Fidelity in Relationships

Remove all ads!

I sure hope not, Gnarf. I sure hope not.

lol

 

Don;t be ridiculous. How could looking at porn be cheating? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life! I wouldn't call a drunken kiss on a night out cheating either, as long as it goes no further. We've all done it when we're pissed (well, those of us who actually have lives and go out and get leathered )

 

I agree with Aldeth, I wouldn't tolerate it from my partner, and as I try very hard not to have double standards, I wouldn't do it myself.

 

Porn is propaganda and if you're christian you might have difficulties with it since it propagates ideas that are contrary to some of the christian ideals. But as any propaganda, it doesn't make it good or bad as such. It might be however good to assess whether you do or don't want to have certain ideas to be assimilated into your frame of mind, and accepting conflicting ideas will create a cognitive dissonance that would have to be resolved in one way or another.

 

Porn isnt cheating, just looking at someone of the opposite sex and thinking 'mmm' isnt cheating. If it were then you should cast your eyes out right now Gnarf, because even after you get married you will notice other women and think 'mmm'. A thought doesnt necessarily have to lead to any action. I may think about killing someone, but never follow it through, and then once the heat of the moment has passed I may think about not killing that same person. Same deal with porn, its just temporary and since you never touch the people performing the porn, its ok.

 

I agree with this completely. I also wonder what sources the author used to arrive at his conclusion.

Again, agreed, without the thx, perhaps. I give my complete loyalty in a relationship, and I expect the same in return.

 

Eyugh...*shivers* I hadn't read the article before and...there was something...this wrongness about it. I haven't come to terms with it as of yet. The viewpoint it is written from is almost completely alien. I do not understand it. I'm not passing a moral judgement, it is just so strange...

Is that the position some people function from? How should I say it? This "no big deal" attitude, that's the thing, but it is not only how the writer perceives cheating, but other aspects of life as well, I think. It is the style of many life-style magazine writers, it seems...and it is no surprise that the writer is so puzzled about cheating as she is, treading seemingly lightly through life. She seems to take a lot of things in life absolutely for granted. But of course it could only be that it is a way of writing that reaches the intended audience.

It is not the cheating by itself the writer seems to idolize, but this certain easeness of living, the certain idea of bourgeois intellectual detachment, this unbearable lightness of being, and putting that on a pedestal is dangerous as well as being contradictory to the principle of the thing.

One thing I noted was that she didn't give the divorce rates of other western countries, which I'd think are nearly as high as America's. I know only of Finland's divorce rates and they fall somewhere between 40-60% range. The writer believes in a myth and wants to find evidence that supports it. I'm not saying that the French wouldn't take cheating more lightly, but the article has been written only from that perspective, not even considering that it could be otherwise. Disgusting.

 

Iku-Turso, it's possible the writer believes liberation from principles of morality to be a positive thing. She may see some value in accepting reality like it is, without trying to change it or without evaluating it.

By that logic, having a masturbation session with a workmate of the opposite sex wouldn't be cheating. Because you don't touch anyone. Looking itself might not be cheating, but looking to get off on it, now that's not something that should be done.

I'm not sure what I would call it, but I doubt I'd be calling it anything. I'd be finishing the relationship. Now, if I were married, that would make me want therapy.

It's either silly or selfish. Or probably both. Yet sometimes it's poor confused people with issues. They don't always have full knowledge or willingness. Sometimes it's hard on them. I wouldn't like to judge, but if someone had such big issues, I think I'd be out of it for my own sake. Similarly, I wouldn't like a relationship with a person with too high selfishness levels. I'm scared by the idea that "it feels good" or "I need it" could justify anything.

 

I really like you Iku.

 

Barmy, I understand that. However, I think your anger should be placed at the author of the article, not at *me*. When I refered to all Europeans as a collective, I did so to indicate what the author had said - it wasn't like I was stating a personal belief. The reason why I posted the link in the first place was because I thought it was quite unbelievable what the author was saying.

Correct. In fact, there are more Protestants than Catholics in the US. However, the percentage has, in recent years, swung more in the direction of Catholicism. This doesn't have much to do with Americans converting, but rather the large number of hispanic immigrants from Central and South America, who are nearly entirely Catholic.

Getting my marriage anulled by the Catholic Church would be insufficient to be legally serparated from my wife. Despite being married in a Catholic church, my marriage is both a civil and religious marriage. Therefore, the Catholic church anulling the marriage would only get rid of the religious half. I would still have to go through with a divorce if I didn't want to legally remain married to my wife.

I don't know what the Catholic Church's view on this is exactly, but I thought that when you get a marriage anulled, in the Church's eyes, it's like the marriage never happened. Therefore, I don't see why they would have a problem with you invalidating the civil end as well through a divorce. I always thought the main beef that the Catholic Church had with divorce was not that the marriage was ending, but rather the criteria for getting a divorce is much, much less than the criteria for anulling a marriage. In other words, the Catholic Church acknowledges that there are valid reasons for ending a marriage, but some people who divorce do so for a reason that is not considered valid by the Church. Infedelity is a valid reason. Trading your wife in for a younger model is not.

More women than not consider it cheating. Clearly men are more likely to look at porn than women, and most women feel that if you're looking at porn you are unsatisfied with your sex life with her. My wife is very liberal in her thinking, and even she thinks looking at porn is cheating. Now, she doesn't think it's cheating if I hold my glance a little longer at an attractive female that happens to walk by. However, there are obvious differences between that and looking at naked women in sexual positions - the most notable of which are clothing and sex.

 

Nope, there is no annulling and no ending of marriage. The marriage, if void from the beginning, may be examined and found to be void. That's for the religious marriage. Now, if your marriage is null and void in the eyes of the Church, then it obviously has no problem with your being divorced from it. Additionally, there might be valid reasons for obtaining merely a civil divorce and not remarrying. Such reasons might be to protect children or oneself from an abuser, but not infidelity.

Now, if a person doesn't intend to be faithful from the very beginning, that makes marriage invalid. Additionally, inability to stay faithful to one person also renders marriage invalid. Suppose someone's personality and sexual disorders preclude him from being able to oblige himself to stay faithful to his wife. Then he cannot validly undertake such an obligation. So he doesn't undertake it and the spouse-to-be neither. The marriage is invalid. There is basically no marriage but only appearance of it. Church tribunals don't erase valid marriages as if they never happened (that would be divorce or even more than that), but they only "spot" such appearances of marriage which are not marriage. Getting married to a person who does not intended marriage the way the Church intends it would be in the same league with getting married at gun point (think angry father or something) or to a close relative or to a priest or to a married person. There is no ending of anything because it doesn't happen.

 

That's baloney...

Those people aren't called people, but rather we refer to them as 'robots' or 'computers'.

Free will!

 

Unless this is a relatively new rule, I find this impossible to believe. That's because I know of two people who have had their marriages anulled by the Catholic Church, and one of these two instances was just a couple of years ago. The other instance happened back in the 1980s, so that was a while back. If the Catholic Church does not allow marriages to be anulled, then how is it that this woman was able to receive one?

EDIT: Further how is adultery not adequate grounds for the marriage to be considered invalid? It's against one of the Ten Commandments for crying out loud. Sure, there are things that aren't in the 10 Commandments that are considered sins, but breaking one of the 10 Commandments seems unequivocally bad if ask me.

[ March 23, 2007, 17:46: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

The issue with pornography as opposed to random temptation is that by viewing pornography, you are actively seeking that temptation to be unfaithful as opposed to random chance meeting.

 

I don't think Chev is being understood properly so I will post a very personal example.

Back when my mother married my father the Episcopal church's rules on marriage were pretty much the same as the Roman Catholic. My Mother married my father in good faith but he married her for fraudulent reasons. The Bishop was quite happy to annul the marriage because a valid marriage did not take place. Both parties to the marriage must intend a valid marriage otherwise no marriage. A valid marriage should not (cannot) be annuled although I understand there have been some questionable cases.

By the way, my mother did get a divorce.

 

Infidelity is a deal-breaker under any circumstance. I will(have) instantly dump(ed) a girlfriend or divorce a wife who has cheated - no exceptions - no explanation for such betrayal is sufficient. I would expect the same for such behavior on my part. Not only can I not bide but I am also aware of the high probability that it will happen again after the first time is forgiven.

The idea that viewing porn while in a relationship is cheating is a ridiculous notion. Cheating is physical or emotional contact with a tangible entity, not watching some image on a computer screen. If my girl has fantasies involving her favorite actor after seeing him in a romantic movie....great!(I tend to benefit greatly from this.) What goes on in her mind cannot be construed as cheating - the same goes for me. Of course, this is just my opinion on the subject.

 

Porno is cheating, although of a different sort: It is cheating on one's own heart, for deep down, any man who is using porno knows that they are imparing their own ability to be a loving partner in a relationship, and thereby ultimately impairing their own possible happiness.

It is like having a mosquito bite on your hand, and then choosing to scratch the bite open and thereby impede the functioning of your hand. The other possibility is to NOT itch the scratch, and then practice and hope to one day play the piano, or you know, do something else that is deft. I'd rather be deft and have an itch.

Hope that made sense...

 

@LNT:

Not sure I got you right. There are people with illnesses and people with issues. Some are affected in such a way that they can't possibly stay faithful to one person or are in no position to make oaths affecting the whole of their future lives. From simple immaturity to inability to control sexual desires, such things preclude one from entering into marriage because they undermine the capacity of the invidual to swear oaths. What you can't give, you can't promise. If you can't promise what you're promising, your promise is invalid.

@Aldeth:

What she got was a decree of nullity. People refer to it erroneously as "annulment", even if official documents sometimes. But "annulment" suggests that you simply make null what was valid before. So instead of divorcing them and cutting it, you'd be erasing their record. The difference would only be in the point from which you considered them not married to each other.

However, in reality, when a Catholic tribunal rules for nullity, it declares that the marriage was never valid in the first place, didn't happen at all, the attempt at it was futile. It doesn't "make it" that the marriage is null "from now on" retroacting to the moment of contraction. Nope. It investigates the claim of nullity and if it turns out that there was an impediment or an error or simulation or a similar cause precluding valid contraction at the moment it was being attempted, then the marriage is declared (not made) null.

So in case of the people you know of, their religious marriages were not valid from the beginning. The tribunal only found their claim of that substantiated and declared that yes, they didn't validly enter into marriage when they attempted to.

Adultery happens after marriage. It can't make null what was contracted before it. Let's take a look at a couple of cases of nullity:

1. Catholics not married in a Catholic ceremony, no dispensation from the bishop, either (complete disregard of the religious aspect of their union). - invalid, cause cotemporaneous with contraction

2. Consanguinity - doubtlessly before marriage

3. Exclusion of progeny - at the moment of taking the oath

4. Being an irrecoverable alcoholic precluded from leading a normal life and functioning as a husband - started before contraction, present at the moment of contraction

5. Coercion - up until the moment of contraction, possibly later

6. Holy orders (deacon, priest, bishop) - had them before attempting marriage

7. Polyamorous nymphomaniac without a concept of exclusivity - preexistent and cotemporaneous... it's amazing that someone would marry him/her or conduct the ceremony (can. 1055, can. 1066... come on), but such things happen

8. Belief in divorce, that is, that if it doesn't work out, there's divorce and restart, or a "trial" marrage - preexistent and cotemporaneous

Now the popular divorce grounds:

1. Adultery - after marriage contraction, by definition

2. Desertion - after, by definition

3. Fathering a child on another woman - after (supposing it doesn't actually happen during engagement)

4. Developing a new mental illness - after

5. Criminal conviction - after

Etc etc.

See my point? We're concerned with the reality at the moment of contracting marriage, of exchanging the vows. Whatever exists at that point and prevents the validity of that union. Once it's contracted and consummated as a sacramental marriage, no power on earth can dissolve it, not even the pope (can. 1141).

@Gnarff:

Yep. Besides, it's not just intercourse that's reserved. The totality of sexuality is reserved to spouses.

@Nakia:

Yes, thank you.

A person entering into marriage for fraudulent reasons most likely does not intend marriage or is simulating. As such, with his contrary will, he cannot enter into marriage as understood by the Church. As the other person cannot be married to himself or herself alone, the person in good faith is not marrying either.

@nunsbane:

What if it's a result of quite a frail weakness and the person is otherwise the mother of your teenage children and a perfectly good, caring and nurturing wife, but has issues controlling her sexuality (or even just trouble resisting temptation) that call for therapy? Would you still divorce her on principle and not look back?

And I'm taking it as such. Hmm... let me try to explain... maybe I'll convince you. See, real physical actions effect certain processes in the mind, right? Some data flows in, is processed, produces emotions and feelings and sensation. Horniness, excitement, fulfilment, satisfaction, whatever. When a person imagines sexual acts, the physical reality doesn't take place (other than the person masturbating, maybe), but the same things happen in the mind. Of course it's not the same as actual physical cheating, but it's bad already. Thinking of a favourite actor or actress while having sex with the husband or wife is disrespectful, clearly shows that one would rather have sex with that celebrity and enjoy it more, reduces the spouse to a compensational source of sexual pleasure, instead of a fully human person on the same level as the dreamer is. Additionally, infidelity doesn't happen without temptations, urges, dreams, plans, combat even. It's not merely a physical act.

@LNT:

Exactly. Add to it that it's also disrespectful towards his wife.

 

I do see your point. Chalk this up to what appears to be an ever-growing list of reasons why I'm not a very good Catholic. Once again, it appears that the rule does not allow for any exceptions. Things change, and people change. It appears strange to me that if a marriage was valid at the time it took place, there is absolutely nothing that can take place afterwards that makes it okay to declare that the marriage is (now) invalid. I find this especially troubling because the Catholic Church does not allow for re-marriage if a decree of nullity does not first take place. In fact, that why one of the two women I mentioned sought that - she wished to get re-married, and could not do that in the Catholic Church without first getting the decree.

 

My wife and I watch Hentai together. Does that mean we are cheating on each other?