JoyfulC 132299 Report post Posted April 8, 2013 Regardless of the emotional impact of being with someone else, it is important that people understand the physical aspect, the ethics of exposing your partner without her knowledge or consent. If you're in a sexually active relationship, and carrying on clandestine sexual relations, please PLEASE be aware of your responsibilities. You can choose to take whatever level of risk you feel comfortable with for yourself, but you have an obligation to protect anyone you've given reason to think is in a monogamous relationship with you. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nntsci 11076 Report post Posted April 10, 2013 Personnaly, i don't see an ethical problem with asking faithfulness from someone. Unless it's the very rare case( in canada) that someone is forced in a marriage, it was his/her own decision to swear that they'd be monogamous. However, i don't see anything immoral/unethical with not being monogamous. Polymorous or open life-style are just as ethical then monogamy. As long as everyone is conscenting, any kind of sex is ethical! Its an imposition on someone else's freedom and their values. In expecting someone to be faithful to you, you are marking them as your territory... your property. The idea that you own someone is not without ethnical problems. Sure in the negotiation of a relationship if two people agree to monogamy, fine, but typically this is an expectation that is imposed on them, rather than a free choice. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoyfulC 132299 Report post Posted April 10, 2013 Its an imposition on someone else's freedom and their values. In expecting someone to be faithful to you, you are marking them as your territory... your property. The idea that you own someone is not without ethnical problems. Sure in the negotiation of a relationship if two people agree to monogamy, fine, but typically this is an expectation that is imposed on them, rather than a free choice. No one can impose monogamy on you if you say no. But if you reject it and have no intention of being monogamous, but let them think you will, then you're the liar and the cheat. It's not their fault. If you don't want to be monogamous, then it's up to you to make that clear, or else accept the fact that you are betraying their trust. The problem for many men I've known over the years wasn't monogamy, but one partner unilaterally deciding that the sexual aspect if the relationship was over. Now that's an imposition. But for someone to want a monogamous relationship, and be very clear about that from the start, is not an imposition because you can refuse it. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank7 3939 Report post Posted April 10, 2013 Its an imposition on someone else's freedom and their values. In expecting someone to be faithful to you, you are marking them as your territory... your property. The idea that you own someone is not without ethnical problems. Sure in the negotiation of a relationship if two people agree to monogamy, fine, but typically this is an expectation that is imposed on them, rather than a free choice. It's the base expectation in our society, but it can be challenged. Even in the past, there's been guys who refused to settle and just hook up randomly or that had an open relationship. Another way to look at it would be to compare faithfullness to the donation an SP receive. To be in a relation with X, you need to be faithfull. To have a date with a particular SP, you need her donation. -If you don't want to be monogamous, then you can't be with X, but there are other girls. -If you don't want to pay her donation, then you can't be with that SP, but there are other girls. Lying about being monogamous would be like telling the SP that her donation is in the enveloppe but hoping that she won't check. That seems to be a problem in ethic. =P 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
