Is infidelity immoral and if so should society be involved or is it a strictly personal matter?

[mids2019]

Infidelity seems to be one of the few areas in life where psychological harm can be brought to bear against another. In some societies infidelity is viewed as a criminal act or at least viewed negatively.

In liberal societies infidelity is a strictly personal matter and society does not act as a stakeholder in the relationship with no civil penalty for unfaithfulness.

Do you think this is the right balance or should infidelity be thought if as a moral wrong by others? We take a dim view of people parking badly but as a society do we hav we to he same default respinse to infideliity?

*offence

However the parents hurt becomes the childrens hurt.

And that's the parent's failing.

I'm sorry to be blunt about it because I'm truly not here to hurt or distress anyone. But at the heart of it, that is what it comes down to. Your relationship with your spouse is between the two of you. Your kids have their own relationship as a parent/child one and it's not for the betrayed spouse, however devastated and broken they may be - and I'm not minimising that - to pass their relationship hurt into that parental one.

I think this is what it's all coming right down to and that's what I have to oppose. The idea that the hurt should be prioritised above all. The reason some posters are arguing for endless sanctions and social ostracisation is because what they want, above all, is for every consequence and decision to be not about securing the children or building a new future, but about acknowledging and avenging the hurt. That's why they think it's worth ostracising and stigmatising a child's parent, assuming that their hurt must become the child's hurt, assuming that their relationship damage must bleed over into the relationship between the child and the other parent. A very self-fulfilling prophecy. Even though all this is clearly to the child's detriment. It prioritises and broadcasts the hurt, and that's what matters.

As much sympathy as I have for betrayed spouses, I cannot get behind this. It's just another way of using children as pawns.

This is a much more succinct way of saying it. Thank you.

A few people have been prosecuted for deliberately spreading HIV. However, when it comes to the less serious STIs it would a) be impossible to prove and b) beg the question why we aren’t prosecuting those recklessly spreading non-sexual infections

The law is clear about informed consent in sexual contact and fortunately your scenario wouldn’t fall foul of that. I say fortunately because it is batshit.

I slept with Darren in 1996 because I thought he loved me. Turned out he didn’t. Would I have done so if I’d known he was a scoundrel? Maybe not. Should I retrospectively allege rape?!

@Siameasy I'm not suggesting prosecution for f*ing around, I am saying a lot, probably most, people wouldn't agree to have sex with a partner they knew was having sex with someone else. Which means they can't give informed consent. However you stack it, its low life theft of a person's right to choose. Not prosecutable. But a large part of why a cheated on partner feels so used and betrayed. As for STIs aye I'm aware of people being prosecuted for passing on HIV, im also aware its probably not provable or logistically possible in the legal system to prosecute for it. Do I think someone who lies about sexual partners and passes on an sti bears a responsibility and should be punished? Yes. Sneezing and passing on a cold isn't the same thing as fu*ing someone else and lying about it.

Sorry my star asterisks made it bold by accident 😭

Sneezing and passing on a cold isn't the same thing as fuing someone else and lying about it*

Are you fucking kidding me Its now treated exactly the same post Covid. Did you not see the mask threads?

@JenniferBooth No I haven't. Are you saying I can be prosecuted for passing on a cold?. And I'm not swearing at anyone either.

No im not But there are plenty of batshit posters on the Covid board who think you should be.

Be careful what you wish for.

I think to expect any sort of penalty or reconpence for adultery from the state is unrealistic in a legal sence.
Looking at it trying to see the best way possible to aid those who have suffered mental cruelty, torture and abuse through infedility is probably the only way to increase societies dissaproval of cheating as just a sport or an excuse for re starting new lives.
I don't think I could think of another abuse which is ignored to the extent that infedelity is.

It is minimised.

Until it is recognised as a highly toxic abuse that leads to great mental and physical damage then nothing will change. Reparations in the form of financial aid, disabilty aid and emotional support as any illness would require, maybe should be the way, but there is not the monies for that, shaming people for disabling their partners into un functionality.
For some it may not be nescessary but for many it really is a very real illness.

Maybe if there were more truths accepted by the state, such as recognising the victim instead of carpet sweeping then there maybe a more possitive shift in understanding and sympathising how difficult and hard to is for a person to overcome this injury, an injury that rarely is just about sex.

One thing which would be possitive would be to remove their need to be constantly defending themselves in how hurtful/painful it actually is to other groups whereby it serves their pupose to minimise it. If it was official then they may feel more protected..

I've known people become seriously ill after betrayal and never recover, their losses can be huge and often are, yet it is treated with contempt if they complain, the victim blaming is high and unnecssarily cruel. As a society that tends to look out for victims, in this particular area it seems to be sadly lacking.
Most betrayed people do not want to hear the other side, the reasons the excuses and nor should they have to, it is separate, it is for themselves to quantify their own guilt but this argument does nothing for the hurt party, the hurt party needs acceptance that gross misconduct has occured and for there to be help available.

Sadly I do not think there is adequate help available for such victims and unfortunately that leads to some very distubing outcomes, which predictably are also swept under the carpet by society.

In fact I can't see much help that is available, support wise it's a very issolating experience and financially crushing in most cases, it seems the shame is here to stay with the victim, you only have to look at these boards to see how victim blaming it is.

The only feasible way of 'making them pay' would be to be able take the case to a tribunal for damages, like with an employment case. So an award for breech of contract, with additional amounts for the financial losses incurred by the injured party and damages to personal feelings.
Obviously it wouldn't stop people wanting others more than their spouses, but it may encourage them to leave them first rather than cheat. It would also probably act as a disincentive to marriage though.

People would need to be prepared for counter claims too. Infidelity isn't the only way to ruin a relationship and forsaking all others isn't the only traditional vow there is to break. In sickness and in health? To have and to hold? All that I have, I share with you?

It would essentially come down to courts trying to establish degree of fault in an acrimonious relationship slanging match.

Marriage is a contract that can be dissolved legally upon certain grounds, adultery being one of them. It isn't based on feelings; your marriage is perfectly legal even if it's entirely loveless.

If it ends, the subsequent asset distribution isn’t supposed to be punitive and vengeful, but a fair split depending on the contributions both made towards the estate and their needs thereafter. A punitive, vengeful distribution would have the kids as its very last concern. And as you say, it would only make people less likely to marry at all.

Yes, fair points @ReneBumsWombats

Much as id like to see my ex husband stoned, it's a free choice.

I think goigng back to 'fault' divorce would be an enormous retrograde step. It would actually be far better to invest in enforcing non-resident parents to pay the maintenance that they should, and that should include strong collaboration with HMRC so that the self employed can be included and followed up rather than hiding funds.

"Fault" divorce is terrible. A relationship ending isn't always someone's fault.

I agree completely. And even where there is fault on one side more than the other, the 'fault' system just leads to confrontation. My late husband really struggled with my 'unreasonable behaviour' petition - I had no choice at all about going that route because the divorce needed to happen as fast as possible, but if we had been able to go no fault it would have been so much easier.

"Fault" divorce is terrible. A relationship ending isn't always someone's fault
Agree. It sets the whole procedure as needlessly acrimonious when in some situations the relationship has simply ran it's course, the two people are no longer in love and agree to move on to find romantic happiness elsewhere. Of course it's not necessarily easy to have the divorce, but people who realise they've grown into friends/housemates rather than lovers shouldn't have to start playing the blame game.

Where people mention 'fault' in divorce couldn't you argue that there can be fault in divorce. If a man sleeps with someone else to increase sexual variety I am going to stick my neck out and say there was indeed someone at fault in the divorce.

If we publicly acknowledge fault in a divorce we are sending a signal to society that infidelity ideally should be avoided. I think punitive settlements are debatable but in other legal cases punitive damages are awarded regularly. To play devil's advocate to some of the above doesn't it appeal to human justice if those that have wronged a partner face some sort of accountability?

We have the quite strange position that adultery isn't a crime no matter the harm caused but if a partner were to say break some golf clubs in revenge then there has been a crime committed. We as a society seem to have a more severe view of damaging a putter inconveniencing a golf game than adultery being committed with all the resultant consequences

But it's not actually good for people, for families, for children, for society in general, for there to be increased acrimony in divorce.

A couple divorcing bitterly, fighting over whose fault it was, is harmful to their own MHs, the wider family and the children.

I think we should make it easier for people to divorce, less stigma, cheaper.

@category12

Won't there always be some acrimony in divorce or why else have the court proceedings. Apportioning blame may not necessarily increase the length of proceedings and may actually satisfy an injustice. In criminal law obviously blame is apportioned and punishments given; now divorce is not a a criminal matter but should the procedure be completely remote from blame where one partner has been obviously harmed in a severe pyschilogical sense

Imo it’s a personal matter. I don’t consider someone else’s relationship to be my business, and it’s not my role to punish someone over something that is nothing to do with me.

societies that punish adultery are generally, if not always, repressive and authoritarian ones that police sex as a whole. Not something I’m interested in emulating.

We have the quite strange position that adultery isn't a crime no matter the harm caused but if a partner were to say break some golf clubs in revenge then there has been a crime committed. We as a society seem to have a more severe view of damaging a putter inconveniencing a golf game than adultery being committed with all the resultant consequences

We consider golf clubs to be property belonging to a person. We don't think the same of people and that's as it should be.

You cannot own a person and you cannot be awarded damages if they choose to use their body in a way you don't allow. It's not slavery. Best we can do is have a legal framework in place for your shared assets and legal relationship status in which you both agree fidelity, and which can be dissolved if one of you breaks that clause.

I agree with @category12 that there is no benefit in increasing blame, acrimony and stigma around divorce, especially not to children. It's all about vengeance, nothing more. You can end your marriage over cheating; what more do you need to prove it's not OK? The marital estate isn't a prize pot for the most moral human and you may be surprised how the judgements would go if it were.

No, we're moving away from the antagonistic model of divorce, for good reason.

If you're facing extra loss of assets or punishment, or whatever it is you're suggesting with your idea, the person is far more likely to fight or defend a divorce, because they've got more to lose.

So that will lengthen proceedings, create higher levels of acrimony and benefit only sharky solicitors.

Using adultery as the grounds for divorce has been discouraged for a long time really, because there's greater proof needed and it tends to be more unpleasant for everyone.