Whom do you think bears the onus for preserving and exhibiting marital fidelity?

• Not the thread topic --> The factors (literal, tacit, substantive and/or evanescent) pertaining to marriage itself's legal characteristics, antecedents, and/or consequences are outside the scope of this thread.
• Not the thread topic --> One's views on the morality of any given marriage type/vow or set thereof aren't the thread's topic.
• The thread topic --> The thread topic is whom you think bears the onus for not violating marital fidelity. Posters are welcome to share why thy think "this or that" party bears that onus, and those reasons may indeed come from the types of things that aren't the thread's focus; however, when doing so, one must present such things as reasons for one's answer to the thread question, reasons for one's holding the opinion one does, not as topics of discussion, remarks, etc. unto themselves.
• Not the thread topic --> Anything and everything else that may come into one's mind.

1. Upon learning the object of one's affection is wedded, is one obliged to withdraw one's aspirations toward that married person?
2. As a married person, is one obliged, upon learning another is by one besotted, to nip that sh*t in the bud?
3. Does existential marital fidelity have a mental dimension?

X Factor said:

Mainly I thinks it’s mainly on the people in the marriage. It’s a little funny, though, that you can’t vote for both the wife and husband.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

I thinks it’s mainly on the people in the marriage. It’s a little funny, though, that you can’t vote for both the wife and husband.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

I thinks it’s mainly on the people in the marriage. It’s a little funny, though, that you can’t vote for both the wife and husband.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

That wasn't intended; the wrong thing was stuck in my "clipboard" and I clicked too quickly and I can't edit the poll questions (something one can do using Xenforo forum software but not with DP's ("bargain basement") implementation of vBulletin forum software...I guess I should ask for this thread to be closed so I can create a corrected poll.

You're a mod. Can you put "Both parties to the marriage" in the second poll answer slot?

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

1. Upon learning the object of one's affection is wedded, is one obliged to withdraw one's aspirations toward that married person?

2. As a married person, is one obliged, upon learning another is by one besotted, to nip that sh*t in the bud?

3. Does existential marital fidelity have a mental dimension?

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

For starters, I am intentionally ignoring the part of the post where you have used the phrase of "forsake all others", for reasons you'll find in the answers.

1) This depends first upon how one learns of the marriage. If it is from the person themselves when it has become clear to them that a relationship is developing (not necessarily clear to you), then one's responsibility is to ask the nature of the marriage, and then to meet with the spouse or spouses to hear from them if the relationship is allowed, if such is the nature of their marriage. From the outsider's perspective, there is no way to know prior if a "forsake all others" vow has been given. If you find such, or you find that, even if they are poly, they are not approved by their spouse(s) to have outside relationships, then yes it is your responsibility to withdraw.

2) If the "forsake all others" vow is there, or your poly unit is not open to any further relationships, yes it is upon you to ensure that you make it clear that you are not available for such an intimate relationship. It is also important to note that the couple's interpretation of "fidelity" overrides any society or another individual might have. If, to them, sexual activity is allowed, but not intimate emotional relationships, that too must be made clear to the one wanting to start a new relationship with you.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I am guessing you mean mentally thinking about others. In and of itself, I don't view that a infidelity. Now if it becomes an obsession to to point of neglecting your partner(s), then yes it is an issue, but still doubting that it is infidelity itself.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Red:
Meeting with both partners in a marriage is a higher bar than I'd expect one to adhere to, but I'm okay with it. A non-married suitor does bear an onus to discuss the matter with the spouse with whom s/he is developing a more-than-platonic relationship.

Click to expand...

Blue:
I had in mind the emotional component, not merely "thinking about."

At some point relationships transition from "whatever" -- be it platonic friendship or "the sex is great and we have fun together outside the bedroom" -- to "I actually care about this person. Their wellbeing matters to me." Since I'm a straight person, caring about my closest and lifelong male friends doesn't compromise my marriage/love relationship. The women with whom I've been friends since we were kids could be a different matter, though so far they haven't because we've known one another long enough to know that we aren't suited to one another on a marriage level. We crossed those bridges ages ago and none of us is trying to "backtrack."

I think situations where potentially sexually compatible (meaning the persons involved share a sexual orientation) are more complicated (for everyone involved in/affected by them), thus more challenging to manage and reconcile, than are casual affairs that are, for the active parties to them, about some "strange" (sexual and/or casual socializing outside the bedroom) but wherein the married participant(s) isn't seeking more than the fun parts of the extramarital affair.

Does that clarify what I meant?

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

I am not sure where you are going with "both partners". Are you looking at just the two in a monogamous marriage, or simply assuming only tiads for poly marriages?

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

So given that you clairified to something more emotional, are you asking if it is infidelity to develop and maintain an emotional attachment to another person outside your marriage, assuming such is not allowed or agreed upon?

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

For starters, I am intentionally ignoring the part of the post where you have used the phrase of "forsake all others", for reasons you'll find in the answers.

1) This depends first upon how one learns of the marriage. If it is from the person themselves when it has become clear to them that a relationship is developing (not necessarily clear to you), then one's responsibility is to ask the nature of the marriage, and then to meet with the spouse or spouses to hear from them if the relationship is allowed, if such is the nature of their marriage. From the outsider's perspective, there is no way to know prior if a "forsake all others" vow has been given. If you find such, or you find that, even if they are poly, they are not approved by their spouse(s) to have outside relationships, then yes it is your responsibility to withdraw.

2) If the "forsake all others" vow is there, or your poly unit is not open to any further relationships, yes it is upon you to ensure that you make it clear that you are not available for such an intimate relationship. It is also important to note that the couple's interpretation of "fidelity" overrides any society or another individual might have. If, to them, sexual activity is allowed, but not intimate emotional relationships, that too must be made clear to the one wanting to start a new relationship with you.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I am guessing you mean mentally thinking about others. In and of itself, I don't view that a infidelity. Now if it becomes an obsession to to point of neglecting your partner(s), then yes it is an issue, but still doubting that it is infidelity itself.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

A notable percentage of your messages inform us of you being in what you call a "poly unit" describing it and your views of it.

I don't think the OPer meant a poly unit of multiple sexual partners in a mutual co-habitation of relationships of unspecified durations and not called a marriage by the participants. The OPer seems inquiring of traditional 2 person formal and of legal definitions and statutes marriage commitment of lifelong co-habitation, as a family unit and lifelong monogamy.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

The thread topic --> The thread topic is whom you think bears the onus for not violating marital fidelity. Posters are welcome to share why thy think "this or that" party bears that onus, and those reasons may indeed come from the types of things that aren't the thread's focus; however, when doing so, one must present such things as reasons for one's answer to the thread question, reasons for one's holding the opinion one does, not as topics of discussion, remarks, etc. unto themselves.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Not the thread topic --> The factors (literal, tacit, substantive and/or evanescent) pertaining to marriage itself's legal characteristics, antecedents, and/or consequences are outside the scope of this thread.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

A notable percentage of your messages inform us of you being in what you call a "poly unit" describing it and your views of it.

I don't think the OPer meant a poly unit of multiple sexual partners in a mutual co-habitation of relationships of unspecified durations and not called a marriage by the participants. The OPer seems inquiring of traditional 2 person formal and of legal definitions and statutes marriage commitment of lifelong co-habitation, as a family unit and lifelong monogamy.

maquiscat said:

we certainly could weed out those poly units that are not considering their relationship a marriage, but the ones that do call it a marriage, such as mine, easily fall under the considerations presented by the OP.

Bold mine. There is no reason to assume that marriage fidelity should not apply to a polygamous marriage as well as a monogamous marriage, assuming that any such vows exist. While the OP fails to bring polygamy into his poll, given the rise by which poly is being practiced, such ethics should be considered as well.

And in fact the OP is NOT looking at legal marriage.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

• I didn't have polyamorous units in mind when I wrote the OP. I'm fine with including polyamorous relationships (PRs), provided the nature of fidelity in such a relationship differs from a two-person unit/bond only in terms of number. Take a four-person unit, for instance:
• • Sexual fidelity: Members have sex only with the other members in the unit.
  • Emotional fidelity: The bestowal by unit members of emotional commitment to another individual's wellbeing -- one for all, all for one, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, and forsaking all others -- is given, offered and available unconditionally only to the four members of the unit.

• 
  [*=1]If in one's mind the nature of PRs' fidelity promise is consistent with the intent of traditional two-person promise of fidelity, save for the number of parties to the promise of fidelity, then one can answer the poll question in terms of PR's and their members and the answer provided will comport with what the poll question had in mind.
  [*=1]If the substantive intent of the fidelity promise cannot be transferred to the PR the respondent has in mind, if a respondent answers the poll question with that relationship in mind, his/her answer won't comport with what the poll question had in mind and was trying to elicit.

• Duration --> I did have in mind the relationship quality whereby parties to promise fidelity -- emotional and physical -- to each other and those promises are, by their makers, given, received and understood to have the temporal quality of being in-force until death nullifies the promise.
• Entry and exit --> If poly unit's terms allow members to enter and exit the unit with roughly the same ease that boyfriends and girlfriends form and dissolve two-person units, the unit terms don't comport closely enough with the poll question's intentions for responses based on such a poly unit's framework to be germane.
• Monogamy --> Endogenous monogamy at the poly unit level rather than at the group member level comports closely enough with the idea I had in mind for the poll.

Xelor said:

I don't recall. Did Masquiscat either attest to or directly imply -- "I'm a member of a poly unit" or "In my poly unit" -- he is a member of a poly unit? I think s/he did so only after you posted the "red" remark.

Click to expand...

[*]Sexual fidelity: Members have sex only with the other members in the unit.
[*]Emotional fidelity: The bestowal by unit members of emotional commitment to another individual's wellbeing -- one for all, all for one, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, and forsaking all others -- is given, offered and available unconditionally only to the four members of the unit.

If in one's mind the nature of PRs' fidelity promise is consistent with the intent of traditional two-person promise of fidelity, save for the number of parties to the promise of fidelity, then one can answer the poll question in terms of PR's and their members and the answer provided will comport with what the poll question had in mind.

Click to expand...

Duration --> I did have in mind the relationship quality whereby parties to promise fidelity -- emotional and physical -- to each other and those promises are, by their makers, given, received and understood to have the temporal quality of being in-force until death nullifies the promise.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

For this thread purpose, marital fidelity means "strict adherence to whatever it be that parties to a marriage vowed to do and no do."

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

Joko was referring to how I have noted in multiple threads of my poly marriage among other things polyamory. I had not specifically noted my marriage prior to his post in this specific thread. He BTW, although i really don't care all that much as long as I know you are referring to me.



This is part of what I was trying to point out. The forsaking of all others is not a part of all traditions and vows. So a key factor is whether or not such a vow has been taken



This too is an assumption based on popular belief, but is not a universal occurrence. "Till death do us part" only occurs in some traditions and many modern couples and polys are forgoing that particular pledge.

I think that for a more accurate response to what you are looking for, you need to explicitly state that you are only looking at those marriages, mono or poly, which have used these specific vows. Looking at your first premise:



My poly marriage, and even my marriage with my legal partner prior to us finding our other spouses, did not include "forsaking all others" nor "till death do us part" or any equivalent. By your premise, my ability to have a play partner outside the marriage, but only with the permission/approval of the other spouses, fulfills that definition. It is a part of what we promised each other. By strictly adhering to that, we exhibit marital fidelity as you wrote it, but not, I suspect, as you meant it.

Click to expand...

I don't think the OPer meant a poly unit of multiple sexual partners in a mutual co-habitation of relationships of unspecified durations and not called a marriage by the participants.

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

we certainly could weed out those poly units that are not considering their relationship a marriage, but the ones that do call it a marriage, such as mine, easily fall under the considerations presented by the OP.
Bold mine. There is no reason to assume that marriage fidelity should not apply to a polygamous marriage as well as a monogamous marriage, assuming that any such vows exist. While the OP fails to bring polygamy into his poll, given the rise by which poly is being practiced, such ethics should be considered as well.

And in fact the OP is NOT looking at legal marriage.
.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

I am unsure why you're responding to my post #14 and what new information I'm supposed to take from your reply to it.

I indicated in post 10 that you'd prior to post 10 shared enough information that I can apply the substance of what you shared to what I sought to discover by asking the poll question and expounding on that question in my OP "thread rubric" section.

In post 10, I wrote:
​

I wrote that in post 10 because you'd, prior to post 10, explained how the nature of marital fidelity in your PR differs from the conventional comprehension of that term. I am able to reconcile your PR's "fidelity structure" and the conventional meaning of "marital fidelity," and I previously alluded to as much. Additionally, you'd already made clear that the nature of marital fidelity can differ among different poly units.

In other words, you've already given me the information I sought and I've acknowledged as much and thanked you for doing so. Accordingly, I don't know why you quoted my post 14 (that is, replied to me) to share the above quoted remarks.

You and Joko, or whatever his/her ID is, seemed to have been having a dispute of sorts and you implicitly sought clarification from me. In providing it, I quoted you and him so you'd both, to the extent I can make it so, be aware of my having provided clarification. Inasmuch as I'd already gotten what I sought from you, and I'd told you so, it seems to me that Joko is whom you needed to quote (reply to), not me.


Red:
The sole reason I included a "bullet point" about duration is because in Joko's post 11 comment to which I responded in post 14, Joko included a temporal dimension. Joko, in post 11, wrote:

Since I wrote post 14 to clarify some points vis-a-vis my intentions in composing the thread/poll, and Joko had introduced the notion of time span, I was obliged to address it. (Sadly, one must do that sort of thing when folks inaptly and unilaterally infer things about, or introduce non-sequiturs to, (two forms of "overworking" another's words) a conversation topic's nature. Perhaps I should have demurred from offering the clarification....)

I didn't, when composing the thread/poll, give a damn about temporal attributes, which is why I didn't, in the thread rubric section of my OP, mention them.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

If sexual fidelity is not part of the "marriage," then the poll does seem to apply. If the spouse - or spouses agree - as you say is part of your marriage for "sex play" with others, then OBVIOUSLY the ONUS is on no one and your messages have no relevancy to this topic whatsoever.

Click to expand...

BANAL

joko104 said:

There are both men and women - mostly men - who specifically find a great ego rush in "doing" another man's wife or women who get a rush of doing another woman's husband. Some will tell any lies, make and promises, and mislead in many ways to do so. They are predators looking for married people in a very emotionally vulnerable situation due to life's difficulties falsely promising an escape from it. Instead, it is all just lies.

The greatest ego rush to such predators is not merely "having" another person's spouse. The greatest ego rush is if the predator also destroys the marriage and the family unit entirely. That is something to REALLY brag about - how many men's wives or women's husband the predator has had and how many marriages and families the person has successfully destroyed.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

You are saying that you and the others in your "poly unit" have made a 1.) lifelong marriage commitment all to each other (polygamy - legal or not) that also 2.) includes lifelong sexual fidelity limited within the marriage members?

I don't want to assume what you are claiming about yourself.

Click to expand...

fi·del·i·ty

fəˈdelədē/

noun

faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support.

Click to expand...

Aberration said:

I don’t even understand how this is a debate. If you’re married and you’ve made vows then the onus is on you to preserve those vows. If you’re the outside person, and know the other is married, you’re just as evil of a person. You being a home wrecker doesn’t absolve anyone else in the **** storm of being a home wrecker.

Click to expand...