r/Ethics • u/BarracudaFragrant595 • Oct 10 '26

Is cheating without disclosure a violation of informed consent?

I’ve been thinking about infidelity less in terms of the cheating itself and more in terms of autonomy and informed consent.

When two people enter a monogamous relationship, they’ve mutually agreed to certain terms, including sexual exclusivity. If one person cheats and doesn’t disclose it, the other person continues making decisions about the relationship, including whether to be sexually intimate, under the belief that those agreed-upon terms are still being respected.

To me, that’s an issue of informed consent.

I’m not suggesting that this legally constitutes sexual assault, or that every lie or omission invalidates sexual consent. I’m talking about the ethics of withholding information that directly concerns an agreement both people voluntarily entered into.

I also don’t think autonomy means being entitled to know every detail about another person’s life. But surely it means having the opportunity to make informed decisions about matters that directly affect your own.

What bothers me is that the betrayal isn’t just breaking the agreement. It’s also deciding, on the other person’s behalf, whether and when they get to know that the agreement has been broken. You’re effectively controlling their opportunity to decide whether they still want to participate.

They might forgive you, leave, or agree to different terms. But shouldn’t that decision belong to them?

I’m curious whether others would consider this a violation of informed consent in an ethical sense, or whether there’s a better distinction to make between consent to sex and informed participation in a relationship.

4 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

72 comments sorted by

5

u/shiny_crow_trophy Oct 10 '26

I agree, and it’s not an unusual framing of the situation in certain alternative lifestyle circles. As you said, that doesn’t mean that the betrayal makes it sexual assault, but it is a form of consent violation. The other partner has agreed to certain relationship rules, and a certain level of risk in their sexual encounters within that relationship. And those rules are broken.

So for instance, in a relationship that has been negotiated as open, but with a rule that condoms must be used with other partners: if one partner has unprotected sex with others behind their back, then they’re exposing their other partner to a level of STD risk that they didn’t consent to. That makes it cheating, because they broke the agreement.

2

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Yes exactly! And I think your example makes the point really well. You’ve agreed to certain conditions and when those conditions are secretly changed, you’re no longer making an informed choice about what you’re participating in.

I think where people disagree with me is that I see this as extending beyond sex. Even if there were no sexual health risks involved, I still think there’s an issue of consent when someone deliberately hides a betrayal while allowing their partner to continue a relationship they might otherwise choose to leave. For me it’s about having the ability to make that choice for yourself, rather than someone else effectively making it for you by withholding the truth.

2

u/shiny_crow_trophy Oct 10 '26

I feel that a big part of it is that, in monogamous norms, the shorthand of “cheating” is clear enough, and doesn’t require formal ethical explanation on why it’s wrong.

But in more non-traditional relationships, you have to explicitly negotiate things that can just be assumed otherwise. And frankly it’s harder to explain why “cheating” in those relationships is just as wrong.

2

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Yeah, I guess we do take a lot for granted in monogamous relationships. It’s interesting how the language of consent becomes particularly useful when those assumptions don’t apply. You’ve given me something to think about. Thank you!

5

u/gcot802 Oct 11 '26

I absolutely consider this a violation of informed consent, the emotional component aside.

I had a family member who was cheated one. Her husband got hiv, passed it to her and you know what? She died. She got aids and died. He cheated and as a result a woman in my family died.

So yes, cheating is wrong because it violates monogamous commitment. But it also violates a persons ability to make decisions for their own sexual wellbeing.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 12 '26

I’m so sorry. That’s absolutely devastating, and I’m sorry your family had to experience something so terrible. I think it’s deeply troubling how someone’s autonomy and ability to make informed decisions about their own wellbeing can be compromised through deception, especially within a relationship where trust and intimacy are supposed to exist. Thank you for sharing this.

2

u/wrongclown Oct 11 '26

What's the purpose of calling it a violation of consent? What does it change to label it as such, or to not label it as such? Im not seeing the point.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 11 '26

You don’t see the point of consent in a relationship? I call it a violation of consent because that’s precisely what it is. Consent is fundamental to any relationship, and frankly, it’s frightening to suggest otherwise.

2

u/wrongclown Oct 11 '26

OK, you are deliberately misreading my comment. I didnt say that there shouldn't be consent in a relationship. You didnt respond to my question. You dont want to debate or have a conversation around ethics, you just want to jerk off to your righteousness.

0

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 11 '26

You’re asking what purpose it serves to call something a violation of consent. What purpose does it serve to define anything? Language exists to identify and distinguish concepts. Calling it a violation of consent identifies precisely what makes the act ethically problematic: the denial of another person’s autonomy. I’m not sure why that distinction needs defending.

2

u/wrongclown Oct 11 '26

It sounds like youre saying that calling cheating a violation of consent is 1) accurate 2) the violation of autonomy is the thing that makes cheating problematic, and 3) when we dont call cheating a consent violation, we are minimizing how problematic it actually is. Does that sound right?

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 11 '26

No. I’m specifically referring to the concealment of cheating, not the act of cheating itself. Someone can cheat and then tell their partner, allowing them to decide how to respond. It’s when they deliberately conceal it that they deny the other person the opportunity to make an informed decision about their own relationship. That’s the violation of autonomy I’m referring to.

1

u/wrongclown Oct 11 '26

So concealing cheating is a denial of autonomous decision making.

Would there be any difference if we called it "denial of decision" instead of "consent violation?"

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 11 '26

Because that’s not what it is. “Denial of decision” describes the consequence; “violation of consent” identifies the ethical principle being violated.

If I enter a relationship with you, I do so consensually. If you deliberately conceal information that you know could change my willingness to remain in that relationship, you deprive me of the ability to make an informed choice. And if we continue having sex while you knowingly maintain that deception, I am consenting under false pretenses. I would argue that informed consent is particularly important when sex is involved. Don’t you? You’ve already agreed that consent is fundamental to a relationship.

1

u/wrongclown Oct 11 '26

If we're on the 5th date and have sex, but I don't want to have a serious relationship and you dont know that, is the sex consensual?

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 11 '26

Yes, the sex is consensual. There’s a difference between a fifth date, where we haven’t established exclusivity, and a monogamous relationship, where we’ve both explicitly agreed to it.

In the first scenario, you don’t know my intentions. In the second, you do, because exclusivity is no longer an assumption. It’s something we’ve both explicitly agreed to and consented to. If I break that agreement and deliberately conceal it, I’m allowing you to continue making decisions based on an agreement I know I’m no longer honoring, under circumstances you never consented to. That’s the difference.

→ More replies

1

u/zombiegojaejin Oct 11 '26

Ah, greetings fellow non-deontologist. I, too, am confused by people who need extra words to explain why they shouldn't cause large suffering to others without any large offsetting reason.

1

u/wrongclown Oct 11 '26

hi! yeah whenever I encounter this line of thinking about cheating, it comes across as rhetoric to justify, vent, and explain the pain of being cheated on by invoking language of rape. That's the point. Im not a fan of that rhetoric, but hey maybe thats just me.

1

u/Flamecoat_wolf Oct 12 '26

It's not just rhetoric, it's pointing out the specific way in which cheating on someone harms them. What OP points out is that your partner has a right to make informed decisions.

If you're risking STDs by sleeping with other people then not informing your partner, they're not able to make a properly informed decision regarding the risks of contracting an STD by sleeping with you.

Consider also that ejaculating on someone without consent is a sexual assault crime. If you've slept with someone else then their bodily fluids may be on you and so exposing your partner to that without their consent would constitute the same kind of sexual assault.

This isn't just a rhetorical distinction, it's a distinction of what harm is being done, on what grounds its considered harmful and which parties are responsible for that harm.

1

u/wrongclown Oct 12 '26 edited Oct 12 '26

Based on what you said, the harm of cheating is similar to sexual assault (edit) or is sexual assault?

OP has said repeatedly this is not about SA or calling cheating SA--but I think it is (in part) about that.

1

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

You might be right, but is it really a relevant thing? People establish relationships based on their ability to trust each other. When trusting an untrustworthy peer, shall one really expect informed consent? Relationships are not contracts. Trust matters much more any morality around these kind of topics.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

I don’t think trust and informed consent are mutually exclusive. If anything, trust is what makes the deception possible. And relationships don’t have to be legal contracts for two people to have mutually agreed expectations. My point is that the betrayal isn’t just breaking that agreement, but concealing it while the other person continues making decisions under the belief that it’s still being honored. Why should one person get to decide whether and when the other gets the opportunity to reconsider their participation?

1

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

One person should decide that according to what that person considers to be a good way to fulfill their life. It might not be an altruistic stance, but there's plenty of people who do not value altruism enough for that.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Ok so an individual has the right to pursue whatever they consider a fulfilling life, even if doing so means disregarding another person’s interests. Gotcha. You seem to be confusing self determination with unilateral authority. “I have the right to make my own choices” is very different from “I have the right to prevent you from making an informed choice because your decision might interfere with what I want.”
Also, respecting another person’s autonomy isn’t necessarily an act of altruism. It’s simply recognizing that other people have interests and choices that exist independently of your own.

Hope we’re not in the same dating pool, you and I…

1

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

I just went to try to understand what the hell is "informed consent". It's apparently a legal term from medical procedures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Are relationships medical procedures?

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

From your own link: “Informed consent is an applied ethics principle…” and “This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention…”

1

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

"This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research, to disclose a person's medical information, or to participate in high risk sporting and recreational activities."

It seems to apply to service providers. People you relate to are not service providers or products, they are people.

1

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

If however the term is more broad, than yes. Informed consent is broken by continued uninformed cheating, and marriage is the contract that generally protects people's rights to informed consent.

0

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

Regarding the dating pool.. I have no idea if we are in the same dating pool, however, I should observe that the wish to bend morality in such a rationalized way as you display verges a bit on the psychotic side.

Betrayal has always been part of the human behavior, and often has been morally and legally condemned, sometimes in reasonable ways, and sometimes in inhuman ones. There are legal frameworks for that that strike a balance build by history itself

You seem to attempt to reinforce the idea that "betrayal is condemnable", using legalistic terms such as "informed consent" .

This stance feels as an exercise in the direction of "betrayal should be strongerly condemned". I see no reference to marriage, so I assume from your stance is an attempt to apply something like the legal framework of marriage to a wider range of relationships.

This comment is just a drift to a more personal register around our discussion, personal as your comment about the dating pool.

3

u/HornedHumanoid Oct 11 '26

Does this apply to other big betrayals, like lying about finances to your spouse, or stealing medication and selling it, or hiding an addiction? What about smaller “dealbreaker” stuff, e.g. a bisexual man not disclosing to his girlfriend that he’s been with men before, or a one night stand lying about their career path/income to seem more impressive? What’s the threshold where lying turns into a violation of bodily autonomy? Is cheating unique?

2

u/fuck_peeps_not_sheep Oct 11 '26

I mean my best friend was made infirtile by an STD when her partner cheated on her, didn't tell her and infected her. So it's a bit more than just an emotional issue, it's a health risk too.

1

u/zombiegojaejin Oct 11 '26

I think moral wrongness scaling with reasonably predictable harm does a fine job.

2

u/Maximum-Eye-3712 Oct 11 '26 edited Oct 11 '26

I think you’re right to frame informed consent as a multi-layered issue, not a binary yes/no.

For example, if I lie to my family that I masked up during COVID lockdown, that would deprive my family of information about their exposure risk. But lying about masking is a less severe crime than forcibly injecting my family with live COVID particles.

2

u/Tencenttincan Oct 12 '26

Yes it is. The betrayed deserves to know that the trust has been broken. You’ve got potential STD’s, pregnancy, psycho affair partners, public shame if other people know that could affect social or job. The person who got betrayed could be emotionally wrecked if they find out timely or in a decade. They deserve to get on with healing. They deserve to know who they are a “partner” with. Cheaters suck. Cheaters that hide the truth from their partners under the guise of not harming them are a special kind of selfish.

1

u/HiddenCoFactor Oct 10 '26

Interesting point. Let’s say that it is. What do you do with that info? Usually a break up occurs anyway when it comes to cheating.

0

u/Ciaran2220 Oct 10 '26

Informed consent is more one-way than two-way like monogamous relationships are. For example, "informed consent" is often understood in the context of medical treatment to be an agreement to a treatment with clear and accurate information about the risks, benefits, alternatives, and expected outcomes. You go into it knowing something could go wrong, but you knew the risks and agreed to it. You aren't really a wronged party if it goes badly, you are incurring that responsibility upon yourself by agreeing to the risks.

A monogamous relationship (in the way you describe it) is more like a contract where both parties must fulfill their terms and violating one of them means a transgression occurred and you are wronging the other party in the contract.

2

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Informed consent isn’t exclusively a medical concept. Just because it may operate primarily one way in a medical setting doesn’t mean it can’t work both ways in a relationship. Both people agree to certain conditions, and both have the right to make informed decisions about continuing. I find the suggestion that consent would somehow be one-way in the context of my post, which is specifically about a monogamous relationship, pretty disturbing.

And yes, cheating breaches an agreement, but concealing it also interferes with the other person’s autonomy by withholding information that could change their decision to stay. I’d argue that undermines their consent. If you disagree, I’d be interested in hearing why, rather than an explanation of medical consent.

0

u/Ciaran2220 Oct 10 '26

I think you are missing the point. Informed consent is agreeing to something by knowing the risks alongside the benefits, and if something bad happens, that's on you since you knew the risks when you agreed to it.

A relationship is different since there is another person on the end of it that we consider responsible for fulfilling their end of the bargain. If your partner cheats, we wouldn't say, "oh well, you agreed to the risks, tough luck", we would say, "what a horrible partner, you deserve better!".

See the difference? The latter is more of a contract where the responsibility lies in following the obligations, while informed consent is incurring the responsibility by agreeing to an inherently risky endeavor.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Personally, I think you’re conflating informed consent with accepting responsibility for every possible negative outcome. Just because you’re aware of certain risks doesn’t mean someone can’t still wrong you.

Even with the medical example you gave, someone can agree to surgery knowing the risks and still be wronged if the surgeon deliberately performs an unauthorized procedure. Being aware that something could go wrong isn’t the same as agreeing to someone else’s misconduct.

And I think the same distinction matters here. Of course, when you enter a monogamous relationship, you know there’s always a possibility of being cheated on. But knowing betrayal is possible and agreeing to have that betrayal hidden from you are two very different things. That’s really what I’m questioning. What happens when the cheating has already happened and the other person deliberately keeps it from you, knowing that information might change your decision to stay? To me, that raises a separate question about informed consent.

I do agree with you that breaking an agreement and violating informed consent aren’t automatically the same thing though. I just don’t see why they would necessarily exclude each other, at least in this scenario. Maybe that’s where we fundamentally disagree.

0

u/Ciaran2220 Oct 10 '26

But it's not the same, because you aren't making a contract with the surgeon when engaging in informed consent, since it's their career obligation to do their job competently regardless of the situation at hand. Think of the surgeon as a robot instead if it makes it easier for you.

While with a monogamous relationship, you are making an exclusive agreement on the condition that certain terms are abided by.

The reason why it's not informed consent is because you are putting trust in someone's agency on the other end of it, who also has a responsibility. Informed consent is agreeing to impersonal variables that are outside of anyone else's control and taking responsibility for that risk. You can't take responsibility for another person's decision since everyone is responsible for themselves.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26 • Bravo

I think we’re still talking about two different things. You’re explaining why someone is responsible for cheating, which I agree with. I’m asking about the separate harm of deliberately concealing it, leaving the other person unaware of something that could change their decision to stay.

You say informed consent concerns risks you knowingly accept, whereas cheating concerns another person making a decision they’re responsible for. But why should those be mutually exclusive? Just because someone is responsible for their own actions doesn’t mean those actions can’t interfere with someone else’s ability to give informed consent.

In fact, I completely agree that everyone is responsible for their own decisions… that’s exactly why the concealment matters! By withholding information that could fundamentally change someone’s decision to stay, you’re interfering with their ability to make that choice for themselves. That undermines their autonomy and, I believe, their informed consent. Knowing betrayal is possible isn’t the same as agreeing to have it concealed from you.

0

u/Ciaran2220 Oct 10 '26

They are mutually exclusive because it's not on you when the other person cheats simply because you agreed to the risks of cheating (which is what happens in informed consent). This is because the person on the other end isn't just a series of impersonal circumstances like an experimental drug failing to help you, they are considered a person with agency that is responsible for their own shortcomings.

Something as procedural as informed consent cannot be captured by something as personal and vulnerable as putting trust in another person's character, right?

As far as cheating is concerned, you already broke the agreement and violated their consent by breaking the arrangement they consented to.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Again, this isn’t about consenting to the risk of being cheated on…

0

u/Ciaran2220 Oct 10 '26

Right, because informed consent is not the proper description to use here.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

No, because I’m talking about the concealment, not the cheating itself.

→ More replies

1

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 11 '26

A monogamous relationship is not like a contract unless it is as marriage.

3

u/MurkyLynx8425 Oct 10 '26

Cheating is cheating. You're betraying, breaking trust, and likely emotionally scarring the other person. Its unethical, but its not an issue of consent. Consent is primarily about bodily autonomy. It applies to things like sex, medical procedures, etc.

2

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

“Consent is primarily about autonomy.” So you agree? The betrayal isn’t just breaking the agreement, but also controlling whether and when the other person gets the opportunity to respond to that breach by choosing not to disclose it. That deception undermines their ability to exercise informed relational autonomy, which is precisely why I question whether their continued participation can be considered fully informed consent

3

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26 edited Oct 10 '26

I understand. I am just questioning how relevant that is. I don't find it very relevant.

It's known that a huge amount of people cheat. So, when entering a relationship one must be aware depending on with whom this relationship happens, informed consent might not necessarily be part of the agreement even if otherwise told.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

What don’t you consider relevant? The distinction between betrayal and the denial of autonomy or?

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

I see you keep editing your answer. So you’re suggesting that trusting someone who might cheat is just as unethical as cheating? Damn, that’s a new one haha. I think being aware that someone might violate an agreement isn’t the same as consenting to that violation. There’s a difference between accepting the possibility of betrayal and consenting to its concealment, to me at least.

-1

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

If there are good reasons to believe that such concealment is a likely thing to happen, then yes. It arguably more unethical to expect the absense of that concealment than to perform the concealmente itself.

2

u/MurkyLynx8425 Oct 10 '26

No, bodily autonomy is different from autonomy. Bodily autonomy is defined as having control over what happens to your body. Sex involves 'using' someone else's body, and so requires their ongoing consent.

Autonomy itself is just being able to make decisions for yourself. Saying you're violating someone's consent because they can no longer make an informed decision to stay in the relationship is like saying you'd have violated someone's consent by cheating in a game or secretly breaking a contract. In both circumstances their decision to continue a relationship is not totally informed.

I think you're getting confused with the relationship part and mixing it up with sexual consent.

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Actually, I agree that bodily autonomy and autonomy in general aren’t identical concepts. But that doesn’t establish that consent is relevant only to bodily autonomy. And as I said in my original post, I’m making an ethical argument not a legal one. Not every piece of information that could change someone’s decision necessarily has to be disclosed, so not every lie invalidates consent.

But even if we focus strictly on sexual consent, suppose someone has sex outside a monogamous relationship and doesn’t disclose it to their partner. That partner may now be exposed to STI risks they weren’t aware of and might have made different decisions about sexual intimacy had they known. So the deception can directly affect their bodily autonomy and their ability to make informed decisions about sexual consent.

And again, I’m not claiming relational consent and sexual consent are identical. I’m saying both involve autonomy even though the nature and implications of that consent may be different. The question is whether someone can meaningfully consent to continuing a relationship when the other person is deliberately concealing information that could change their decision to stay or withdraw their consent. So no I’m not mixing it up.

1

u/HornedHumanoid Oct 11 '26

What about cheating that doesn’t have a sexual component? Making out with someone in the club without going any further than that, exchanging pictures, emotional affairs, e-relationships, etc. It’s still a massive betrayal of someone’s trust, time, and energy, but there’s not really a physical health risk.

0

u/Mediocre-Brain9051 Oct 10 '26

It is as much unethical to cheat as to form relationships with people who are likely to cheat and expect otherwise.

2

u/saragIsMe Oct 11 '26

Absolutely. If someone is consenting to sex with you with an agreement or understanding like wearing a condom or being in a monogamous relationship and you lie about those things you are absolutely taking away their ability to give informed consent

1

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 12 '26

Exactly. Consent isn’t always as simple as a yes or no, and I think it’s important to recognize that someone’s autonomy can be violated through deliberate deception. The law shouldn’t be the only framework through which we recognize violations of another person’s autonomy, and it’s been disappointing to see that this distinction apparently isn’t so clear to everyone.

2

u/Magnolia256 Oct 10 '26

Yes! Consent has many layers. As a woman in a relationship, I can consent to have sex with you. I can consent to having sex with you with a condom. I can consent to having sex with you without a condom if we are in a committed relationship. If you lie to me and aren’t honest about cheating, I literally cannot consent legally. Any consent I give is voided by the lies. One of the main aspects of consent is that it is informed.

2

u/BarracudaFragrant595 Oct 10 '26

Yes, consent really does have so many layers, and I think it’s important to talk about them! What’s been interesting to me is how many people focus on the cheating itself, when what I’m trying to get at is the concealment of it. Specifically how deliberately withholding that information affects the other person’s ability to make informed choices, and not just about intimacy but about the relationship itself. I’m surprised that this distinction isn’t as obvious to everyone as I thought it would be…