

 

It is probably a very small percentage of the population.

 

We had a Senate candidate here in Illinois. He was divorced. Somebody dug up his divorce records. It came out that he was accused of trying to talk his wife to go to a sex club where men and women had sex with the spouses of others. In other words, a swingers club. Well, that was an example of a relationship where it was OK for one part of the couple (him) but not the other part of the couple (her). When this behavior was disclosed, he dropped out of the race. The majority (the vast majority) of people do not agree with this behavior.

 

My opinion If you meet the four criteria above, then there is no reason for you NOT to engage in a free and open sexual relationship. But please:

• Practice safe sex.
  
• Get tested.
  
• Make sure your partners are tested.
  
• Check the test results and check a photo ID to make sure the results you are looking at are for the same person.
  
• But above all, be 100% totally honest with your partner and with yourself, and ONLY do this if you are both perfectly OK with it. Do not try to talk your partner into it. Do not let your partner talk you into it.
  

 

Comments?

[MissTee]

Is that meant to be a serious question?

 

Sorry, but I think it should be pretty obvious why sex outside your relationship is wrong.

 

As for it being acceptable in other cultures, guess what? We aren't another culture. Our foundations are Christianity. If you have an agreement with your partner that it's ok to shag around, then fine... If you and your partner are part of a culture or religion that "allows" it, then fine...

 

But other than that... it's a sacred act that you and your partner share. Sex is the closest you can possibly get to another person, physically, and you are practising this with the person you closest with emotionally.

 

Do the math.

[Kalika]

And you say I'm being unreal bcause I'm being too insecure, I say YOU'RE the one who's unreal!! because you think it's ok for you to cheat!!

 

Are you psychotic or just illiterate?? I seriously am wondering what on earth is wrong with you that it drives you to PM me with angry and ridiculous rants, and then dredge up my old threads to misread and blast them. Honestly, I'm not at all surprised that you have the problems you have in your life.

 

I posted on one of your threads ONCE. And it was respectful, although not what you wanted to hear, and you obviously can't handle that because ever since, you've been harassing me. Yes, you are obviously ridiculously insecure, and that's not the only diagnosis I would give you.

[metalblade]

becauuuuse...

When you enter into a relationship with another, you both agree not to have sexual relations with anyone but each other. when you have sex with someone else, you are clearly in breach of this unwritten contract. that's why. duh.. it's that simple.

There are, however, couples who are in "open relationships" wherein the partners are allowed to have sex with other people.

why must humans complicate things?!

 

[notsomuch]

Because the whole idea of a monogamous relationship is that sex is shared between two people who love eachother. You can 'emotionally' cheat on your partnertoo - it's anything that breaks the trust and imtimacy between ou and your SO.

[Sweet Buttabean Jellayroll]

me personally to answer your question.......its wrong..........faith and loyalty are 2 top prorities in a relationship

 

and the minute my girl comes up to me and says "ohhh i just has sex with someone else" im going to leave her......thats like a slap in my face

 

sex is something that if your in a relationship is a bondage tween two people that bring them closer, its like your sayin hey sweets picklefoot u aint close to me and im finding someone else to do your job.......

 

she'll never get this sweet 10 inch pickle again cz im going to put my pickles in a woman that will appreciate it.......

 

[Kalika]

becauuuuse...

When you enter into a relationship with another, you both agree not to have sexual relations with anyone but each other. when you have sex with someone else, you are clearly in breach of this unwritten contract. that's why. duh.. it's that simple.

There are, however, couples who are in "open relationships" wherein the partners are allowed to have sex with other people.

why must humans complicate things?!

 

Because it's fun Why ask why???

[Kalika]

cz im going to put my pickles in a woman that will appreciate it.......

 

Pickles?? You have more than one?!

[Sweet Buttabean Jellayroll]

Pickles?? You have more than one?!

 

no but i would like to feel appreicated when i put my pickle in her fruit basket......her cheating on me is like spiting in my face....saying i want someone elses pickle in me yours isent cutting it, and in relationship i try to satisfy my girl anyway i can........from surprising her with flowers to ramming my pickle in her throat if shes into that

[Kalika]

no but i would like to feel appreicated when i put my pickle in her fruit basket......her cheating on me is like spiting in my face....saying i want someone elses pickle in me yours isent cutting it, and in relationship i try to satisfy my girl anyway i can........from surprising her with flowers to ramming my pickle in her throat if shes into that

 

Obviously, your pickle isn't kosher.

[Sweet Buttabean Jellayroll]

Obviously, your pickle isn't kosher.

 

relationships arent about sex......imo its a minor (yet amazingly fun role) but a relationship is about trust and loyalty, i dont care if my pickle is soggy and cant get the job done and the sex is horrible.....she shouldnt go and have sex with someone else,i wouldnt care if my girl didnt want to have sex with me and inserting my pickle in her fruit basket felt like rubbing my penis between 2 sheets of sanding paper, i wont cheat i didnt fall in love with her vagina, i fell in love with her as a person cheating defiles the rules of the relationship......if that was the case i woulda just had her as a FWB and not think of a relationship....

[bx93ep]

As an atheist, I can say that I don't necessarily agree with the religiosity argument. If you look throughout the history of western civilization, it was very common for men to have mistresses. In fact, during colonial American times, it was perfectly legal for men to have one, but it was illegal for women to sleep with another man. Considering these were the puritans, I think it blows the religion argument out of the water.

 

However, I do think there has been a revitalization of fundamentalism in recent years and people attribute their justifications for not cheating on religion. This is fine, but what about those of us who are not religious? I simply wouldn't like to be cheated on because it hurts. I wouldn't bother being in a relationship if I didn't want to be monogomous. I do believe in love and I wouldn't want to hurt my partner. This is clearly culturally ingrained, but I don't necessarily see a problem with it. When I'm outside of a relationship, I'm happy to engage in sexual activity uncommited. When I'm in a relationship, I'm not. It's not a matter of being a afraid of going to hell, but rather the fear and guilt of creating pain for my partner.

 

I do think that there are exceptions to this when people have "open" relationships. I think it's rare for both parties to be ok with this, but it does happen. As long as they both know about it, then I don't see a problem. It's the sneaking around without telling them that is the problem.

[Kalika]

I would definitely agree with this.

 

I always thought that one problem with the idea of chastity is that it was historically OK for the men to have sex outside of the relationship, but it wasn't OK for women. It's a double standard that I think still exists today, to a certain extent.

[tiredofvampires]

I don't know if this point was brought up yet, I am only partially through the posts, but -- what's really interesting here is how many people have misinterpreted this question. The OP asked, "What is inherently wrong with having sex with someone else while in a partnership?" not "What is inherently wrong with cheating and infidelity?" This latter question is more like asking, "What is wrong with betrayal?" which is begging the question, or circular reasoning. But that is not what the OP was asking.

 

So far, I am reading a lot of people here saying that it's bad to have sex with someone outside the primary relationship because it's bad to be lying and cheating and creating a betrayal. Well of course, it is wrong to be deceptive, but having sex with another person is not INHERENTLY DECEPTIVE, it is just having sex with another person. People have answered here saying what amounts to, "It's bad to do because we decided it's bad to do."

 

The deception is if agreements are broken or understandings misunderstood. That part of a committed relationship is an emotional matter, with the sexual aspect only being an extension of that.

 

I always was fascinated by the relationship in "Larry Flint vs. The People": he and his wife got married, but when she asked him to marry her in the tub, at first he hemmed and hawed and said, "Honey, you know I can't be monogamous," and she said, "Who said anything about being monogamous? I want to be with you for the rest of my life." So, for THEM, monogamy did not define COMMITMENT. In the rest of the movie, you see that there never was a couple more commited, in love and putting eachother first, above all others, and they knew it mutually, yet here both of them were hedonistically taking pleasure in other sex partners.

 

So that raises the question, why are we programmed to automatically assume "commitment" has this ONE meaning and no other? With Larry Flint and his wife, there was no doubt you could see that they shared a unique spiritual/emotional/physical unity that not even the other partners could have a piece of. That was actually quite moving to me. (I am excluding practical and health considerations in the downside of such an arrangement.)

 

So this is a great question, Kalika. Thanks for putting it out there.

[tiredofvampires]

BTW, personally, I cannot have a sexual relationship unless I feel a love bond, and I can't participate in a love bond unless I know that we have chosen eachother exclusively. So just for the record, I could not do what the Flints did. Even though in some ways, I feel that it is a kind of rare sort of Enlightenment (like the hippie "free love" concept gone right, which is VERY hard and mostly idealistic.) Me, I need the exclusivity because I want to feel that there is that one thing we do which is so intimate and vulnerable, that only the 2 of us open ourselves to eachother in this way -- that we just couldn't be this open, exposed and united with anyone else.

[tiredofvampires]

Picklefoot,

 

You are really quite sweet and romantic for someone who talks like a porn star in a deli shot.

[treefrogkate]

I think you've nailed it (har har, pardon the pun), tiredofvampires. The act itself is not what is inherently "wrong"; it's the breaking of the agreement with your partner (if there is an agreement of monogamy in place).

[LubBec]

I have a question. If a girl meets a guy and, in less than an hour, is having sex with him, we'd call that girl a " * * * *". If a guy does the same thing, what do we call him?

 

Yes, there is definitely a double standard.

[treefrogkate]

In the context of a relationship though, both partners would be equally wrong if they broke their agreement with the other person. I don't think it's any more ok for a guy to cheat than it is for a gal.

[LubBec]

Clearly not any better for one than the other. We celebrate it when a man has sex recklesslesly, we condemn when a woman does the same thing. Why is that?