I guess I don’t get why infidelity is a big deal if sex before marriage isn’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of what goes on concurrent to infidelity is trash behavior- lying, gaslighting, projecting, meanness, potentially giving your partner an STD.

You answered your own question, OP.

Consensual sex before marriage isn't a big deal, nor is sex outside of your marriage if your partner is aware and consents. Most marriages involve vows of fidelity. If you can't keep them, you and your spouse need to renegotiate. If you can't, you need a divorce.

Sex outside of your marriage without your spouse's consent is nonconsensual sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority over 95% of Muslim men are in monogamous marriages. They hate divorce because men pay for the wedding not the woman’s dad so it’s costly/a waste if she does leave.

The majority of Muslim men are in monogamous marriages because there are not enough women for all men to have polygamous marriages. However, if they were to take another wife, it would not be considered cheating. They hate divorces because it is frowned upon socially but it is not especially hateful, and for men, the process is easy. Remember the Shariah law has no concept of marital property so what a man owns remains his.

Anonymous wrote: However, you are correct that Polygamy is allowed but only if a man is super rich or has up to 4 properties to house multiple wives and can take care of them and children .

That is incorrect. Polygamy is allowed for all men regardless of income. A poor man can marry four women and keep them all as poor as he is as long all of them are equally poor. It is a myth that Muslim men are required to maintain their wives in high style. There are poor Muslim men who are married; there are poor Muslim men with multiple wives and all it means is that wives as are poor as he is.

You are going by religion. Christianity and Judaism allows polygamy too but that doesn’t mean the majority of Jews and Christians are practicing it. The majority of Muslims are not polygamists and it’s false to imply this.
Most men can barely take care of one household let alone multiple, most Muslim married women are absolutely NOT staying if their husband wants to take another wife without raising hell about it .

The people who do practice it are seen like the Mormons -either fringe fundamentalist types or super super wealthy but Even the 1% like the Al Saud family has abandoned the practice because polygamy and sister wives creates super drama and dysfunction and the half siblings spar with each other in dramas that would put the British Royal family dysfunction to shame

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of what goes on concurrent to infidelity is trash behavior- lying, gaslighting, projecting, meanness, potentially giving your partner an STD.

You answered your own question, OP.

Consensual sex before marriage isn't a big deal, nor is sex outside of your marriage if your partner is aware and consents. Most marriages involve vows of fidelity. If you can't keep them, you and your spouse need to renegotiate. If you can't, you need a divorce.

Sex outside of your marriage without your spouse's consent is nonconsensual sex.

Perfectly stated. Lying is the problem . There’s no cheating if the relationship is open or the partners are aware that they are allowed to step out.

People that don’t feel monogamy is realistic shouldn’t get married in my opinion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority over 95% of Muslim men are in monogamous marriages. They hate divorce because men pay for the wedding not the woman’s dad so it’s costly/a waste if she does leave.

The majority of Muslim men are in monogamous marriages because there are not enough women for all men to have polygamous marriages. However, if they were to take another wife, it would not be considered cheating. They hate divorces because it is frowned upon socially but it is not especially hateful, and for men, the process is easy. Remember the Shariah law has no concept of marital property so what a man owns remains his.

Anonymous wrote: However, you are correct that Polygamy is allowed but only if a man is super rich or has up to 4 properties to house multiple wives and can take care of them and children .

That is incorrect. Polygamy is allowed for all men regardless of income. A poor man can marry four women and keep them all as poor as he is as long all of them are equally poor. It is a myth that Muslim men are required to maintain their wives in high style. There are poor Muslim men who are married; there are poor Muslim men with multiple wives and all it means is that wives as are poor as he is.

You are going by religion. Christianity and Judaism allows polygamy too but that doesn’t mean the majority of Jews and Christians are practicing it. The majority of Muslims are not polygamists and it’s false to imply this.
Most men can barely take care of one household let alone multiple, most Muslim married women are absolutely NOT staying if their husband wants to take another wife without raising hell about it .

The people who do practice it are seen like the Mormons -either fringe fundamentalist types or super super wealthy but Even the 1% like the Al Saud family has abandoned the practice because polygamy and sister wives creates super drama and dysfunction and the half siblings spar with each other in dramas that would put the British Royal family dysfunction to shame

To the degree the Al-Saud has abandoned polygamy, it is not about the drama or dysfunction. It is mostly 1) shrinking royal stipends, and 2) there already enough male children to carry the line.

Whether Muslim women are staying or going depends very much on the supports for her leaving in any given society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority over 95% of Muslim men are in monogamous marriages. They hate divorce because men pay for the wedding not the woman’s dad so it’s costly/a waste if she does leave.

The majority of Muslim men are in monogamous marriages because there are not enough women for all men to have polygamous marriages. However, if they were to take another wife, it would not be considered cheating. They hate divorces because it is frowned upon socially but it is not especially hateful, and for men, the process is easy. Remember the Shariah law has no concept of marital property so what a man owns remains his.

Anonymous wrote: However, you are correct that Polygamy is allowed but only if a man is super rich or has up to 4 properties to house multiple wives and can take care of them and children .

That is incorrect. Polygamy is allowed for all men regardless of income. A poor man can marry four women and keep them all as poor as he is as long all of them are equally poor. It is a myth that Muslim men are required to maintain their wives in high style. There are poor Muslim men who are married; there are poor Muslim men with multiple wives and all it means is that wives as are poor as he is.

You are going by religion. Christianity and Judaism allows polygamy too but that doesn’t mean the majority of Jews and Christians are practicing it. The majority of Muslims are not polygamists and it’s false to imply this.
Most men can barely take care of one household let alone multiple, most Muslim married women are absolutely NOT staying if their husband wants to take another wife without raising hell about it .

The people who do practice it are seen like the Mormons -either fringe fundamentalist types or super super wealthy but Even the 1% like the Al Saud family has abandoned the practice because polygamy and sister wives creates super drama and dysfunction and the half siblings spar with each other in dramas that would put the British Royal family dysfunction to shame

I do not believe you whatsoever.

In a number of majority-Muslim countries, polygamy is going strong. It may be “out of fashion” among certain westernized elements in those societies.

But the working class? The poor? The Muslim men are still taking multiple wives. No sign polygamy will disappear in the immediate future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the betrayal. Sex before marriage isn't harming and deceiving a spouse you've committed to. (I know some ultra religious folks would say it is, but a hypothetical future person is just not the same as one you've already, specifically chosen and married.)

DP. I can see that.

On the other hand are:

sexless marriages.

When one spouse (of any sex) has desire for regular intercourse, but the other spouse (of any sex) has zero desire, why would there be any issue at all about sexual activity outside the marriage?


In other words: if you don’t want sex with them, why can’t they do it with other people?

If that's the agreement the two spouses reach, then it's totally fine. Because the problem isn't the sex, it's the lying.

One of the difficult aspects of sexless marriages is that the state of being in a sexless marriage seems rarely to be an agreement between two people. If it’s done unilaterally, as often occurs, then why does the party who doesn’t want sex deserve to have a say in whether the other party remains faithful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the betrayal. Sex before marriage isn't harming and deceiving a spouse you've committed to. (I know some ultra religious folks would say it is, but a hypothetical future person is just not the same as one you've already, specifically chosen and married.)

DP. I can see that.

On the other hand are:

sexless marriages.

When one spouse (of any sex) has desire for regular intercourse, but the other spouse (of any sex) has zero desire, why would there be any issue at all about sexual activity outside the marriage?


In other words: if you don’t want sex with them, why can’t they do it with other people?

If that's the agreement the two spouses reach, then it's totally fine. Because the problem isn't the sex, it's the lying.

One of the difficult aspects of sexless marriages is that the state of being in a sexless marriage seems rarely to be an agreement between two people. If it’s done unilaterally, as often occurs, then why does the party who doesn’t want sex deserve to have a say in whether the other party remains faithful?

Does every person who is a cheater have a sexless marriage?

One of the difficult aspects of infidelity is that the state of being in a marriage and being cheated on and betrayed by your partner as they have sex with other people seems rarely to be an agreement between two people. In fact, the unfaithful partner hides their betrayal and sexual relationship with other people. If it’s done unilaterally, as it usually occurs, then why does the party who doesn’t want to be in a secret, one sided open marriage deserve to have a say in whether the other party remains faithful?

If you are personally in a sexless marriage, file for divorce. Why do you remain in a sexless marriage? If your spouse won’t have sex with you, have you tried working on your hygiene, or helping out more with household tasks? Get a divorce and have sex with anyone that will sleep with you. You are not forced to stay married. If you are so unhappy, tell your spouse you are going to sleep with other people. I don’t understand how people like you think that they are ok with having sex with other people but keep it a secret, tell your partner, your kids, your parents, everyone, you are having sex with other people. You won’t do that, though, because you know it’s wrong.

Your partner has a right to make decisions about their life based on truth and honesty. They can file for divorce also. They don’t have to stay with a sneaky, entitled liar who is sleeping around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you agree to marry someone you agree to forsake all others. Cheating is the opposite of that.

That's your definition of marriage and it doesn't blanket-apply to everyone else. Besides, other parts of marriage have more meaning than sex. Legality, asset accumulation, social standing, wealth-building etc.

That’s not a marriage.

NP. Marriage is a legal contract. Financial. Everything else means nothing.

This doesn't need your approval.

It doesn’t need my approval to not be a marriage. It simply isn’t one.
I don’t need your approval for that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you agree to marry someone you agree to forsake all others. Cheating is the opposite of that.

That's your definition of marriage and it doesn't blanket-apply to everyone else. Besides, other parts of marriage have more meaning than sex. Legality, asset accumulation, social standing, wealth-building etc.

That’s not a marriage.

This doesn't need your approval.

It doesn’t need my approval to not be a marriage. It simply isn’t one.
I don’t need your approval for that fact.

If it's on a marriage license, it's a marriage

This. It is a legal and financial contract.

[Anonymous]

You see it as a "mistake," but you're too naive to understand the devastation it can cause within a marriage. My child went from being an honor roll student to having multiple court dates and why?! Because he was angry and traumatized because his father left to be with another woman. Also, he's only 18. So save me the BS. Your opinions are ill-informed and lack the experience and maturity it takes to even begin to tackle the issue of infidelity and how it can totally destroy not only the betrayed spouse, but the children as well. This is not a movie, it's real lives that are impacted by some fake "feelings" and rash decisions just to get a thrill. Breaking up a family is not just something to sneeze it. It has a ripple effect on everyone involved. And trust the betrayer rarely gets out unscathed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if it’s the same, OP, but I grew up a conservative Catholic, and I struggle to see how birth control is not only fine, but expected in a responsible married woman, but abortion is terrible, and you would never coerce a woman into one. Telling a married woman she should use birth control is fine, but asking her if she is going to keep a pregnancy is evil.

I was always taught that they are both not good for men, women, and society in general for pretty similar reasons. It’s hard to wrap my mind around what seems like an obvious moral contradiction.

Who says it's acceptable to coerce a woman into having an abortion?

I don't understand the moral contradiction you are identifying, or who holds those conflicting views.

The conflict is that oral contraceptives are necessary, and it’s okay for your partner, boss, coworker, random message board poster, to insist that you take them to prevent pregnancy.

However, abortion is not really okay, and it’s not allowed for your partner, boss, coworker, or random message board poster to insist on it.

It’s seems to me that both of those things are okay or both aren’t. I think it’s one of those things where if you go far enough right you come round left again or vice versa.

It’s harder to see nuances when you always thought about things in black and white terms.

In what universe is it ok for your partner, BOSS???, COWORKER??? etc to "insist that you take" birth control?

Uhmm…the real world?

I think it’s pretty widely accepted that women wouldn’t have much of a place in the workforce if it wasn’t for reliable birth control.

But it is not widely accepted that bosses can insist that their female staff take birth control. Can you give examples in the real world of specific bosses regularly insisting their female staff take birth control?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the betrayal. Sex before marriage isn't harming and deceiving a spouse you've committed to. (I know some ultra religious folks would say it is, but a hypothetical future person is just not the same as one you've already, specifically chosen and married.)

DP. I can see that.

On the other hand are:

sexless marriages.

When one spouse (of any sex) has desire for regular intercourse, but the other spouse (of any sex) has zero desire, why would there be any issue at all about sexual activity outside the marriage?


In other words: if you don’t want sex with them, why can’t they do it with other people?

If that's the agreement the two spouses reach, then it's totally fine. Because the problem isn't the sex, it's the lying.

One of the difficult aspects of sexless marriages is that the state of being in a sexless marriage seems rarely to be an agreement between two people. If it’s done unilaterally, as often occurs, then why does the party who doesn’t want sex deserve to have a say in whether the other party remains faithful?

Why aren't they talking to each other or insisting on therapy to figure out why they aren't talking to each other about it or about their different sexual needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here- I’m not saying cheating is ok, I’m saying that the reaction to the physical act of having sex with another person seems particularly outsized when you consider how casually sex is now treated outside of marriage.

I’ve read posts on this forum of women being devastated for years and years after the discovery of their husband’s affair. To a certain extent I understand the devastation is because of the broken trust and everything that came with the infidelity, but I also think there’s more to it than that. I don’t think that same reaction would happen with an emotional affair.

And to a degree when you see how triggered people seem to be by the concept of an “open marriage.”

Why are you making this specifically about marriage when couples who are dating also have problems when the same thing happens?? My friends who had cheating boyfriends broke up when they discovered the cheating. No marriage involved. They were devastated. Do you really not have any friends who went through this before marriage? Very strange.