Infidelities and such

A few weeks ago I came across an article somewhere on MSN relating the author's experience as "the other woman" in an on-going affair with a married man. I regret that I did not bookmark the article so that I could at least provide a link, but I wasn't planning to blog it at the time. A cursory search at MSN turned up nothing and I really don't feel like digging for it as its contents have little to do with the point. Suffice it to say that she presents what seems to be a good depiction of a relationship that seems to have no object beyond immediate gratification. There was nothing stellar about the article itself, but the subject matter raised a few questions that I have been pondering. While I try not to be too judgmental regarding others' behaviors, there were a few things about the whole situation that didn't sit well and a few other items that made me go, "hmmmm."

One of the first "hmmmm" items was a linguistic one. While the word "infidelity" simply means "unfaithful," in its most common usage it implies a sexual relationship with a third party. But one can be unfaithful in a variety of contexts where adherence to mutually-accepted norms of behavior vis-a-vis third parties are violated. I am reminded of a few episodes of "Boston Legal" where Denny Crane views Alan Shore's friendship with another attorney as being unfaithful to their relationship. Spader and Shatner play off of each other so well that I'd nominate both of them for an Emmy in a heartbeat (not my decision, but I wish luck to both of them). Someone having any sort of a non-hostile relationship with someone in a different group can be viewed as being unfaithful, depending on the circumstances between the two groups.

But since "infidelity" in it normal usage does imply sexual relations outside of a monogamous relationship, here's an interesting "hmmmm." There is no word in the English language for the wife of a man who is unfaithful. We might call a man whose wife is unfaithful a "cuckold," but there is no corresponding term for a woman whose husband is cheating. The conclusion that I would reach from this odd datum is that sexual infidelity on the part of the male, while generally viewed as being socially unacceptable, is more-or-less expected and undeserving of any special mention. The injured wife might have a few choice names in her repertoire, though, most of which are probably not repeatable in polite company ("hell hath no fury" and all that).

Anyway, to continue on to my original point, the whole concept of infidelity strikes me as odd. But the oddness stems more from "why" than anything else. What is the purpose of monogamy and, for that matter, infidelity? Is monogamy mostly cultural or biological? If it's cultural, why is it an almost universally expected behavior? If it's biological, why are there so many instances where the behavior is not consistently exhibited? We've all seen, read or heard various explanations of the need to provide for offspring as being the origin of the family unit (humans are social animals, after all) through some sort of a division of labor to facilitate the task of child-rearing. I had a rousing discussion with a friend a few years ago over the purpose of marriage, for example. His contention was that marriage was created to insure the orderly transfer of property, though I did point out that in materially poor societies (hunter-gatherers, for example), there is little to no property that would survive beyond the immediate needs of the moment and, therefor, no need to insure its orderly transfer, yet these societies had marriage or some similar form of institutionalized pair-bonding. He was not impressed and did not concede the point, but I digress. As best as I can determine, the components of relationship fidelity have both a cultural and biological basis, though I suspect that the cultural component is the dominant one.

Moreso than either the cultural or biological issues, I see a HUGE ethical issue. Consider, for example, a pair-bonded couple (whether heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant). The relationship is based upon mutually agreed-upon standards of behavior. In essence, it is a contract conferring certain benefits upon both parties and imposing certain obligations. Among those obligations, especially in a marriage, is the expectation of sexual fidelity on the part of both parties. Regarding so-called "open marriages," my personal view is that they are little more than a method of sharing economic resources for mutually agreed-upon purposes. Since I could be looking at this from a heavily biased perspective, I'll concede that view could be erroneous, but I wanted to make clear that they were not included as subjects of this discussion.

So here we have a contract: I'll do this for you, if you'll do that for me and don't be doing that with anyone except me. Since I have promised to abide by certain standards of behavior, if the other party were to violate their promise, would that relieve me of the obligations imposed by my promise? Tit for tat, as it were? Or am I obligated to continue to abide by the terms of the agreement, even being the aggrieved party? I have no solid answers to any of those questions. Actually, I have no solid answers to much of anything, but that's a different topic. If I remember a few law classes that I took many moons ago, there is a partial answer in the form of equitable maxims. For example, you must come to equity "with clean hands" and "he who wants equity must do equity" or words to that effect. Abiding by my side of the agreement does give me the moral high ground, but is it necessary or is it just a social expectation?

What if I am the aggrieving party? Firstly, my personal integrity should be immediately suspect. If I am willing to breach a promise to someone who is supposedly more important to me than anyone else, what would lead anyone to believe that I would keep a promise to a total stranger? It's an old argument and has been rehashed more times than I'd care to count. Suffice it to say that there are a large number of people who would cheat on their spouses at the drop of a hat, but who wouldn't even consider taking something that didn't belong to them. By the same token, there are an equally large number of people who would rob you blind without batting an eye, but who wouldn't even consider an extra-marital affair. An interesting dichotomy, no?

To be fair, there are certain social stigmas that go along with such behavior, though those stigmas would appear to be very dependent upon the culture in which they appear. I was surprised at my European friends' almost complete lack of interest in the Clinton-Lewinsky incident; their attitude was generally one of "who cares - he's the President and Presidents do that sort of thing". Yet these same people were scandalized by the revelation of infidelity by someone they knew personally. Do we differentiate based upon social or political status? Is infidelity acceptable if you're high and mighty, but unacceptable if you're Joe Six-Pack? And to repeat an earlier point, is it acceptable (in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge kind of way) if you're Joe Six-Pack, but unacceptable if you're Jane Six-Pack?

Which leads, in a round about sort of way, to a question that has been pestering me ever since I read that article. Aside from selfishness, I can't think of any reason for engaging in such behavior. So the question that bugs the heck out of me is how selfish would one have to be to impose the "other woman" stigma on someone else in order to gain some sort of gratification? If a relationship with the someone else is that important, why not just terminate the existing relationship (we have "no fault" divorce in this country, you know) and start the new one under conditions where no stigma would attach? Or is this a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too (wasn't there a song many years back about "having your Kate and Edith, too")? Is it a case of "I'm too slick to get caught"? Or is it something else?

As I mentioned earlier, I don't have any solid answers to any of these questions. Would I engage in an extra-marital affair were I in a position to do so? I don't know. I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but I'd also like to think that I wouldn't put myself in a position where the opportunity could arise. The best way to deal with a problems is to not let it become a problem in the first place. I know several women who, under the right circumstances, could get me to drop trou' in a New York minute. However, I'm also relatively confident that those circumstances would never arise.

So I guess the fundamental question (and one to which I do not have an answer) is whether fidelity is an ethical choice or merely a means to avoid this:

ATT66