5 ms·

In our leaders, cheating on one's spouse is problematic (and plays well in the media) because it is an extremely clear-cut example of being willing to violate o

by cheald 11y ago

In our leaders, cheating on one's spouse is problematic (and plays well in the media) because it is an extremely clear-cut example of being willing to violate one's most sacred vows for one's personal pleasure or convenience - not a quality that engenders much confidence in said leader's ability to honor the vows they made to serve the interests of their country and her citizens. Many of the other things you listed - corruption, incompetence, invasion of privacy, aggression on other countries, torture, brutality, injustice - are all potentially explainable as at least well-intentioned or misunderstood or justified by the ends. Violation of marriage vows, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of wiggle room.

nailer 11y ago
Relationships are complex things. I'd consider the nuances of someone cheating that had a a dead bedroom, terminally ill partner, green card marriage, bisexuality, open marriage, or violent partner before a soldier doing, say, these things: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-r...
- cowpewter 11y ago
  I agree with you, but please don't perpetuate the stereotype that bisexuals are inherently unfaithful or incapable of being content in a marriage. Bisexual doesn't mean "must have relationships with multiple genders" it just means "finds multiple genders sexually attractive". Married bisexuals exist, and they don't feel the need to have sex outside their marriages in any greater amount than married straight or gay people do.
  - nailer 11y ago
    You're right. I meant in the context of a partner that is aware of and does not object to the additional relationship.
Jugurtha 11y ago
I understand. Here's the funny thing, though: most people think the "cheated on" partner isn't aware of the "cheater" doing what they do. In a lot of cases, the arrangement is tacit and implicit. They simply don't talk about it. Call it denial if you will, the same denial a heavy drinker getting home smelling alcohol doesn't trigger the "Have you been drinking?" question from their partner or family member. Now, the drinker might truly think the others don't know, or he might be aware that they know but simply choose not to address the issue. So nobody talks about it. And then there's the explicit arrangement where the one who's "cheated on" tells the one going around that the only think that would be embarrassing would be people knowing he's cheating on her. In other words: Don't put me in the cuckold position in the eyes of society. It's not the thing that's the issue, it's the PR of the thing that is. This is the same thing as Kevin Costner in 13 days telling the pilot not to get shot, because if he is shot, the President must do something because the people would all look at him and expect him to do something. In other words, what the cheated on is looking for is plausible deniability. "I don't care what you do as long as I'm not in the position of people waiting for me to act". If they don't, they'll be the parter tolerating their husband/wife cheating, and they'll be shamed, ridiculed, etc. The attacker is well aware of these dynamics when he exploits this to destabilize his opponent. He's exploiting and using the cheated on as a means to an end. Again, my point being that we give these people an audience to make the argument they present pertinent ones. As an example, it used to be that someone who was "exposed" as gay would see his career ended. He'd be done. It is much harder today. There's still much to do because it's not all pretty and equal in the real world, but I don't hear any politician saying "Well let me tell you a secret about Mr. Smith.. He is a sodomite!" and the audience going "Oooh!". It worked when the audience went "Oooh!". It works less well when the audience says "Meh.". An argument is only as powerful as its pertinence to the target audience. We are the problem.
forgottenpass 11y ago
Your argument is basically circular reasoning. You say the cultural attitude is based on the unambiguity of violating one's commitments. But the very amount of ambiguity and "wiggle room" we find in marital infidelity compared to corruption, torture, etc... is itself a product of American cultural standards. Culture is self-reinforcing, but you didn't explain why those standards exist, you've just shown how they get perpetuated from person to person. --- Breaking marriage vows is only a extremely clear-cut example only because the massive weight Americans put on marriage vows in the first pace. The society could put less weight on them and look at cheating in a "don't be nosey, they could have an open relationship" sort of way. Sounds crazy right? But this is closer to the level you have to look at these things. How did American society get so there was wiggle room around torture and other war crimes? Certainly those could be a "known or should have known" attitude towards prosecuting government officials, or at least becoming a disgrace with no option but to resign. We use "wiggle room" to accept a level of criminality in the politically connected class that would give a district attorney a field day if it were committed by everyday street gangs.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  There's no such thing as a legal open relationship. Maybe there should be. I think the world would be a happier place if people who aren't naturally monogamous didn't have to pretend to be - to themselves, or to anyone else. The space in that place is a natural sticky area for sociopaths who enjoy lying and hurting people. Making "poly" an explicit orientation would make that space smaller and save everyone a lot of confusion. But marriage is as much about property, taxes, and inheritance as it is about sex. That's the real reason it's a binary in/out yes/no state. And it's difficult to make those elements work when there are multiple people involved. That aside - yes, it definitely is weird that starting wars and torturing people gets by with a nod and a wink, but infidelity brings out the howler monkeys. I think the reason is because virtue in America is defined by heroic force projection, greedy accumulation of resources, and dominance over enemies and the weak. If you look like you're doing that, it's all fine. Having sex with people you aren't married to doesn't fit into that, so it gets big downvotes for weak self-indulgence, and - most of all - for leaving you vulnerable to a counterattack on your status and reputation.

by cheald 11y ago

nailer 11y ago

Relationships are complex things. I'd consider the nuances of someone cheating that had a a dead bedroom, terminally ill partner, green card marriage, bisexuality, open marriage, or violent partner before a soldier doing, say, these things: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-r...

cowpewter 11y ago
I agree with you, but please don't perpetuate the stereotype that bisexuals are inherently unfaithful or incapable of being content in a marriage. Bisexual doesn't mean "must have relationships with multiple genders" it just means "finds multiple genders sexually attractive". Married bisexuals exist, and they don't feel the need to have sex outside their marriages in any greater amount than married straight or gay people do.
- nailer 11y ago
  You're right. I meant in the context of a partner that is aware of and does not object to the additional relationship.

Jugurtha 11y ago

I understand. Here's the funny thing, though: most people think the "cheated on" partner isn't aware of the "cheater" doing what they do. In a lot of cases, the arrangement is tacit and implicit. They simply don't talk about it. Call it denial if you will, the same denial a heavy drinker getting home smelling alcohol doesn't trigger the "Have you been drinking?" question from their partner or family member. Now, the drinker might truly think the others don't know, or he might be aware that they know but simply choose not to address the issue. So nobody talks about it. And then there's the explicit arrangement where the one who's "cheated on" tells the one going around that the only think that would be embarrassing would be people knowing he's cheating on her. In other words: Don't put me in the cuckold position in the eyes of society. It's not the thing that's the issue, it's the PR of the thing that is. This is the same thing as Kevin Costner in 13 days telling the pilot not to get shot, because if he is shot, the President must do something because the people would all look at him and expect him to do something. In other words, what the cheated on is looking for is plausible deniability. "I don't care what you do as long as I'm not in the position of people waiting for me to act". If they don't, they'll be the parter tolerating their husband/wife cheating, and they'll be shamed, ridiculed, etc. The attacker is well aware of these dynamics when he exploits this to destabilize his opponent. He's exploiting and using the cheated on as a means to an end. Again, my point being that we give these people an audience to make the argument they present pertinent ones. As an example, it used to be that someone who was "exposed" as gay would see his career ended. He'd be done. It is much harder today. There's still much to do because it's not all pretty and equal in the real world, but I don't hear any politician saying "Well let me tell you a secret about Mr. Smith.. He is a sodomite!" and the audience going "Oooh!". It worked when the audience went "Oooh!". It works less well when the audience says "Meh.". An argument is only as powerful as its pertinence to the target audience. We are the problem.

forgottenpass 11y ago

Your argument is basically circular reasoning. You say the cultural attitude is based on the unambiguity of violating one's commitments. But the very amount of ambiguity and "wiggle room" we find in marital infidelity compared to corruption, torture, etc... is itself a product of American cultural standards. Culture is self-reinforcing, but you didn't explain why those standards exist, you've just shown how they get perpetuated from person to person. --- Breaking marriage vows is only a extremely clear-cut example only because the massive weight Americans put on marriage vows in the first pace. The society could put less weight on them and look at cheating in a "don't be nosey, they could have an open relationship" sort of way. Sounds crazy right? But this is closer to the level you have to look at these things. How did American society get so there was wiggle room around torture and other war crimes? Certainly those could be a "known or should have known" attitude towards prosecuting government officials, or at least becoming a disgrace with no option but to resign. We use "wiggle room" to accept a level of criminality in the politically connected class that would give a district attorney a field day if it were committed by everyday street gangs.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
There's no such thing as a legal open relationship. Maybe there should be. I think the world would be a happier place if people who aren't naturally monogamous didn't have to pretend to be - to themselves, or to anyone else. The space in that place is a natural sticky area for sociopaths who enjoy lying and hurting people. Making "poly" an explicit orientation would make that space smaller and save everyone a lot of confusion. But marriage is as much about property, taxes, and inheritance as it is about sex. That's the real reason it's a binary in/out yes/no state. And it's difficult to make those elements work when there are multiple people involved. That aside - yes, it definitely is weird that starting wars and torturing people gets by with a nod and a wink, but infidelity brings out the howler monkeys. I think the reason is because virtue in America is defined by heroic force projection, greedy accumulation of resources, and dominance over enemies and the weak. If you look like you're doing that, it's all fine. Having sex with people you aren't married to doesn't fit into that, so it gets big downvotes for weak self-indulgence, and - most of all - for leaving you vulnerable to a counterattack on your status and reputation.