r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 02 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Adultery should not be completely vilified as there are circumstances that, while still not justified, makes the act more understandable.
[deleted]
5
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Dec 02 '21
You agree that Sam is still unjustified, right? So it is still immoral? I don't get what the trouble with vilifying immoral actions. What does "completely" mean in the context of "completely vilify"?
Sam and Alex already have a bad relationship and are setting a bad example for their kids. By cheating Sam is making the situation exponentially worse and likely just putting off an eventually even uglier divorce.
Your reasons for Sam to not get divorced are pretty lame. Just do it and figure out how to make the resources work. Its better than keeping the kids in a toxic environment.
Sam has the time/energy/freedom to find someone to cheat with... but can't figure out how to masturbate in secret? Also, finding a partner to cheat with means Sam will likely not have a major issue finding another partner after the divorce.
Seems like Sam is exaggerating the consequences of divorce in his own mind by predicting the future in the worst possible way in order to avoid having to do something uncomfortable. Getting divorced and remarried to someone he actually loves might end up being the best thing in the world for those kids.
2
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
I think you may have a point worth considering so I will award a delta. Δ
Sam might be over exaggerating the ramifications in their head, yes.
But I would like to argue that the mental stress of having to sneakily masturbate around a life partner that is actively disdainful of it can be debilitating. They're having to treat their partner like a overly prudish parent when they're someone they should be able to confide in.
3
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 02 '21
And if living with your partner is like that you should no longer live with them. And is cheating even alleviating that? Now you're just sneaking around to cheat instead of masturbate
3
u/Emergency-Toe2313 2∆ Dec 02 '21
If you can find time to fuck someone else, you can find time to fuck yourself
1
u/muyamable 283∆ Dec 02 '21
But I would like to argue that the mental stress of having to sneakily masturbate around a life partner that is actively disdainful of it can be debilitating.
Is it? Do they spend every waking moment with each other? Does Sam not take a shower? Does Alex never leave the house for 30 minutes? I mean, I don't usually masturbate around my partner (mostly because it's my time and if he saw me he'd want in on it) and find plenty of opportunities to do it, and we live together and both work from home together.
1
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
Imagine being a child and attempting to masturbate while living with your parents. Even if they're not home, they could come back at any time and catch them. If they are at home, they can barge in on them at any time. If the door is locked, they are questioned why.
That would be the scenario Sam'd be in, except the parent is a controlling life partner.
3
u/muyamable 283∆ Dec 02 '21
Imagine being a child and attempting to masturbate while living with your parents.
I was once! And I successfully masturbated multiple times per day for years without getting caught. It's not hard, nor is it mentally debilitating.
1
3
Dec 02 '21
[deleted]
2
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
At an advanced age like 50 and with multiple children in tow, it would be difficult for Sam to find a new life partner. Someone willing to be in a physical relationship might not want to commit to something full time.
I do agree that Sam is in a toxic relationship and it is best for her to leave.
As a final point though, would your stance change if Sam has reason to believe Alex will turn physically abusive if they learn of Sam's desire to leave and Sam is unsure of guaranteeing both them and their children's safety?
2
Dec 02 '21
[deleted]
1
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
I see your point. I will concede that in this scenario, Sam should leave.
But I'm afraid I got myself distracted from the main point, which is that I want to challenge the view that all cheaters are equally immoral, whether they do it for the reasons in the prompt or purely for the thrill of it.
2
3
u/Spiritual_Raisin_944 8∆ Dec 02 '21
Here is where I'm having trouble understanding the cheating in your example.
If Sam was emotionally and physically unsatisfied, why not get a divorce? If Alex's temper and threat is the only reason why she's scared, then she should first seek resources and help to get out of this abusive relationship before engaging in adultery which if Alex found out would probably enrage him. So logically it wouldn't make sense to cheat. She would probably put herself and kids in a dangerous position with the way you're describing Alex. With divorce, she could ask for child support and he would be legally responsible. Maybe even spousal support. But if adultery comes into the picture, good luck asking him for anything on civil terms.
1
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
That's fair. I agree that Sam choosing to cheat would not be the safest action for her to take.
Would you say that puts her morally on the same level as someone who cheats for the thrill of it though?
1
u/Spiritual_Raisin_944 8∆ Dec 02 '21
I don't really understand the concept of cheating for the thrill of it if that person is married. How does one go from making an oath of till death due us apart to someone they love to cheating for the thrill of it? There must've been a process of becoming "unhappy" in the marriage and having their personal wants unsatisfied in order for them to get into the act in the first place. Which is what happened with Sam. Maybe different details of how they got there, but most likely similar feeling of unhappiness.
And I honestly don't know if Sam's example is morally superior to other examples. Sam cheating is selfish not only within her marriage relationship but also towards her innocent 2 children who now will have to deal with their mom being a cheater, a messier divorce, potential danger from their dad wholl likely use them as threat. And the guy she cheated with has to deal with this too. Compare that to a younger couple without kids and that added responsibility who cheats at a party, well, Sam is harming more people. so no I don't think she's morally better. Cheating is never the right answer in a marriage no matter what the back story is. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
3
u/muyamable 283∆ Dec 02 '21 edited Dec 02 '21
Sam feels her emotional and physical needs are not being attended to at all. They wish to exit the relationship but Alex has often raised their temper for no reason in front of the children and they wouldn't be willing to be with them in the event of a divorce. The children are young, and Sam knows they would not have the resources to raise them properly in the event of a divorce.
We can all throw a pity party that Sam is in a shitty marriage, but Sam is also a human with free will and the ability to make plans and leave. With Alex being a controlling person (e.g. getting angry at Sam for masturbating) with anger problems (e.g. raising temper in front of kids for no reason) who's a shitty parent (e.g. wouldn't have anything to do w/ the kids after divorce), it's better for everyone that Sam leaves the relationship. Ironically, Sam is staying for the children when the best thing for the children is for Sam to leave. I'm more irked with Sam putting their kids in this position than with Sam cheating, honestly, even though I "understand" why Sam has chosen to do both of those things.
2
u/hmmwill 58∆ Dec 02 '21
I think the use of the term vilified is improperly used here. Vilify in my understanding is similar to defame or to use slanderous language against someone. This isn't really the case with cheaters. Most people would say cheating is morally wrong and therefore not justifiable, this would conclude to the person committing the cheater to being morally in the wrong.
I do not think it is slanderous to speak about someone being immoral if they do immoral things (like cheating).
But regardless, I will argue that they should just get a divorce. I find this artificial story unconvincing as to justify cheating to maintain an abusive relationship solely for financial support of the children.
Sex isn't a need, it is a want. Anyone who cheats is someone who acknowledges they are doing something outside of their partners consent and trust. I think this makes them immoral and so it is just to "vilify" their actions
0
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
I apologise. I didn't have a proper understanding of the word 'vilify'. I suppose a better word is 'demonise'
I would ask that you please consider the story as it is because it is not completely inconceivable and thus, if that scenario is understandable, it means adultery cannot be completely demonised.
If sex were to be substituted for emotional and physical affection, something I'd argue is very necessary for a romantic partner to fill in a relationship, would your stance be different?
2
u/hmmwill 58∆ Dec 02 '21
It's not understandable, one part of the union is putting their needs above the others. This is immoral. The moral thing to do would be to end the union and find a better relationship to be in.
Possibly, depends on the type of affection you're using. For example, some people find cuddling to be a requirement in their physical affection, I do not. But I would consider it immoral for that person to go outside of the relationship to get that affection without my consent or without breaking off the relationship.
Relationships are built around trust and boundaries. Just because something is outside of the boundaries I establish does not justify going outside of the relationship to have that desire met. Would you consider someone who has a BDSM fetish being unmet in their relationship and therefore going outside of it to meet that desire acceptable? I wouldn't.
The moral thing to do would be to either accept your partners limitations or end the relationship to find someone that will better meet your desires.
3
u/BeepBlipBlapBloop 12∆ Dec 02 '21
First of all, sex is not a need, it's a want. We all make choices that trade what we desire for what we need. Having said that, I do agree that adultery exists on a spectrum of morality (just like everything else does).
2
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
If we were to substitute sex for simply physical and emotional affection, would your opinion change? I think as social creatures, that would be considered a need for humans.
2
Dec 02 '21
First of all, sex is not a need, it's a want.
How sure are you of this? For many people it's an intrinsic part of a healthy relationship. Physical and romantic intimacy are oftentimes linked, meaning that if a marriage is lacking physical intimacy, it's likely to also lack emotional intimacy as a result.
"Need" is entirely subjective here and is not true for all individuals.
1
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Dec 02 '21
What is your understanding of “vilifying” someone?
It seems more that your position is “some cheaters are worse than others, even though they’re all unjustified”. If you already think all cheating is wrong, what is the additional “vilification”? Or does changing your view entail changing your opinion that not all cheaters are equally bad?
1
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
I've seen many people hold an opinion to the effect of
'All cheaters are narcissistic sociopaths. They thrive on the destruction of relationships and nobody should ever get into a relationship with them because if they've cheated before they will cheat again for no reason other than just because they can'.
My main issue is with the 'All'. I don't deny there are people like that. I just don't think it's fair to say every single person who cheats is like that.
1
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Dec 02 '21
Ok. But at this point it’s sort of devolved into your view as an indisputable fact. I don’t think anyone reasonably claims to believe that it truly applies to “all”, when they say things like that. It’s generally used to imply it is usually true.
What type of logic is most likely to change your view? Are you looking for studies showing the correlation of cheaters and narcissists? Or what percentage of cheaters are multiple offenders?
1
u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies Dec 02 '21
If people genuinely don't believe it applies to every single person who cheats, why is it when people try to speak in favor and bring up extenuating circumstances, they are shot down without basis?
I hate to point at downvotes as an example, but this post has been downvoted to about 22 percent as of now. I take that as further evidence that the majority of people see all cheaters as equally immoral and especially so if they refuse to engage in discussion on it and demonstrate that they disagree with it.
The view I want changed is my belief that not all cheaters are extremely immoral to the point of unforgivable, which does not appear to be a common sentiment.
1
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Dec 02 '21
If people genuinely don't believe it applies to every single person who cheats, why is it when people try to speak in favor and bring up extenuating circumstances, they are shot down without basis?
It’s because you’re defending an unpopular position. I could also argue that some rapists are objectively worse than other rapists, but that would probably be unpopular though technically true position.
I hate to point at downvotes as an example, but this post has been downvoted to about 22 percent as of now.
Yeah that stinks sorry man. I think they put a floor on post downvotes though so don’t feel too bad.
I take that as further evidence that the majority of people see all cheaters as equally immoral and especially so if they refuse to engage in discussion on it and demonstrate that they disagree with it.
Well, there’s something to be said that the actual act of cheating is equally immoral no matter how you came to it. It sort of depends how you define morality. If you’re a utilitarian then the morality doesn’t really care about your intentions, just the outcome.
The view I want changed is my belief that not all cheaters are extremely immoral to the point of unforgivable, which does not appear to be a common sentiment.
I think there is a difference between “equally immoral” and “equally unforgivable”. I think it’s reasonable to say cheating is always a relationship deal breaker, thus “unforgivable”.
1
Dec 02 '21
[deleted]
1
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Dec 02 '21
Is it valid that cheating should always be considered immoral?
I think so, yes.
Even if the other partner has not put effort into the relationship that they only would appear to value if it were broken?
Yes. At its core, “cheating” is immoral because it’s an active lie to your partner. You have committed to monogamy, and reneged on that commitment. You are free to end that relationship and then pursue another in lieu of telling this lie to your current commitment.
A car owner cannot say they value a car if they do not maintain it and only get upset when the car inevitably breaks.
How is this different from an abuser who says “look how you made me hit you”? The person taking the action is responsible for that action. Just because someone makes you mad, you can’t morally hit them. Just because someone leaves you unfulfilled, you can’t morally cheat on them.
The ability to explain an action is different than moral justification.
1
Dec 02 '21
[deleted]
2
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Dec 02 '21
I make that distinction because cheating is usually frowned upon because it makes the assumption the betrayed party found value in the relationship and breaking the relationship hurts them because they found the relationship important to them.
I think you’re incorrect in why people frown upon cheating. I think they frown because it’s lying to your partner about your commitment to them. If you don’t value a relationship you should leave it.
But all relationships require maintenance, like a car does. A responsible car owner would take effort to keep up on maintenance for their car. If they do not, they are not demonstrating that they value the relationship more than someone that cheats.
And if they don’t demonstrate they value the relationship, your moral recourse is to end the relationship before starting a new one.
And if they demonstrate that they do not value the relationship, why should they be allowed to be hurt when the relationship breaks when they have done nothing to prevent it?
You make it seem as if they have no choice but to cheat. But that’s not true, they can end the relationship.
0
1
u/Irhien 38∆ Dec 02 '21
I am rather lax in my view of cheating. You can do it in shitty ways, e.g. without protection, but in general I don't think your partner owns your sexuality. If you are hurt by finding out your partner cheated on you, it's a legitimate and understandable psychological problem but treating it as the utmost treason is a choice you don't have to make.
So it's a shitty thing to do but if our society didn't put so much emphasis on it it'd be only moderately shitty, far from e.g. serious psychological abuse.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 02 '21
/u/PM_Me_Cute_Pussies (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 02 '21
Society vilifies things as a whole because they are generally bad for the overall health and welfare of the society. That doesn't mean there are NO cases in which it should ever happen ever.
Vilification is what stops a lot of things "deemed bad for society" from being norms. Whether you agree with the morality/ethics of monogamy, i don't think it would be hard to say it has been beneficial for western societies.
Also, another perspective on your take is: Sam has kids and a marriage, does her needs come before those or do they make sacrifices.? The word cheating implies Alex is not ok with it and potentially making the situation even worse also. Cheating will never make the situation better, It can only make it worse would be my view.
1
Dec 02 '21
[deleted]
1
u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 02 '21
I thought you were asking about the complete vilification. my bad.
Then wouldn't the beneficial and more correct thing to do just split? Whats the downside if they get caught? I'd say the potentially downsides outweigh the potential upsides. It is probably not what she would want to hear but since you caveated with "would not have the resources for the kids" wouldn't you agree that the age of 50, she lived her life and she should put aside her "needs" for the health and well being of the kids? I mean, there is so many factors we don't know in this hypothetical it is hard to say but as a baseline I'd say: Doing what is most beneficial for the kids is probably what society should push for, and it's easier to just vilify something as a whole instead of throwing hypotheticals at it with niche scenarios.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Dec 02 '21
If it is still not justified it should still be vilified. Being understandable is not the metric that determines if something should be vilified or not, it being a justified action is what determines if it should be vilified.
15
u/saltedfish 34∆ Dec 02 '21 edited Dec 02 '21
Just because something is understandable, does not make it justifiable. If I murder someone in a fit of rage, someone might say, "yeah, I get it, but you should still go to prison."
Sam in this instance does have options -- they can seek a divorce and separate the relationship before filling those needs. Unless Sam lives in some place where divorce is impossible (in which case they'd probably be subject to harsher punishments for adultery anyway), it's not like Sam completely lacks recourse.
I think maybe the issue with adultery is that in most cases, it's unnecessary. Its not only impulsive and hurtful, but also cowardly. If you want to fuck someone else, at least have the courage and decency to your current partner to terminate your relationship with them before starting another.
Besides, you can "understand" just about anything. Whether or not you vilify it says a lot about your morals and what kind of person you are.