Relationships and Fidelity

[allbimyself]

The following thoughts should not be construed by the reader to apply to any particular type of romantic relationship as regarding the number and gender of the individuals involved or that they apply to anything other than consenting adults.

In American society there is an expectation of sexual and romantic fidelity between individuals in a romantic relationship be it contractual or not. This is a societal norm and while it may not be the norm some of us would choose, its existence is fact. We cannot change a societal norm through an election or passing of laws, nor should we when the subject regards what happens between consenting adults. These norms evolve over time and any attempt to FORCE a redefinition is doomed to failure. That's not to say that through education and example we cannot persuade others to our viewpoint.

The wonderful thing is that these norms are NOT behavioral requirements. No one is forced to be sexually faithful unwillingly. You cannot be jailed or fined. The only punishment possible is when the expectation of behavior, as defined by those involved or by societal norms when the behavior has not been discussed within the relationship, is cast aside by an individual, usually while using that same norm as cover for their behavior or as an excuse for it.

Societal norms ARE valid if they have not been modified by those involved in a relationship as there must be some agreement governing what is and what isn't allowed. If you don't agree with societal norms you are free to modify them WITH your partner(s) to suit your relationship. Changing them on your own without your partner's consent or knowledge is dishonest.

Asking of others "is X cheating?" where X is some sort of behavior is nonsensical. The only one that can possibly give a meaningful answer is the romantic partner(s) of the person asking. The boundaries of sexual or any other behavior can only be defined by those involved. Asking anyone else certainly raises concerns about the integrity of the questioner. Anyone that is not involved with the questioner that answers with anything other than "It's none of my business" or "ask your partner," is guilty of enabling. It is not up to ANYONE to define the boundaries of relationships with which they are not involved.

Complaining that others try to define one's relationship on the one hand and then asking others to define it on the other is dishonest. The only possible reason for doing so is to seek absolution for something one's self feels is wrong. If one can get someone, anyone, to say it's OK, one has lessoned one's feeling of guilt. This is especially obvious when one argues with and insults those that do not give one the answers one seeks.

If one cannot discuss these issues with one's partner(s) then one should probably examine the relationship. If one cannot be honest because of a lack of trust, the relationship itself is suspect, no matter the topic of discussion. If one cannot reach an agreement about boundaries that one can live with, one should either end the relationship or, if one decides to cheat, at least be intellectually honest enough to admit to oneself that one is cheating. If one does not respect the agreed upon boundaries, or, should the particular issue have not been discussed by those involved, the societal norms governing the relationship, then one IS cheating.

To summarize, if one behaves in a manner that goes outside the societal norm of sexual/romantic fidelity without the consent of one's partner(s), then one is cheating. If one engages in behavior outside of the societal norms with the knowing consent of one's partner(s), then one is NOT cheating. It really is that simple.

[tenni]

Thanks for the interesting premise and theory. I agree with certain sections that you wrote. Areas where I think that your wheels may be wobbling on your theory.

I've already posted this possible factor on another thread but it seems appropriate here. Examining Kholberg's Stages of Moral Development in contextualization with your theory might add some aspects that you may not have considered.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Level 1. Preconventional Morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
Level II. Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights.
Stage 6: Universal Principles

"If one cannot discuss these issues with one's partner(s) then one should probably examine the relationship. If one cannot be honest because of a lack of trust, the relationship itself is suspect, no matter the topic of discussion."

It is possible that two individual's in a relationship may be functioning at different stages of moral development. Perhaps the person functioning at a higher stage should not have entered the relationship. Perhaps, they should leave that relationship if they are at an impass. In the cases, such as terminally ill partners, would a person functioning at a higher or lower stage be inclined to give up on the relationship? I don't know and this is where I agree that the individuals in the relationship are the ones to determine their own destiny. As far as guilt is concerned, that might come about if you believe that you are not adhering to your own morality rather than a societal norm. After all, being bisexual in itself, is functioning outside of societal norms. Bisexuals probably go through some reflection and maybe stress before accepting their "deviance" from societal norms. Whether those functioning at a higher stage of moral development find it easier to adapt to their deviance from a societal norm may be a worthy study. Why then expect bisexuals to adhere to a societal norm about what constitutes a relationship(s)? Fidelity may not be as black and white in some higher stages of moral development than people functioning at a lower stage. That doesn't mean that one stage is better than another stage. Most of society does not function beyond level 2 and few function at level 3.(stages 5 & 6) There is a belief that most of the adult society functions at level 2.(stage 3&4) Stage 4 may be seen adhering to societal norms.

"At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just."

This is just a few thoughts on what I see as an interesting theory by allbimyself. My thoughts may be only half baked though. Continue.

[allbimyself]

Thanks for the interesting premise and theory. I agree with certain sections that you wrote. Areas where I think that your wheels may be wobbling on your theory.

I've already posted this possible factor on another thread but it seems appropriate here. Examining Kholberg's Stages of Moral Development in contextualization with your theory might add some aspects that you may not have considered.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Level 1. Preconventional Morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
Level II. Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights.
Stage 6: Universal Principles

"If one cannot discuss these issues with one's partner(s) then one should probably examine the relationship. If one cannot be honest because of a lack of trust, the relationship itself is suspect, no matter the topic of discussion."

It is possible that two individual's in a relationship may be functioning at different stages of moral development. Perhaps the person functioning at a higher stage should not have entered the relationship. Perhaps, they should leave that relationship if they are at an impass. In the cases, such as terminally ill partners, would a person functioning at a higher or lower stage be inclined to give up on the relationship? I don't know and this is where I agree that the individuals in the relationship are the ones to determine their own destiny. As far as guilt is concerned, that might come about if you believe that you are not adhering to your own morality rather than a societal norm.

This is just a few thoughts on what I see as an interesting theory on allbimyself. My thoughts may be only half baked though.

I followed the link you provided and did read it. However, I fail to see the relevance. Kohlberg discusses levels of reasoning used to arrive at a conclusion about moral decisions, and that even at his Stage 6 there are some moral dilemmas that cannot be conclusively resolved.

Your usage of guilt is as of a feeling. I used it as such once to describe how behavior was an indicator of the feeling. In that context, guilt is a personal thing so we have no differences there. I myself feel no guilt over things my parents might wish I did, but that's because I evaluate morality different then they. However, keeping to the point of fidelity, if my partner(s) had an expectation of fidelity and I betrayed them, then yes I would feel guilt.

Going on with your discussion, there is always a possibility that there are extenuating circumstances. I don't think the husband of Terri Schiavo <sp?> should have been bound by any notion of fidelity at the point HE decided in his own mind that Terri was no longer with him.

I also think that an individual that cannot provide sexual stimulation for their partner for a protracted period for whatever reason yet demands sexual fidelity is not only being selfish, but being stupid. A fear of losing that person when they most need him or her is probably the reason, but if the partner is the type that isn't going to be there for them at this point, demanding sexual fidelity isn't going to make them stay and in fact may drive away someone that might stay otherwise.

However, those situations are a far cry from the man who cheats because he wants to suck a cock.

I do not seek to judge cheaters. Their relationships are their business. At the same time, I will state my opinion when asked and will criticize anyone that seeks absolution from other bisexuals simply because that person is bisexual. In asking for my opinion they have opened the door into their life and sought my judgment.

[tenni]

"However, those situations are a far cry from the man who cheats because he wants to suck a cock."

allbimyself
Ah, we are now at an interesting scenario that may differ between male and female bisexuals. This is not a scientific statement but societal norms seem to indicate that men have a greater acceptance of female bisexuality and homosexuality with regards to women than societal norms of acceptance of male bisexuality and homosexuality. There may be a split in the societal norms. I'm not aware of any evidence other than self reporting in this premise though and so it is open to rejection.

If the female in the relationship is functioning at a stage 3 or 4, she will be less likely to accept her male partner remaining in a relationship with her as her male bisexual partner is functioning outside of societal norms.

You actually are judging a partner who can not provide sexual stimulation for their partner refusing the other partner outside sexual stimulation. You refer to them as stupid when they may be functioning at a level 3 or 4. Remember most in society functions at these levels and that may be the normal response. Are you then referring to most people in society as "stupid"? You may be correct ;) from a bisexual male perspective. Expand this scenario to a woman who choses not to be sexually involved with her partner of many years. She may believe that sex is not needed and a hug will do. She may have lost her sexual drive due to menopause, etc. She may refuse her male partner and see it as normal for women to stop having sex. The relationship may function differently than it once did. It may be a sexless relationship. How does a person's stage of moral development deal with this whether the secondary partner is male or female? The best scenario is to discuss it with your partner but if the partner refuses to permit it, is it acceptable to go ahead? I bet those functioning at a higher level of moral development perceive it differently than stage 3 or 4.

btw I added more to my first post via edit function.

[allbimyself]

No, societal norms regarding bisexuality are not different for men and women. That most men are turned on by FF porn does NOT mean they are more accepting of a bisexual female partner. For every man that is hopeful for a 3some there are many that are fearful she will leave him for a woman.

As far as your "functioning at different stages" theory I only can say that if there is that much disparity between the thought processes of the individuals, the relationship cannot be functional at almost any level much less sexually and emotionally.

My reference to their stupidity had to do with their failure to see their own self interest, not on their ability at cognitive morality. Also, I would doubt the majority of society functions at stage 3 or 4. I would say most function at 4 or 5. But again, the functional stages of moral reasoning are NOT what I called stupid. You are comparing two different things.

Your continuing to bring up scenarios is pointless. I've already stated that there do exist extenuating circumstance.

If you bring up your desire for an open relationship and your partner refuses, you have 3 options:

1) accede to her wishes
2) dissolve the relationship
3) cheat

It's that simple. "to go ahead" as you put it is still cheating. The judgment of how "bad" or "evil" doing so is isn't relevant to the discussion. You want to say "I tried to get her to see it my way but she refused so I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway." Petulant. You are creating a situation that no matter what your partner says, you will do what you want. Seeking permission with no intent of honoring her decision is no better than not seeking the permission to begin with. If that is your idea of right and wrong you operate at stage 2.

[tenni]

" Also, I would doubt the majority of society functions at stage 3 or 4. I would say most function at 4 or 5. "

Well, I'm fairly certain that I recall way back in class that it was stated that most in society function at stages 3 & 4. Some function at stage 5 and very few function at stage 6 in a society.

[tenni]

Oh, damn
Upon further googling, I've found that it was earlier studies that co related stages of moral development and cheating. Apparently, more recent studies examining cheating in elementary and secondary students found that moral development was not as close a predictor to determine academic cheating(not quite the same as fidelity but...). Again, that is with young people who are still developing their stage of moral development. It also doesn't mean that the stage of moral development of a partner is not a factor in how that partner deals with bisexuality and open relationships though either.

Covonvington, (1992) determined that cheating may be simply (that word again) be a natural manifestation of the human need to maintain self worth. Others found that cheating mixed results connecting cheating to self worth. Other studies indicated that academic cheating is connected with those whose motivation for performance is to earn a grade rather than learn. Strangely, discontent was not found to be a significant factor to determine who will cheat. Extrovert personalities and those more sociable were found to cheat more frequently. Frequency of previous cheating without being caught increased the possibility of cheating again. Observing others cheat without being caught is another factor.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1zc4l1jDyN0C&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=cheating+and+stages+of+moral+development&source=bl&ots=212ciKuW4n&sig=xoQh6ZCy8o1_ih-xyc4QSdR_JbU&hl=en&ei=Z6PsSpvLN4eIMrr-oYQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cheating&#37;20and%20stages%20of%20moral%20developme nt&f=false

Although this report was about academic cheating, one point that may apply to relationships and fidelity is that we need to know more about how to prevent cheating. What should a relationship consist of so that cheating doesn't happen? It may be more important than just condemning the cheater or writing that it is wrong. Just stating that the bisexual should disclose their bisesxuality and desire to move towards a more open relationship with their partner is not very productive to help a bisexual do this(I've written this before but few seem to want to discuss this).

[onewhocares]

Darlin Allbi......and I just loved you for your sweet personality. Who knew?

Bewildered Belle

[Long Duck Dong]

What should a relationship consist of so that cheating doesn't happen? It may be more important than just condemning the cheater or writing that it is wrong. Just stating that the bisexual should disclose their bisexuality and desire to move towards a more open relationship with their partner is not very productive to help a bisexual do this(I've written this before but few seem to want to discuss this).

honesty.... any relationship needs honesty.....

as allbi correctly pointed out, there 3 options

If you bring up your desire for an open relationship and your partner refuses, you have 3 options:

1) accede to their wishes
2) dissolve the relationship
3) cheat

most people that cheat, do are not honest with their partners.....

we see people post in the forum, * how do they MAKE their partner ACCEPT their bisexuality

immediately, that tells a person, its not about communication and boundaries, its about how do I get everything my own way and still have my partner..... and that is why I tend to view bisexuality as a very selfish aspect of people, and for the most part, its not the bisexuality that is the issue.... it is people deciding that they like to suck cocks, munch pussy, and that the sexual acts outweigh any other aspect of a relationship

the ability to make moral decisions is based around the desire and the need for the decision making..... and that is where the desire for sex ( not sexuality ) carries more weight with people for the most part....

I have a moral duty to help a fallen person in the street
I have a moral duty to report a crime
I have a moral duty to my partner and my family, to support and assist them
I have a moral duty to my partner, to pass up hot, passionate sex, casual or long term with no strings attached.....

the first 2 have no real benefit to you, the 3rd is of some benefit and a measure of your love and caring, the 4th is a measure of your desires and wants over your commitment to the relationship/ marriage

when pointing out moral decisions, most people will look at what is in their own interests first

[still_shy]

If those of us who consider ourselves outside of society's "norm" but adhere to their conventional definition of fidelity, doesn't that make us no different than them? I don't mean to sound like I have an "us against them" mentality, I most certainly do not. I just don't understand why we're spending so much time arguing about what is right and proper when to me, the main things are these:

Are we honest?
Do we love wholeheartedly and make love with our whole being?
Are we hurting no one?

Fidelity, cheating....It all boils down to what's right and good.

Please don't slam me for this. I'm just stating my opinions. I completely agree with Allbi on this one and think that his main points were misunderstood.

[allbimyself]

I think, perhaps, I should clarify something. It was not my intention to suggest that EVERYONE must adhere to societal norms. The purpose of bringing up societal norms was to provide a baseline of agreement. When individuals enter into a romantic/sexual relationship and no discussion is made of what is/isn't cheating, then because of the societal norms in the US there is an expectation of fidelity.

My purpose here isn't to judge cheating, merely to define it.

[Long Duck Dong]

I tend to go by the idea that most people put out.....

I love you, you love me... lets be together, type fidelity...

I base the idea of monogamy about the love aspect, not a society norm but how people love they really love a person and want to be with them....
its like a term of endearment and devotion to another person, not a group of people... and that is like a declaration of a willingness to be with one person and to love and be loved by them, since no other *measures up *....

so to me its not a case of enforced fidelity or social driven norm.... but person driven..... people express the desire to be with the one they love.... and that becomes the basis for monogamous relationships.... and they tend to believe that they are there for their partner so logically, their partner would be there for them..... and thats where it goes wrong.....

it is a romantised idea of monogamy and while romance is great.... the *honey moon period wears off *

in a lot of cases, you get the * damm, I think I should have played the field a lil more as I may miss out on something *

in a way, it changes the way we percieve love..... instead of I love you and you complete me..... it can become I love you, you are a part of me, but another part of me is not content, its restless and I need that part to roam in order for the other part to stay with you and be contented

[darkeyes]

in the US there is an expectation of fidelity.



Ya reckon Allbi me luffly?? Dunno bout wer u r..but 'ere official society may expect it but true society..aka the peeps.... kno bloody well that its jus not a reasonable expectation. Ya jus look around at the debris a so many relationships 2 kno thats true...

Muah

[allbimyself]

Ya reckon Allbi me luffly?? Dunno bout wer u r..but 'ere official society may expect it but true society..aka the peeps.... kno bloody well that its jus not a reasonable expectation. Ya jus look around at the debris a so many relationships 2 kno thats true...

Muah

I agree that it's probably unreasonable, the odds are against it but it is not unheard of. The last numbers I saw showed that approx 65% of relationships suffer from one or both partners being unfaithful. That leaves 35% where the partners are not unfaithful or have an open relationship.

And I'm talking about the US, not Scotland.

[darkeyes]

I agree that it's probably unreasonable, the odds are against it but it is not unheard of. The last numbers I saw showed that approx 65% of relationships suffer from one or both partners being unfaithful. That leaves 35% where the partners are not unfaithful or have an open relationship.

And I'm talking about the US, not Scotland.

Aaaahhhh...Allbi me darlin.. don think ther 2 much diff tween US, Scotland or the UK as a whole hun.. not on this issue ne ways...;) Percentage point 'ere..notha ther..but nowt so as 2 make much diff hun...

[allbimyself]

Aaaahhhh...Allbi me darlin.. don think ther 2 much diff tween US, Scotland or the UK as a whole hun.. not on this issue ne ways...;) Percentage point 'ere..notha ther..but nowt so as 2 make much diff hun...

I was referring to the expectation of fidelity, not the statistics on infidelity. You stated that there you didn't think that expectation existed. I'm saying here it does.