Greta Christina has a series of articles right now excusing cheating. She claims to have once been one of the no-excuse-whatsoever-for-cheating people but has recently revisited her opinion. She poses the scenario where two people are in a monogamous marriage and one of the people decides unilaterally to cut off her spouse from sex (for simplicity's sake, I'm going with the stereotype of the frigid wife and the cheating husband). Maybe she hits menopause, maybe she loses her sex drive after pregnancy, maybe she never liked sex and feels she can give up the pretense now that she's landed herself a husband, maybe she's just tired from working a 40-hour work week and coming home to be expected to cook dinner and get the kids to bed and she just doesn't have the energy for sex right now and can't project when she will. The scenario is that this decision to not have sex is not a temporary or just-for-tonight deal, but is more or less indefinite. Greta Christina's question is, is it then wrong for the man to seek his sex elsewhere?
Now, I don't actually want to debate this question here - feel free to voice your opinions over at her blog. I bring this topic up to discuss assumptions. In Greta Christina's scenario, cheating is a breach of contract (as pretty much everyone can agree), but not having sex anymore was a breach of contract first, giving the husband license to cheat since the contract is now null and void. The problem I have with this idea is that extramarital sex is an explicit agreement in a monogamous marriage. It's part of the marriage vows and it's enforcable by law even if you leave that part out of the vows. Lifelong, regular sex between the marriage partners is an assumption, and in this case, an assumption that only one partner has.
As I said, I don't really want to debate the rightness or fairness of the wife giving up sex and forcing her husband into lifelong celibacy or cheating. I'm discussing the assumption. In this case, the assumption is that regular sex is part of the contract. And it is an assumption because nowhere in the standard marriage vows is there a clause for servicing your spouse. That went out with the Victorian-through-the-50s era of "wifely duties". As soon as rape within a marriage became a legal, punishable offense, women (and men, theoretically) were granted the right to say "no" for any or no reason, even to her spouse. This makes celibacy a right, and it is reasonable for one person to not assume it's part of the contract. This is not the same as the statement "reasonable to condem your spouse to share your celibacy" - I'm poly, which means I fundamentally do not believe condeming my spouse to my own celibacy is reasonable, but it is reasonable to assume that I can choose my own celibacy without the automatic dissolution of the relationship, just as it is reasonable for my partner to discuss this with me and choose whatever option he needs to accept my choice.
Now, in the comments of Greta Christina's articles, there is quite the heated debate between those of us who believe there is no excuse for cheating and those who believe that withholding sex relieves the other partner of any of his obligations of trustworthiness, honor, and ethical behaviour towards his wife in the monogamy arena. It's the "she started it!" defense. And the reason they believe this is acceptable is because these people also hold the assumption that regular sex is part of the contract.
It was my position that regular sex is not automatically part of the contract unless there was some sort of discussion or negotiation about it. The spouse withholding the sex appears to be ignorant of this particular clause and would possibly have not agreed to it had she known about it. These people are not holding open and honest dialogs with their partners to negotiate specific agreements with their spouses. Each time I pose the suggestion that this is an assumption because it was not discussed, not a single person has so far said "my spouse and I discussed this explicitly, therefore it's not an assumption". Each pro-cheating defender maintains only that they believe (and therefore everyone else should agree) that regular sex is guaranteed with the marriage vows when the law very clearly says it's not.
I was having a conversation with someone recently who believes that honesty is overrated. He thinks there are just some things people shouldn't talk about because it leads to disaster. We often have discussions on this topic - quite heated discussions sometimes. But sometimes, I see his point. Men in particular are often trapped in the "Does this make me look fat" corner. There's no good answer to this. But, in my opinion, the ethical answer is honesty (I feel I must qualify my statement here to include that careful consideration of the words to minimize hurt feelings should be part of the honesty, I'm not talking about being deliberately cruel). You shouldn't ask a question if you're not prepared for the answer, and to ask someone a question that is designed to make any answer an excuse to be mad at him, well, I can see why someone might be afraid to answer honestly. I still think they should, but I understand the trepidation. This only underscores my opinion that honesty is the best policy - if everyone was honest when asked questions designed as traps, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to trap someone? Those people need to know that what *they* are doing isn't fair.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
tacit writes a wonderful article on Some Thoughts On Truth And Virtue, which outlines the basic guide to when dishonesty is appropriate. The bottom line is honesty and dishonesty can be decided by which one takes more courage. I can understand why someone might want to tell a "little white lie" because the fallout from telling the truth is scary. That doesn't mean I ever agree, but I can see why someone would be fearful of telling the truth about something. But, and in particular within relationships, the more fearful one is about the outcome, the more important that topic is and needs to be discussed. If you are so afraid of telling the truth because you think your partner will react badly, then perhaps that person really isn't the right person for you in the first place. In that case, that's something I want to know up front.
The problem here is that we all come to the table with assumptions, and those assumptions are quite often just flat out wrong. And it might be scary to tell someone what your assumption is, or to find out if your partner has an assumption you don't share. But when we operate under a misassumption, we cannot accurately predict the course of events and we can not alter our own behaviour to accomodate someone else's expectations, nor can we expect to have anyone alter his behaviour for our sake if we want that behaviour altered. We lose control over our own lives because we have faulty premises. We have roadmaps for Germany when we're trying to backpack around France.
tacit says you cannot reasonably expect to get what you don't ask for. I once knew a girl who wanted her boyfriend to attend an event with her. So she said "I'm interested in this event" and he said "cool". Then she said "OK, I'm off to the event now" and he said "OK honey, have a good time!". She spent the rest of the weekend pouting and being short with him because she wanted him to go with her. But she never actually asked him or invited him to go. He would have, but he isn't in the habit of inviting himself. So, with no clear indication that he was expected to go, he didn't. She somehow thought that he should have intuited that she wanted him to go, probably because she had an assumption that the role of the boyfriend is to always accompany his girlfriend to events. He didn't have any conflicting plans, so she seemed to think he would automatically attend with her and she shouldn't have to invite him.
We see this all the time from the Monogamous Mindset crowd. "I shouldn't have to tell him, he should know me well enough by now!" Contrary to some woo-woo beliefs, we are not actually telepathic. We can sometimes get to know a person well enough that we can make educated guesses about what they might want, but if what you want is important to you, it is your responsibility to make that want known. It is not your partner's responsibility to correctly guess it. Even (and especially) if you think you shouldn't have to come out and say it because it should be obvious because, well, everyone knows!
And this goes beyond romantic partners too. Quite some time ago, I was at a party that included some nudity. Apparently one girl there felt uncomfortable with the amount of staring she believed one guy was doing while she was nude. But, in the interest of not causing any conflict, the girl not only didn't mention it to anyone (let alone the guy), she didn't give any clear non-verbal signals that she was unhappy or uncomfortable either (I'm going to refrain from the whole non-verbal signal issue, which only contributes to these mistaken assumptions because we have additional assumptions about what our non-verbal signals are conveying). So, instead, she complained about it to some mutual friends the next day.
Now, the thing of it is, the guy didn't realize he was "staring" and couldn't find anything in his memory to account for that opinion. Although the guy doesn't have any negative opinions about her, he also isn't particularly attracted to her either, so he didn't understand why anyone would think he was "staring" when he wasn't all that interested in looking at all, let alone looking for a long enough time to be considered "staring". And there's really nothing he can do or say about it to make it right. He can protest that he wasn't staring, but of course anyone would deny it even if he was. He could say "I'm not attracted to you" and that will probably hurt her feelings and not make the situation any better. He could ignore it and that would only confirm her assumptions. It's a lose-lose situation.
When people make assumptions like this, especially when the assumption makes the assumptee feel bad about the assumption, not clarifying it denies the other person the opportunity to make it better. You create an unspoken expectation about someone else's behaviour and motivations. If the other person is unaware of this expectation, he has absolutely no way to guide his behaviour along the paths of this expectation. If there is some magic amount of time when appreciative looking crosses over into creepy staring, it is your responsibility to communicate that assumption so that people do not unintentionally violate your expectation. If there is a frequency at which sex becomes a contractual agreement, it is your responsibility to communicate that assumption so that your partner can negotiate the frequency or give her own ultimatum. If there is any set of behaviours that you expect your partner to do, such as attend events, wash the dishes, give you flowers on Valentine's Day, whatever, it is your responsibility to communicate those desires so that your partner can make an active choice to meet or deny your expectations.
Oftentimes, we don't even realize our expectation is based on an assumption and not an explicit agreement. And we only find out when we get our feelings hurt because someone didn't live up to our expectations. I have developed a policy of not blaming someone when he does something I don't like if I haven't very clearly and explicitly told him not to do it. Everyone gets one freebie. I might still get my feelings hurt because, well, I would have had an expectation not get met, but at least I recognize that it's my fault and not his. Once I say something bothers me, however (and you agree to not do it anymore), then it's totally my right to get pissed when you do it again. But we have to take responsibility for our own assumptions. It's the only way we can clarify our wants and needs and explain why we feel hurt or angry or whatever and work towards a compromised agreement on what to do next time.
You have to be honest with yourself that you have an assumption. You have to be honest with your partner that you have an assumption. You have to be honest with your partner that his assumption is not yours. And you have to be honest with yourself and your partner, once the assumption is made explicit, whether or not you can alter your relationship to accomodate it or the resulting consequence. You can possibly limp along in a relationship without one or more of these components, but you will be blocking paths to an intimate connection by hiding a portion of yourself from your partner and, in cases like cheating, doing active harm to the emotional and physical health of someone you profess to love. Any variation from these suggestions leads to disaster. It's possible that these steps might also contribute to the disaster. But that's only a possibility. It's a certainty that disaster will follow if you don't.
*certain key details were omitted or altered from the above scenarios to protect the identities, but the fundamental themes of the situations remain intact.
Now, I don't actually want to debate this question here - feel free to voice your opinions over at her blog. I bring this topic up to discuss assumptions. In Greta Christina's scenario, cheating is a breach of contract (as pretty much everyone can agree), but not having sex anymore was a breach of contract first, giving the husband license to cheat since the contract is now null and void. The problem I have with this idea is that extramarital sex is an explicit agreement in a monogamous marriage. It's part of the marriage vows and it's enforcable by law even if you leave that part out of the vows. Lifelong, regular sex between the marriage partners is an assumption, and in this case, an assumption that only one partner has.
As I said, I don't really want to debate the rightness or fairness of the wife giving up sex and forcing her husband into lifelong celibacy or cheating. I'm discussing the assumption. In this case, the assumption is that regular sex is part of the contract. And it is an assumption because nowhere in the standard marriage vows is there a clause for servicing your spouse. That went out with the Victorian-through-the-50s era of "wifely duties". As soon as rape within a marriage became a legal, punishable offense, women (and men, theoretically) were granted the right to say "no" for any or no reason, even to her spouse. This makes celibacy a right, and it is reasonable for one person to not assume it's part of the contract. This is not the same as the statement "reasonable to condem your spouse to share your celibacy" - I'm poly, which means I fundamentally do not believe condeming my spouse to my own celibacy is reasonable, but it is reasonable to assume that I can choose my own celibacy without the automatic dissolution of the relationship, just as it is reasonable for my partner to discuss this with me and choose whatever option he needs to accept my choice.
Now, in the comments of Greta Christina's articles, there is quite the heated debate between those of us who believe there is no excuse for cheating and those who believe that withholding sex relieves the other partner of any of his obligations of trustworthiness, honor, and ethical behaviour towards his wife in the monogamy arena. It's the "she started it!" defense. And the reason they believe this is acceptable is because these people also hold the assumption that regular sex is part of the contract.
It was my position that regular sex is not automatically part of the contract unless there was some sort of discussion or negotiation about it. The spouse withholding the sex appears to be ignorant of this particular clause and would possibly have not agreed to it had she known about it. These people are not holding open and honest dialogs with their partners to negotiate specific agreements with their spouses. Each time I pose the suggestion that this is an assumption because it was not discussed, not a single person has so far said "my spouse and I discussed this explicitly, therefore it's not an assumption". Each pro-cheating defender maintains only that they believe (and therefore everyone else should agree) that regular sex is guaranteed with the marriage vows when the law very clearly says it's not.
I was having a conversation with someone recently who believes that honesty is overrated. He thinks there are just some things people shouldn't talk about because it leads to disaster. We often have discussions on this topic - quite heated discussions sometimes. But sometimes, I see his point. Men in particular are often trapped in the "Does this make me look fat" corner. There's no good answer to this. But, in my opinion, the ethical answer is honesty (I feel I must qualify my statement here to include that careful consideration of the words to minimize hurt feelings should be part of the honesty, I'm not talking about being deliberately cruel). You shouldn't ask a question if you're not prepared for the answer, and to ask someone a question that is designed to make any answer an excuse to be mad at him, well, I can see why someone might be afraid to answer honestly. I still think they should, but I understand the trepidation. This only underscores my opinion that honesty is the best policy - if everyone was honest when asked questions designed as traps, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to trap someone? Those people need to know that what *they* are doing isn't fair.
tacit writes a wonderful article on Some Thoughts On Truth And Virtue, which outlines the basic guide to when dishonesty is appropriate. The bottom line is honesty and dishonesty can be decided by which one takes more courage. I can understand why someone might want to tell a "little white lie" because the fallout from telling the truth is scary. That doesn't mean I ever agree, but I can see why someone would be fearful of telling the truth about something. But, and in particular within relationships, the more fearful one is about the outcome, the more important that topic is and needs to be discussed. If you are so afraid of telling the truth because you think your partner will react badly, then perhaps that person really isn't the right person for you in the first place. In that case, that's something I want to know up front. The problem here is that we all come to the table with assumptions, and those assumptions are quite often just flat out wrong. And it might be scary to tell someone what your assumption is, or to find out if your partner has an assumption you don't share. But when we operate under a misassumption, we cannot accurately predict the course of events and we can not alter our own behaviour to accomodate someone else's expectations, nor can we expect to have anyone alter his behaviour for our sake if we want that behaviour altered. We lose control over our own lives because we have faulty premises. We have roadmaps for Germany when we're trying to backpack around France.
tacit says you cannot reasonably expect to get what you don't ask for. I once knew a girl who wanted her boyfriend to attend an event with her. So she said "I'm interested in this event" and he said "cool". Then she said "OK, I'm off to the event now" and he said "OK honey, have a good time!". She spent the rest of the weekend pouting and being short with him because she wanted him to go with her. But she never actually asked him or invited him to go. He would have, but he isn't in the habit of inviting himself. So, with no clear indication that he was expected to go, he didn't. She somehow thought that he should have intuited that she wanted him to go, probably because she had an assumption that the role of the boyfriend is to always accompany his girlfriend to events. He didn't have any conflicting plans, so she seemed to think he would automatically attend with her and she shouldn't have to invite him. We see this all the time from the Monogamous Mindset crowd. "I shouldn't have to tell him, he should know me well enough by now!" Contrary to some woo-woo beliefs, we are not actually telepathic. We can sometimes get to know a person well enough that we can make educated guesses about what they might want, but if what you want is important to you, it is your responsibility to make that want known. It is not your partner's responsibility to correctly guess it. Even (and especially) if you think you shouldn't have to come out and say it because it should be obvious because, well, everyone knows!
And this goes beyond romantic partners too. Quite some time ago, I was at a party that included some nudity. Apparently one girl there felt uncomfortable with the amount of staring she believed one guy was doing while she was nude. But, in the interest of not causing any conflict, the girl not only didn't mention it to anyone (let alone the guy), she didn't give any clear non-verbal signals that she was unhappy or uncomfortable either (I'm going to refrain from the whole non-verbal signal issue, which only contributes to these mistaken assumptions because we have additional assumptions about what our non-verbal signals are conveying). So, instead, she complained about it to some mutual friends the next day.
Now, the thing of it is, the guy didn't realize he was "staring" and couldn't find anything in his memory to account for that opinion. Although the guy doesn't have any negative opinions about her, he also isn't particularly attracted to her either, so he didn't understand why anyone would think he was "staring" when he wasn't all that interested in looking at all, let alone looking for a long enough time to be considered "staring". And there's really nothing he can do or say about it to make it right. He can protest that he wasn't staring, but of course anyone would deny it even if he was. He could say "I'm not attracted to you" and that will probably hurt her feelings and not make the situation any better. He could ignore it and that would only confirm her assumptions. It's a lose-lose situation.
When people make assumptions like this, especially when the assumption makes the assumptee feel bad about the assumption, not clarifying it denies the other person the opportunity to make it better. You create an unspoken expectation about someone else's behaviour and motivations. If the other person is unaware of this expectation, he has absolutely no way to guide his behaviour along the paths of this expectation. If there is some magic amount of time when appreciative looking crosses over into creepy staring, it is your responsibility to communicate that assumption so that people do not unintentionally violate your expectation. If there is a frequency at which sex becomes a contractual agreement, it is your responsibility to communicate that assumption so that your partner can negotiate the frequency or give her own ultimatum. If there is any set of behaviours that you expect your partner to do, such as attend events, wash the dishes, give you flowers on Valentine's Day, whatever, it is your responsibility to communicate those desires so that your partner can make an active choice to meet or deny your expectations.
Oftentimes, we don't even realize our expectation is based on an assumption and not an explicit agreement. And we only find out when we get our feelings hurt because someone didn't live up to our expectations. I have developed a policy of not blaming someone when he does something I don't like if I haven't very clearly and explicitly told him not to do it. Everyone gets one freebie. I might still get my feelings hurt because, well, I would have had an expectation not get met, but at least I recognize that it's my fault and not his. Once I say something bothers me, however (and you agree to not do it anymore), then it's totally my right to get pissed when you do it again. But we have to take responsibility for our own assumptions. It's the only way we can clarify our wants and needs and explain why we feel hurt or angry or whatever and work towards a compromised agreement on what to do next time.
You have to be honest with yourself that you have an assumption. You have to be honest with your partner that you have an assumption. You have to be honest with your partner that his assumption is not yours. And you have to be honest with yourself and your partner, once the assumption is made explicit, whether or not you can alter your relationship to accomodate it or the resulting consequence. You can possibly limp along in a relationship without one or more of these components, but you will be blocking paths to an intimate connection by hiding a portion of yourself from your partner and, in cases like cheating, doing active harm to the emotional and physical health of someone you profess to love. Any variation from these suggestions leads to disaster. It's possible that these steps might also contribute to the disaster. But that's only a possibility. It's a certainty that disaster will follow if you don't.
*certain key details were omitted or altered from the above scenarios to protect the identities, but the fundamental themes of the situations remain intact.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/23/08 06:19 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 7/26/08 03:36 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 7/24/08 01:20 am (UTC)From:It is sex-biased, but that is because a Jewish male may have multiple wives so if one wife does not give him sex, he can get it from another. And also a Jewish male can more easily get a divorce than a Jewish female, and so it is required to protect her right for a divorce.
I may even be wrong and a wife may also be required to provide sex.
This does not mean at any time or in any way, but I believe there is a mandatory minimum that if not met is grounds for divorce.
However, notice: divorce not cheating.
I think a no-sex position is grounds for a breakup. But it isn't grounds for cheating. You can discuss the issue and say, I can't live like this either we divorce or we start having sex more often. You can do that nicely, trying to work through whatever the problem is (and if it's that she's too tired then he can damn well help out more with the housework if he wants sex (or vice versa switching sexes, I don't care which way this goes)).
But people who excuse cheating tend to forget that they have two moral options: break up or get permission to open the relationship.
And a partner who says, I don't want to have sex with you anymore should be willing to let the other partner have sex with others. If they aren't, you have bigger issues anyway and a break-up is probably a good idea.
no subject
Date: 7/26/08 03:49 pm (UTC)From:As
I was unaware of Judaism law, but if a Jewish person actually tried to divorce under the grounds that his wife didn't perform sex enough, his wife could, under US law, counter-sue that he was abusive and raped her. Regardless, divorce is still the more ethical option than cheating because at least both parties are aware of the actions affecting their own lives.
no subject
Date: 7/26/08 05:32 pm (UTC)From:Greta Christina's position is that cheating, divorce, and celibacy are all sucky options but that cheating is merely one of several. My position is that divorce and celibacy suck, sure, but are at least ethical and cheating is not. And, I have repeatedly pointed out that I am in no way defending the partner who chooses indifinate celibacy and expects her partner to remain celibate with her (or him). Just that one wrong doesn't permit a second wrong.
The Sex And The City movie actually did address this issue. As much as I was disagreed with all the other subplots, this one I actually did approve of (with the caveat that SATC put its usual not-quite-understanding of the situation).