![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
non-monogamy, not necessarily adultery
Hang on a mo, do you think all non-monogamous sex is on a par with adultery? Because it doesn't seem like that to me.
How about a hypothetical example. L and R are a long term couple. K has two girlfriends J1 and J2 both fairly long-term, J2 has another boyfriend P who she's also been seeing for some time. If R and J1 and J2 are all happy about it, and P has no real opinion, is there any reason at all why K and L shouldn't go to bed together if that happens to seem like a good idea to them? Would it be different if any of the pairs involved are married? Is any of it adultery?
I don't mind if Richard wants to sleep with other people, I'd rather he checked if I have any specific objection to an individual before going ahead, but it's unlikely I would. I'd expect him to tell them the situation (if they don't already know) and to take sensible precautions.
Just because a relationship is non-monogamous doesn't mean there's no concept of cheating or lying. And doesn't mean it's not something to which you can have a lifetime commitment. I intend to be with Richard for the rest of my life.
This doesn't stop me being sweet on several other people. Some of these I won't do anything about because they're seeing someone else and are monogamous, and I'm very happy for them in their current relationship. Others because they believe in monogamy and aren't happy with seeing me under these terms even though they themselves are currently single. Hell at the moment I'm barely interested in sex at all (side effect of pills).
I'm pretty sure I could be monogamous if that was what Richard wanted. I've occasionally slipped up in monogamous relationships in the past, but I think I learned from them. Sometimes it feels life would be much easier that way even. But that's not the way it is.
Does any of this make sense?
no subject
As with anything it depends on how you define the terms. You can define `adultery' in such a way that the given example isn't adultery, and you can define it in such a way that it is. According to the usual dictionary definition, none of this is adultery if the people involved aren't married, and it is if they are. Whether it's wrong or not is quite another matter. If you are someone who holds to strict Biblical principles then clearly it is wrong, and equally clearly if you believe in liberal or atheist principles then it's perfectly fine provided everyone involved is happy with it. As others have said, though, there's `happy' and there's `happy' (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nou/17056.html?thread=132000#t132000).
(Incidentally I don't subscribe to the opinion that `adultery' extends to non-married sex. That is, of course, not adultery but fornication. (-: )
no subject
It bothers me when people apparently fail to see any difference between "I don't want to do that" and "You are evil because you do that". That's what we're ranting about.
And, just so you don't clobber me with the meta-stick of intolerance-for-intolerance, I certainly don't think it's evil to say "You are evil because you do that", I just don't think it's helpful. In the real sense, not the St Aldates "you're-a-disgusting-pervert-but-it's-not-PC-for-us-to-say-that" sense. It's just not helpful to anybody.
no subject
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: Adultery \A*dul"ter*y\, n.; pl. {Adulteries}. [L. adulterium. See {Advoutry}.] 1. The unfaithfulness of a married person to the marriage bed; sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or voluntary sexual intercourse by a married woman with another than her husband.Here, any consensual sex between a married person and someone else who is not their spouse is adultery. Seems simple.From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]: adultery n : extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" [syn: {criminal conversation}, {fornication}]Now we have "willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations". That would seem to allow consensual poly relationships!From Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary [easton]: Adultery conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress."Illicit"... would consensual poly relationships be illicit in the eyes of the participants?Of course, "adultery" is an emotionally laden term. Even if we used Webster's definition, this is not to say that adultery is bad. Heh, as someone who regularly has sex with a married woman, it's good :-)
no subject
"Illicit"... would consensual poly relationships be illicit in the eyes of the participants?
In 1897 I should think all non-marital sex would have been viewed as illicit.
it's good
Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
no subject
Yeah, I used the "dict" command :-)
In 1897 I should think all non-marital sex would have been viewed as illicit.
For our culture as a whole, probably (heck, it probably still is) but that's why I explicitly said "in the eys of the participants", where I wouldn't be too sure. And other cultures... maybe not!
no subject