I am talking about infidelity, which I maintain is act that requires 2 willing participants...for me infidelity is the act of betraying another person sexually
I honestly don't understand how seeking out other women, even if they all say no, wouldn't be infidelity under your very definition here. You don't need a second person to betray someone sexually.
I choose to see it differently through the lens of my own morals and values and not a contractual transaction... Irespectthe sanctity of marriage & value family, therefore as an outsider to that ''contract'' I still would not act in a way that jeopardizes anyone's ''contract'' in that regard. I would not undermine anyone's family.
Marriage is a contract. That's literally what it is, as we are always telling those unmarried SAHMs on here who insist they don't need it.
But even if we look at the more romantic side of the relationship and family itself, once again, though, it doesn't matter what you do. It matters what the committed person does. It's all very well saying you would never enter the vault because you respect its sanctity, and that's very nice. But you don't have the keys, so you couldn't get in without his co-operation even if you wanted to. Even if you threw yourself against the door. The sanctity of the vault rests on one thing: the employee's dedication to his word and guardianship of his keys. If he offered the keys to a load of people who all said no, do you think the bank manager should keep him on, since he failed to actually take anyone down there? Can he be trusted? Has he done his job?
I said those engaging in infidelity are equally responsible for the pain and suffering their choices cause
Well, there's the crux we disagree on, I guess. Given that the only choice with any actual power is the one belonging to the actual guardian of the vault, and that I'd consider him unfit for the job if he was offering people the keys whether or not they said yes, I'm going to disagree.
If we are going to look through it with the lens of our own morals, then personally I could never say that the person who made the promise, who formed the bond, who gained the trust, who chose to have the children, who shares the life, who takes the responsibility, is "equally responsible" to the person who had no connection with any of that. To dilute the spouse's responsibility like that, to make their wrongdoing no worse than the person who had none of that trust and connection, actually sits very very badly with me.