Stop skirting then. Infidelity requires cheating as in lying and deception. Please dont tell me thats what you are trying to defend then. Lmao
I'm not really skirting anything, Birch. If you want me to address the ethical aspects of cheating, then simply ask. So far, I've been mostly talking about the reasons for it and challenging some assumptions, not the consequences.
Which is all you're on about here - ethical
consequences. Still, I suppose this is the ethics forum, right? So fair enough, you're entitled to press, I suppose.
Ethics are driven by society which is driven by evolution. They are a set of guidelines, some enforced by law and others merely by convention, which define how members of that society should conduct themselves in order to aim for the greatest benefit to that society in order to ensure its survival.
The important thing to consider, however, is that they are
mutable. The ethics of a society change over time in line with its requirements. Not only do they change over time, but they also vary considerably on a regional basis.
Muslim men, and those from many African societies, are permitted to have multiple wives. There's one instance in which a man having sex with multiple partners wouldn't be considered "infidelity" by any means.
On the flip side, amongst the Nepalese, several brothers might find themselves sharing
one wife.
In Niger, there exists a tribe called the Wodaabee - where in one particular ceremony, if you can manage to impress another man's wife and actually get away with stealing her that night, then she's yours.
And then, there's the Trobriand Islanders. Go have a read.
These are just some examples.
Point is, you only feel cheated because in your society, infidelity is regarded as "cheating". You've been raised that way. The word cheating itself has a negative connotation because you
believe it does. And that's why it involves lying and deception in western society (well, not always, but most often).. because, in fact, most people who engage in extramarital relations of whatever actually
don't want to hurt their partners, as well as not wanting to give up the relationship.
At the very least, ethics are assigned with a degree of importance based upon the requirements of that society... whatever works at the time. Fidelity, for a long time, did have it's advantages (although in saying that, we once again come around to the difference between fidelity (or monogamy) and pair-bonding). Now, however, there are several shifts in social fabric and it is no longer considered the huge no-no it once was.
Returning to the subject of female liberation, you noted above "if it wasn't for modern medicine", which has a lot more importance than you seem to realise.
This goes back to the shift in moral attitudes based on the tenets of society... or, to simplify it, what worked then, what works now, and what is no longer necessary.
Ethics have never managed to stamp out infidelity. Even in those socities where it might mean death (particularly for women) it
still happens. They have, at best, limited the practice of it, in terms of incidence - again, overwhelmingly, on the part of women. One might even argue, in fact, that morality-driven ethical considerations are the entire reason it's regarded as "cheating" in the first place... it wouldn't be necessary to lie and deceive in the first place, if society hadn't deemed it to be unethical. chicken or egg scenario. I haven't been skirting around the consequences of fidelity, Birch. I just don't really consider them important in terms of the argument surrounding infidelity itself. They are not a cause.
There seem to be few who realise just how important, how much of a game changer, birth control was in the twentieth century. It resulted in the sexual liberation of women on an unprecedented scale (in terms of our own society). In purely social terms, it was one of the most important development in centuries.
Women are now more free than they have ever been in sexual terms, to have sex
at all. One vital consequence - pregnancy - has been largely removed from the equation. As a result, society has changed. Whereas once the practical consequences of infidelity were more a social consideration for a woman than for a man (you going to argue that too?), society has now shifted perception of it to being more one of all sides being equal. A subtle, but obvious, shift in morality.
We're also seeing other changes. Shorter term marriages. Women waiting longer. People not getting married at all. We've covered all of this.
All ethical shifts based on changes society.
The thing about social change, though, is that is doesn't happen overnight. There will always be bumps on the road. Personally, I believe the serial monogamy thing is a bit of a short term (I'm using "short term" in a loose sense here) ethical compromise while the equality between the sexes is being hashed out... it takes quite a while for people to start to disbelieve in things they've always been taught to believe.
Like slavery. That was normal once, you know, and not considered unethical at all. Social requirements, you see. A lot of societies might never have gotten off the ground without it, and now it isn't needed anymore, it's no longer ethical.
Oh, and as an aside? There is a slight shift at work right now you might not be aware of.
Young women in recent years seem to be becoming more promiscuous than men. Keep an eye on that.
Also, want even evidence that polygamy is not so good according to nature? Std's. Why did nature make those which make you sterile and then kill you?? It even often passes to offspring to kill them too. Think on it. If it wasnt for modern medicine a lot of slutty people would be dead but thats a whole nother can of worms. Besides the fact you cant really develop deep and meaningful connections by flitting around with hookups which are shallow. What can you build except a momentary physical release and getting someone pregnant or becoming pregnant by someone who is not invested or not going to be there? Im sure there will be more excuses because some people find it an annoying step to be considerate or care even a bit to another being and just do what they want while decieving another. Is there a problem with honesty?
Lmfao
"Nature", Birch, isn't geared toward the safety and survival of humanity. Evolution is not a thinking entity designed to make life easier for humans... or to punish them. Viruses and bacterium are reasonably successful organisms which operate under the same evolutionary "rules" as everything else on the planet. There are no guarantees some super bug isn't going to come along someday to make AIDS look like the common cold.
So far, though, in spite of all that fucking around (perhaps even because of it?), nothing has managed to wipe us out yet. Even AIDS didn't didn't even come close to having as much impact as, say, various forms of the plague did... for nearly a thousand years. But the Plague wasn't the result of infidelity.
What, you think disease is the vengeful hand of god or something? It isn't. It's (put simply in terms of ethics) a potential consequence... one which, mind you, doesn't have even nearly the same potential consequences as driving your car might.
You're also drifting more toward the topic of promiscuity as opposed to infidelity.
Are STD's a potential consequence of infidelity and promiscuity? Yes.
I'd hardly use them as a reason not to to sleep around, though. When we're talking infidelity, we're not talking hooking up with strangers at a nightclub, are we? STD's, when they are a consequence at all, most often are the result of
promiscuity, not necessarily infidelity. Most infidelity occurs maybe once or twice in a person's lifetime, in most cases. Also, again in most cases, it doesn't happen with complete strangers, or casual hookups. Most affairs occur in the workplace, as a result of long term connections, not in nightclubs and seedy bars. A rare few have multiple partners outside of a relationship - although even that is beginning to change, particularly on the female side.
It's obvious you link infidelity with promiscuity in your mind, when in fact that is most often not the case at all.
You're the one trying to introduce that, largely due to your own perception.
And... quit with the LMAO's. If there is one thing absolutely clear in your... arguments, it's that you are not laughing. It sounds a little desperate.