Adultery can but not always cause deep distress to participants and those around them, but what role, if any, does it play? Marriages fray and having an alternate lover may, some say, allow a marriage to continue. Both husband and wife may have numerous adulterous partnerships. They may not be suited to simply one partner but function best with many.
Some cultures accept the transfer of affection with a shrug but in others one or the other partner is pictured as victims. Some of these initiate rampages on those they see as aggressors. Monotheisms appear strict on the single, lifelong couple tryst while they can also depict relaxations of the rule. Jesus was terribly strict and idealistic about marriage and saw it in terms of one man and one woman for life, while never himself being married. Is remarriage a means of sanctifying adultery. Once I lived within Muslim societies my eyes were opened to possible infringements and found in polygamy adultery was a condition whereby a man, for example, might commit adultery by having a relationship with another woman without official sanctions. RULES APPLY even here!
But why the one man, one woman model anyway? What benefits does society in general gain.
The reasons are to do with harmonious society in the longer run, and stability in the environment. The group is more important than the individual. Long term versus short term.
1. Men and women are born in equal numbers, more or less. Of all babies born, slightly more than 50% are boys and slightly less than 50% are girls.
2. Most marriages produce children. Children have the largest chance of surviving and thriving if both parents take care of them.
3. Women who are mothers use most of their time and energy looking after the children and are therefore vulnerable. They cannot do this at the same time as defending themself against dangers and earning a living. A stable family gives them the best chance of success and the same applies to their children.
4. In most societies that practice polygamy, it is usually one man with several wives. This is degrading for women, AND the system creates “lost boys”, a large majority of young men who are less wealthy and will never have the chance of marrying and having their own family.
Again, considering happiness and stability on the longer term and for society as a whole, families existing of one man and one woman have the best outcomes. Monogamy is the better survival strategy. This is the same if the couple are same sex.
Lilian,
Much regards. I cannot help but think your response is more for primitive societies as in most western countries the state plays a large part in child rearing. In East Africa, I came across polygamy amongst Islamic groups whereby each wife had a home. Each wife was therefore autonomous. There were strict rules governing behaviour with adultery possible for husband and wives. Against polygamy is that it benefits the rich and thus, one supposes, causes frustration amongst many other men. In India and Pakistan, I came across an emphasis on money-for me a middle-class version of marriage. The tighter familial controls probably prevented a great deal of adultery but it still existed. As below, the price and prevention were getting caught, not any ethical or moral claims.
Is there adultery?
Whenever a price is paid, by that I mean money, having it or not having it, is involved for relationships the grass is always greener for some women (and men?) and a surprising number of women commit adultery. Only the fear of getting caught exacts a price and challenges such behaviour. And yes, its likely amongst older women (and men) when their children get older.
The matter of children seemed not to be part of the equation anywhere except in heredity circumstances. An African Prince, a friend of mine, found out that his son wasn't his. His wife (a senior social worker incredibly) had slept with other men or a man early in their relationship. The boy was about 7 I think. My friend rejected the boy otherwise he would have inherited his princedom with all subsequent political problems. So, there is enormous complexity in adultery even if the reasons are often shallow.
Primitive societies? Ever seen the research on who cares for children in the West?
What happened during the pandemic?
Why are men worried about wives sleeping with other men, even disowning their legal children and men allowed to sleep around as much as they like? How is it ok for a large majority of men to be cut off from a basic human right of having their own family?
Short-termism and privileges for the happy few.
Lillian,
My only point was that certainly in the West the charge of children becomes a whole section or sections of child, and say, teaching institutions. The care of children is often minimised for the parent although the child's identity, which child courts involve themselves with, is out for tender. Often the child's identity is removed from the natural father as the mother is seen as the central or true parent. It can effectively be removed from either parent.
Whether women should sleep with other men is an ethical matter that includes court's concerns with parenthood on a financial basis although female adultery will fracture a family more. On these matters, we remain caught up in societal mores of previous ages. Adultery by either the woman or man is consistent and remains something to be emotionally bourn by the faithful partner, if there is one and not a situation where both are committing adultery.
I agree that in my response I concentrated too much on female adultery on the basis that female adultery has a greater impact. For example, a child may be torn away from the families of one or the other family group, often by courts. Still, female adultery is treated with greater seriousness in Islamic countries and has led to female imprisonment and even execution, although in some African countries it is seen as a woman's right. In the Icelandic Sagas women swop partners with ease, doing so often for political as well as personal reasons.
Still, adultery remains a source of anguish.
"I believe that in today's world, adultery is not limited to any specific culture or region but is prevalent in all communities and countries. It has become a global phenomenon, as men and women share the same natural tendencies everywhere. Moreover, the fear of getting caught in adultery is no longer a significant concern. People have become more self-centred, and they tend to overlook the impact of their actions on children. Therefore, we cannot solely blame men or women for this issue."
Anima, I agree. More women are committing adultery.
But do we need to relook at marriage? Should we accept the limitations of relationships? Are people getting married without love-whatever that is?
Adultery decreases the value of trust among community members. When people do not trust each other, they are likely to be hostile to each other and people who have lost trust among each other, are likely to engage in fight over minor misunderstandings.
Sibangilizwe,
I think this applies to more community- based societies not necessarily urban based ones, but I do believe it has a negative knock-on effect on families due to court responses.
Stanley,
I agree with you Stanley!! With urban societies it's a bit difficult, but I believe that when people learn about the adultery behaviour of their neighbour, even in urban societies, they likely to frown to the behaviour and lose respect for neighbour. Will this result in hostility, I am not sure but that you not as good as you are supposed to be, yes
Yes,
Even now a woman who commits adultery finds herself or can find herself ostracised by those around her. A man doing so is not necessarily viewed in a negative fashion.
Both my parents committed adultery, my step father has a relationship outside his first marriage for fifteen years, he married due to a pregnancy.
my mother did not have a committed bone in her body, she either committed emotional adultery and twice physical adultery, these were carried on throughout her first & second marriage, unfortunately my birth father was just as bad as she was.
adultery is a poison to stable family life, if both parties agree to have an open relationship then I have no issue with this, as long as children are not involved or effected.
adultery can make children fearful of commitment, my younger sister who has never had a long term relationship, or my older step sisters who have children by different men.
my parents left me to fend for myself emotionally and physically, for that reason I’m very resilient, I moved away from home at seventeen.
Due to my experiences with my various parents, I do not agree with adultery, marriage is for life not just for Xmas or Eid , I have been married for twenty five years I would not tolerate adultery in our relationship, due to my lack of trust I do have the details of a divorce lawyer on my contacts list, my husband finds this amusing.
I feel it’s about marrying the right person, someone who most of your family group approve of, who values and respects you , treats You kindly with compassion. The only other requirement is that they can afford you.
lucky for me my husband is all those thing.
Amanda,
Great, just a bit worried about the final comment.
A few days ago I was talking literature with a young educated barista and she started on Henry Miller and Anais Nin. She began talking about Nin as an example of sexual freedom, her many relationships. I pushed back pointing out that her older husband was rich and he funded, unknowingly, her many relationships so her life wasn't free but mortgaged up to the hilt, One of her last lovers was Gore Vidal. I also pointed out her affairs amounted to sexual addiction. So, was she free?
Someone always pays a price perhaps but not always the adulterer.
My barrister acquaintance remarked that such women view their husbands as fathers rather than equals. Or simply providers.
But what of men?
There is a difference between “adultery” and having more than one sexual partner. Adultery is defined as a transgression against a contract between two individuals who promised each other an exclusive, monogamous relationship. Adultery is breach of that contract.
If you don’t want a unique, exclusive and monogamous relationship with only one individual, then just don’t get married or enter such a formalised relationship. No problem.
A breach of contract is always a transgression; example if I sign a contract for buying a car and then I can’t or won’t pay for it, that is a problem. It has nothing to do with freedom.
Lilian,
Yes, that is the precise rendition, but this goes with my point about Anais Nin in that she did it within the security of marriage, and that is perhaps what feels wrong about adultery. Praising Nin, as this woman friend did, was inappropriate and her actions were very different to adventurous, single women.
Words like parasitical come to mind, and this describes men too who require the emotional security of marriage to enable their adultery.
Anais Nin may have had an “open” marriage. Or a homosexual husband who married in order to put up an acceptable facade in public? We don’t know. Adultery implies going behind the partner’s back, deceit. Nowadays it is extremely unfashionable to profess monogamy, therefore your barista might have considered Anais Nin to be “woke”. No-one wants to be seen as a prude or considered conservative. Most societies find it very difficult to accept Female sexuality; whole religions are based on suppressing it.
Lillian
I had forgotten that Nin's husband could have been gay but I'm not convinced this changes matters. Virginia Woolf and Leonard Woolf but she was not promiscuous but constantly fell in love with other women.
Still, monogamy is the game player here and why do we insist on this?
Suppressing female sexuality, yes.
I marked a psychology paper today in which the student had written intelligently about psychiatry's suppression or being used as a tool for suppression. Still, was it not often about class as working class women were seen through sexuality? Many french asylums mainly housed prostitutes, who were often manipulated by male workers. In Ancient Greece, or Athens at least, married women were forced indoors and could only go out wearing a veil and accompanied by a male family member or slave. But this was for aristocratic women, not ordinary women. In Sparta women were allowed to take lovers when their husbands went to war.
Lillian,
In this? Honestly, I sometimes do not begin with a fixed view. While I try and steal away from morality, I am also aware how destructive the process can be and how these matters affect society. But I am realistic. People change and a man or woman married at twenty may not wish the same partner at forty. There is more to this than either position.
I am nevertheless aware of the cultural facets of adultery. I believe much of our concerns on this came from Ancient Rome, from where morality came based on suppositions of virtue. While adultery can be seen in Joseph novella in the Bible, this seems to me mainly Greek in construction and influence. Early mesopotamian laws say nothing about adultery and there is I think little if anything in the Old Testament. Do the Commandments, copied from Mesopotamian laws, say anything in all the add on choices? Marriage was different then, with the wealthy Jewish families BCE having several wives, changes coming when they were ruled by Greeks and Romans.
If I have an hypothesis, well one would be the European background to monogamy, but sometimes I am here to learn, so finding out others approaches to the subject is valuable.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude