Why is cheating (in relationships) bad?

Ozul said:
@Trance

Love is an incredibly ambiguous word, it's definition keeps evolving. The current meaning is romantic love. I'm sure that romance is a western cultural invention and it didn't exist during our primitive years. Romantic love is temporary, and it is like an intense feeling of euphoria. It is not true love because it is being in love with the idea of love, not the individual themselves. That is why when the passions fade that you realize how much of a mistake you made, and therefore you cheat. It's a by-product of romanticism, really. Romanticism praises imagination over reason, emotions over logic, and intuition over science. It isn't difficult to think that this movement would glorify love as romantic writers were concerned with nature, human feelings, compassion for mankind, freedom of the individual etc. It still has a massive impact on western, and therefore global culture.

Trance said:
only because your partner found emotional connection with someone else.

Ozul said:
@Trance

Basically we can agree that there is something wrong with the meaning of love today. Disappointing.

Tchami said:
lol "Only".
Perhaps you'll get the answer you're searching for at the day you come home tired from work, open your bedroom door, and see your girlfriend getting banged real nice from the behind by your dad and best mate at the same time.

Will you go: "Oh well... I guess she found emotional connection with someone else.¯_(ツ)_/¯" ?

Open relationships don't last long for obvious reasons. That's all I'm saying... (^_^;)

Trance said:
Love is built upon trust and respect, is the common belief. But what exactly are we trusting the other person with?

Years of relationship collapses for one night of misfortune or only because your partner found emotional connection with someone else. Is love a kind of ownership or entitlement?

You give me your body and I give you mine. You stay in my prison and I stay in yours.

Maybe it's love that is in the wrong and not cheating...

Trance said:


Wrong in the sense that it is entitlement, ownership and an infringement upon the other's rights. No one has any difficulty accepting the fact that love should turn mellow over the years. And even if the initial spark isn't there, the proof of love remains with the fact that you still cannot imagine 'living with someone else'. You may have affairs outside your relationship but you will not entertain the idea of living with someone else. Shouldn't that suffice? that you can do anything you want except for living with someone else?

Love in the long term is always about getting used to the other person. If it is something else, kindly expound on it.

UnpopularAnime said:
Because you're lying. And lying is wrong.

Ozul said:
A refutation and a counter to what, @Trance? I answer your questions, but you have a new one with every reply. Tell me, what am I even supposed to answer? Is the question "is love a kind of ownership?", or is it "What has led to the current cultural definition of love?"

Trance said:


Your points would be valid if I beckoned an explanation. The question here demands justification. If you and @Ozul carefully read the first post, you'll see that it is a direct critique of the idea of love. It is not asking for an explanation of how things are but why they are like this. And since the way things are has been shaped by the idea which is under criticism here, it is entirely irrelevant to bring them up. What eludes you here is the word 'why' which can be employed both as a solicitation of explanation and as of justification. It is an inadequacy of English language but now that you know, try to tackle it from another angle.

On another note, no person ever needs another one. If what you mean is 'sexual needs' then it's factually, and observably, wrong. The desire for emotional intimacy, too, doesn't run out if one finds someone to hit things up with. Love is not a need, it is a want. If there were no restraints on love such as are right now, I would have no difficulties in conceiving that husbands would love their wives but nevertheless be intimate with other women too.

traed said:

I already explained that indirectly though. It is like it is because people have free will (with limitations) and are able to set the standards of what love is or what relationships are. It doesn't have to have a reason other than what individuals and society gives it and it doesn't have to be rationalized to death because they and their partner enjoy it. Love and relationships are products of pssychology, society, and evolution and if you like a soul too. Humans only experience the world from a human point of view and not only that they only are able to experience it through their own body so they have the ability to choose their own rules.

Trance said:


The society once gave no reason to killing homosexuals other than 'God says so'. This very same society once gave no reason to refuse rights of suffrage to women. This same society once enslaved people without any reason too.

Your answer, still, is no different from 'it is how it is'. Merely an explanation, not a justification.

Yaamare said:
You have obviously never been in love. Let's hope one day you'll understand why.

traed said:

Evolution works on the biological levels but society also evolves. Unlike biological evolution the evolution of society is consciously done not just a result of the environment itself so that means in the long run it will always head in a direction of improvement. That is not to say that relationships and love are perfect now but they are better than they were.

Trance said:


Twice, actually. Anything else, madame?

Yaamare said:


Such a unique reply, I must say. I am glad you bothered to check my gender.

On a serious note, we are not just simple animals that go on and bang anyone we like just because "kids lel". This topic is similar as that "Suicide is not a cowardice". Yes, technically the both statements (yours and that other) can be somehow proven as "This can make sense." but it isn't just materialistic world we're talking about. I obviously disagree with you because when you are in a relationship with someone it is expected (unless you have set of rules like Sheldon and Amy from Big Bang Theory) that the other person is your priority. Just because you feel like going off and on with some random chick because biological reasons and stuff, it isn't right, because your girlfriend should matter more to you than random lust.

It's pretty simple. You really think like 90% (minimum) people would think cheating is wrong without any logical argument?

Btw, this is MAL and I'm kind of wasting my life, don't feel surprised if yo udon't get any reply from me because I just don't care enough to discuss much this particular subject online. Well, at least your way of thinking is rather unique and interesting. Have a good day though. :)

Trance said:


And what I am proposing right now is something which isn't yet happening and something which can and theoretically should happen in the future. Thereby, I am proposing, quite consciously, an improvement. You're talking of the present in relation to the past. I'm talking of the future in relation to the present.

traed said:


But it's not up to you to dictate how people feel. You as an individual do not have more intelligence than the collective intelligence of humanity.

Trance said:


I could say the same to the Mr.X who advocated abolition of slavery.

ashfrliebert said:





I don't have a direct reason, because I can't speak for other people

But some people think it's wrong to be manipulative and dishonest, that's the ethics the majority of people who think cheating is bad hold. Isn't it also subjective to think that distrust is the rights people hold? There is no one true objective standard for what's "wrong" and what's "right, at least for non-religious people.

Personally, in my subjective view, I think that's bullshit. I love lying to people and stabbing them in the back, I view being dishonest and distrustful as a tool of strength, and strength is good, therefore being dishonest and distrustful is good morals.

Long live the lies.


SUBJECTIVELY

Maybe we are at a crucial point in our evolutionary history

lmao, talking about all this is making me realize, modern society is not really fit for human instinctual behavior at all. having all these men around your mate causes all kinds of anxiety over the competition that you can't do anything about. no wonder there's so many women who complain that their boyfriends are clingy and why there's so many desperate ex boyfriends

traed said:

-snip-

VagueClarity said:

Isn't that effectively saying we should revise modern society to account for human instincts? Isn't the point of society to socially evolve people into creatures less dependent on outdated instinctual behaviors?

If you look at the social structure of ancient Sparta, they didn't accept the concept of "cheating" or "adultery" at all. That is to say, the men were allowed to sleep with whoever they wanted, and the women were allowed to sleep with whoever they wanted. The only difference is that it only had to be consensual in the cases where the women initiated it. Basically, it was a "survival of the fittest" societal structure where the most beautiful women and strongest men would pick one another, leaving the others to choose amongst themselves. They had marriage, mind you, but they simply didn't see that intimacy as anything but a way to concentrate the "best" genetic material. But that was still better than what you're proposing in some ways--marriage was arranged and carried out for monetary reasons in many cases, but the women still had financial support for when they had children.

You mentioned that "cheating" didn't necessarily indicate sexual intimacy. I would argue against that, as well. Only in cases of delusional jealousy would someone think that a platonic relationship was cheating. And that's what that is. If the relationship has nothing to do with sex, it's platonic, regardless of how closely the two people become emotionally connected. If there is some "sexual tension," it's still not cheating, because it hasn't gone beyond what is widely considered acceptable in society.

Aines445 said:
Your way of thinking is rather dangerous, to be honest.

To say that monogamy is ownership or entitlement is like condemning a fair deal because you didn't get all the benefits and the other party all the disadvantages. You can leave the relationship, if you want: if there were true ownership, you wouldn't be able to do this because you are your partner's belonging (and vice versa) and therefore devoid of freedom to choose this; it isn't entitlement because you are assuming that the people that get into relationships don't willingly go into them. By entering a relationship, you have CHOSEN to make sacrifices for your partner and vice versa, which means that your partner isn't feeling as though he is deserving of what has been given up out of their overwhelming sense of superiority over you; instead, they actually HAVE BEEN PROMISED what has been given up by YOU to begin with. If anything, to say that monogamy is ownership or entitlement is just fundamentally wrong.

Trance said:

Ideas are judged based solely on their merits. I'm not bringing something entirely new to the table. I'm merely analyzing the current concept of love and its rituals and have found inconsistencies within them which I want to erase. There is no discontinuity between how things presently are and how things, as I suggest, should be. So the entire idea of my being right or wrong hinges upon whether my analysis is correct or not. Couldn't care less about the argumentum ad populum.

Trance said:
Trust is no criteria for a relationship.

Trance said:


Didn't need to to open your profile. Your gender was apparent from your avatar and your name. Your posting suggested likewise.

The biggest mistake that you, and many others in this thread, are making is to tackle this topic from a synthetic (or experiential) point of view. It's a conceptual contest. The topic beckons you to give a clarification of concepts and thereby establish the synthetic. Cheating is wrong and it has its logical reasons -- sure, I accept that. But what are those reasons? No one has given any.

Trance said:




No. That was merely a comment on the present state of affairs. It doesn't mean anything more than that.




What the Spartans did is exactly what I'm propounding.



It's not entirely delusional. If I confide more in a friend of mine than my romantic partner then my partner will feel left out, naturally so. And while that isn't a circuit breaker, it does act as a resistor. Sooner or later, there'll be no emotional intimacy left between my partner and I and we'll break up thus.

Trance said:


Why must lust be a problem?

Dave8814 said:


Well, it's all about the morals. If you have, you think lust is a problem, if you don't have, never mind, what others think, you will fornicate, and continue living your decadent life, never mind, what others think.

lilcoffeebean said:


You make it sound as if 'lust' is inherently immoral.

Trance said:

The idea of compromising something when in love is an invention. Because evidently, there have been civilizations where love existed without compromise and so did monogamy. And now, the conditions are again favorable for such a system to be in place. What exactly is the problem with mutual compromise, you might ask? mainly breakups and its accompaniments. The excruciating pain of not having your sweetheart's sole attention would matter little when you enter the relationship with the mindset of not possessing anything. There should be no expectations in a relationship. Everything should come naturally. Rescinding these restrictions will not destroy our ability to love. And if love continues to exist, then we shouldn't fear this radical idea of removing all restrictions, whether they be bi-directional or whatnot.



It might seem as if breakups are still non-issue and for that I should highlight the plight of the children the couple has spawned. When you look at it, 90% of couples breakup not due to one partner being unexpectedly vile or corrupt but due to one partner not meeting certain 'expectations' -- and for that you have to thank the current concept of love.

I have never understood the meaning of the term 'trust'. For what exactly do we need trust? to expose our flaws? what deeper flaws might be running through me which do not afflict someone else? If I had a bad childhood, I can confide all of that in a friend; a romantic partner isn't a necessity. Even if I were guilty of a crime, I could use a friend. This vacuous idea of 'trusting someone' is in reality nothing. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What exactly do you trust your partner with which you cannot trust some other important person with in your life? Trust is no criteria for a relationship.

traed said:

Then what do you think love and relationships should ideally be like? Because without the exclusivity they're just friends that have sex with eachother.

VagueClarity said:

The Spartan method worked only because the rest of their society was based around it. That is to say, if a woman became pregnant, their husband, regardless of whose child it was, would financially support her. What you're proposing is different, merely a system wherein anyone can sleep with anyone without obligation. This would lead to unsupported single parents. If we were to overhaul our current system, then that could work, but again, we'd be going backwards socially, not forwards.

That isn't cheating. That's just a platonic emotional connection. If the relationship breaks apart because of that, that would be only because of A) extreme, unreasonable jealousy, or B) neglect. If you neglect your partner in your relationship, it doesn't matter if there's anyone else you're dating. It doesn't matter what platonic relationships you have. It doesn't matter who you sleep with. That relationship is going to fall apart because you aren't bothering to maintain it. If you, as you said, want to cheat while maintaining that emotional connection with your partner, how can you say that neglecting their emotional state and your connection is cheating? Your definition is contradictory to your stance.

I apologize for my lack of understanding. You said that there was a logical counterargument to your stance, and I can't seem to find it. My mental state right now is not what it should be, so maybe I can think of it more clearly in a day or two.

lilcoffeebean said:
@Trance So basically as I understand it, the argument is that monogamy violates a person's negative right to not be owned or possessed and that it is used as a form of control.

A fair point and in many cases I would agree. However, I would like to put forth that there is a difference between de facto and de jure monogamy. That does rely on the premise that one can be in an open relationship that is still monogamous of course, but the two are not are not mutually exclusive unless using a different definition of monogamy.

Isn't that what I am suggesting?

It's not contradictory. The problem here is the fact that when we seek emotional connection outside our relationship then through our own expectations we come to believe that our relationship back at home has ended or is ending thereby we start neglecting the partner back home. In other words, it's this erroneous view which gives rise to this. You eliminate this view and no amount of emotional intimacy with someone else will result in neglect of your more permanent partner.

Try tackling it from a conceptual point of view. First try finding the broader fallacies in my argument then refine (or redefine) the concept of love and then compare this concept with other humanly contrived emotions (no less real than more instinctual emotions) and see how they fit in our societies. If you do it right, you can make a strong case for the current monogamous setup.

Trance said:


And also friends who live with each other. That's the ideal.

Aines445 said:

Saying that compromise is an invention does not deny its importance in society. The idea of compromise is necessary for life with any other human being, period. You have to compromise with your family, and even friends: if someone else's will were solely asserted, it wouldn't be fair, which is why people will tolerate certain things from a person and vice versa; they have to for the sake of fairness. Even if there were societies that condoned something other than monogamy, it doesn't mean that compromise was not used (when it comes to their society in general) or that they were correct in doing so. Not only that, but these relationships in these ancient societies were probably even more about the dominance of one party than otherwise, as I'm pretty sure that they were something along the lines of polygamy (in which the women were possessions; not saying that this is the case in all polygamy, just in the one you'd be examplifying) or the husband (just the husband) being able to have affairs with other people (like uh, Ancient Greece where dudes could have a wife and get it on with other dudes; if I'm wrong then feel free to correct me on that). Of course, this is all speculation until you give me an example of these societies, but you imply that they were devoid of compromise and restrictions when it comes to relationships, which I highly, highly doubt.

It's not about the conditions being more favorable in society for monogamy: why would this be the case? Even if there weren't monogamy, everything in society could technically work with the same effectiveness, if not for the exception of people having a little more difficulty in knowing who's the father of a child. If you're instead saying that the conditions are making it so people are more inclined to monogamy, wouldn't that just mean that people are finding it more advantageous within society? Thus, rendering your argument about how much it isn't good kind of moot.

Mutual compromise is precisely there so breakups don't happen; you are arguing paradoxically. Love is not about your partner getting your sole attention: it's about prioritizing your partner's attention; that's what people are in it for. Imagine you're having kids with someone, but instead of caring more about them (including your partner) in times of need, you're more focused on a random stranger in the streets: you can care about the stranger, sure, but you naturally can't (or shouldn't) care about them over your family because you are committing to it. Committing to something implies some form of dedication, and this is not wrong for any partner to expect. You argue as if people just want to hog their partner to themselves and allow them no will of their own, but when you care about someone, you care enough that you don't want to wrong them in this way. Just because people expect you think of them as a priority doesn't mean that they want some sort of possession out of you: you aren't arguing with the concept of empathy and just liking someone in mind, and it plays a huuuge part in the concept of a relationship to begin with. Anyone will want something out of you, but in this case, it isn't selfishness: it's what you signed up for. What they want out of you is precisely what they deserve out of a relationship, so they aren't asking for more than they should by wanting you to prioritize them, and they aren't wishing for something that others can equally give them (seeing as they don't like other people as much as they like you). In fact, you're the one asking for more out of the relationship by saying there should be no restrictions.

I'm rightfully assuming things from the standpoint of a relationship where people care about each other: why would they compromise? Because they, too, have things they want, but they don't want to shut out their partner's demands in the process, because that's selfish, immoral and unfair to them, and if you like someone, you don't want to act in this way towards them. This is obvious. They'd want the same. Which is why there is such a thing as restrictions in a relationship: you shouldn't just want to do everything you want; aren't you thinking of your partner's feelings? I must argue from this position (cheesy as it may sound) because you are neglecting it and making love out to be something that's actually completely loveless; you are denying love itself. People don't feel bad about compromising because they know it's necessary and fair for both parties to have demands and expectations out of a relationship.

Expectations are absolutely warranted out of anything in life. Everyone has expectations about almost everything: people have expectations out of life itself. The feelings of love come naturally, but so do the expectations. Just because you're denying expectations, it doesn't mean that they are wrong to have. It just means you're denying them. The feelings come naturally, as I said, but the relationship itself has to be built upon various foundations for it to work; people put effort into this construction because they care about their partner in the first place. You imply that something that doesn't come naturally isn't good, but this is completely wrong: just because something is invented, constructed or brought about by anything other than natural instincts, it does not make it worse than said instincts. In fact, they come about precisely because said natural instincts aren't good, and naturally having them does not logically excuse them as things we should condone or have. There are many things that shouldn't come naturally: by human constructs and inventions, we have achieved a great many positive things.

Getting rid of these restrictions does hinder our ability to love: people cannot easily love you if you are unreliable, and this lack of restrictions implies unreliability since you are not willing to compromise and consider what the other party demands; it's basically like shouting to the world that you will not make sacrifices for anyone. Why would other people love you if you aren't willing to put aside things for the sake of functioning with others? If everyone were unrestricted, they would simply be more unreliable because you have no idea what they might do for their own sake (as in, if you're going to prioritize yourself over your partner and family and screw them over). By not having these restrictions, you are getting rid of one of the foundations of trust. Feelings are great and beautiful (I wouldn't say Fernando Pessoa is, but eh, let's not go in that direction), but if you're just considering your own feelings and wishing to only pursue the positivity of feelings without restriction, you are being selfish; I'm sorry, but you are. Everyone wants to be happy rather than sad, but people do have to make sacrifices to even live in society, which I'm sure you are also aware of; why would relationships be any different? You are commtting to something all the same.

I would love a source to your statistics.

I have defined trust in a paragraph that you haven't included in your quote of my post, but as I said, I gave a moral focus to it; it doesn't mean it's wrong, however. Trusting someone is thinking that person is safe to be around in general to the point where you can leave certain things with them on the pretense that if it's that person, they won't do anything wrong with it: if you add my previous definition along with it, it undoubtedly lines up.

Trust isn't just about confiding in people, and you don't feel only trust for your romantic partner: the thing that sets apart your lover from your friend is your romantic feelings (pretty obvious). And most of all, trust is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, 'nothing'. You are implying trust is useless, which is so wrong it hurts. As I said, it's a foundation of human society (well, it's part of a foundation of human society) necessary for functioning with other people. If you have trust in someone, you will feel safe around them: humans have to feel safe around others or else they can't guarantee what may happen with them (whether they'll be screwed over or not or whether they'll have help from somebody or not, etc...); basically, trust = reliability. To deny trust is to deny some of the basics of functioning as a society.

Also, the difference between a friend and a lover, at least a long-term romantic partner, should be along the lines of the difference between a friend and someone who's part of your family. A friend can have their own agenda (seeing as they have family or a lover that they will prioritize over you), but your partner's agenda should include your wellbeing in it (in the same way your family's agenda, depending on the members and their closeness to you, should also have your wellbeing in it); it's a matter of priorities. Trust is a criteria for a relationship because if you want to compromise with someone, you have to trust them; you cannot build a relationship (a good one) with someone you do not feel safe with. By the way, I would really like to know why you haven't responded to my post in its entirety.

Ozul said:
An argument for monogamy, eh? I'm sure that polygamy is natural, and that monogamy is a societal construct, and that we're just naturally promiscuous. So why do we need to stay in monogamous relationships?

I'd still say that monogamy is a better model than polygamy, despite some big flaws. Polygamy has all the essential flaws of monogamy, and then some more. Jealousy will continue in polygamous relationships, because men will be men and will not be satisfied, even with a large number of spouses. If you want more than 1, why should you stop at 2? The same frustrations, disappointments etc will not magically disappear in polygamous relationships. The number only stops with your resources. There are few people who would be open to casual sex outside of the "harem." It's not so different from monogamy in that regard, because unhappiness, jealousy, and pain are going to happen no matter what you do. If you can't deal with unhappiness, jealousy, or pain, then you're probably not ready for a single relationship, let alone multiple.

Monogamy decreases violence and civil wars, since almost all men get a wife. Wealthy men are the ones who get several wives, while poor, low status men go without. The only way for these unmarried, poor men to raise their status is by becoming a source of civil unrest. Constantly dealing with those kinds of troubles is not the way to have law and order prevail. I remember Foucault suggesting somewhere that institutionalized monogamy is a way of controlling the populace, and I agree. Monogamy was created because it brought order. I think another reason is that it ensured that children have two parents, so that the state doesn't have to help support the children. Far from a perfect model, but better than polygamy.

Love is not passion, love is not desire, love is selfless and practical, but also extremely idealistic. When you love somebody because of the emotional support they provide, your emotional connection to them, the bond of love is created which is the essence of true love. This is true love in my opinion. Monogamy leads to stability, comfort and happiness if this type of love is practiced by two monogamous people who won't cheat or seek other partners. Cheating might be inevitable if they do not truly love each other, but not otherwise.

No system is perfect though. The most logical decision is to renounce all types of relationships, but we are illogical. You are right to doubt monogamy, but are wrong to assert that polygamous relationships are the answer, @Trance.

VagueClarity said:

If that's the case (suggesting a Spartan-type social structure), then you're advocating communism, which has been shown time and again not to work. Either society is forcing people to marry and provide financial support, meaning it's a communistic society, or the community as a whole provides financial support to aid in raising the children, in which case it's also a communistic society. Also, how do we determine who should be supporting who and who should get the child? If we were to go completely with the Spartan method of dealing with this, it would be an entirely male-dominated society, which means half the population is permanently disadvantaged and has their rights violated. This simply isn't a reasonable solution to the "problem." Rather, you're introducing more issues than this method would solve.

Everyone seeks emotional connection when they interact meaningfully in society. It's simply what we do. Seeking emotional connection with more than one person does not necessarily mean you're neglecting that person--rather, it would be obnoxious and unnecessary to stay with them every moment of every day for the sake of a greater emotional connection.

You're saying that the neglect arises from thinking that you're neglecting the person. That's ridiculous. Neglect arises from consistently prioritizing others. If you don't do that, it doesn't matter what emotional intimacy you have with someone, you'll still prioritize your partner, by definition, and thus you will not neglect them.

Numerous people have made arguments from the standpoint of love and emotions. You've repeatedly shot them down because you said you were talking about something more fundamental. If you're talking about something more fundamental than emotions, then talking about emotions is pointless and futile. I feel like your question, in this case, has already been answered, and therefore there's no purpose or benefit in continuing this discussion. My arguments excluded emotion and focused on the societal stances, social structures, physical risks, and evidence from past societies precisely because you asked us to exclude emotion. I could easily make a case for emotion's role in promoting monogamy, as many others already have.

UnpopularAnime said:

Nope, objectively. If you have a relationship with someone, in our culture it's automatically assumed that you are promising to not go out with anyone else. So if you do, especially without telling your first partner, you are lying.

Trance said:




Here's a hint: Try tackling it from a conceptual point of view. First try finding the broader fallacies in my argument then refine (or redefine) the concept of love and then compare this concept with other humanly contrived emotions (no less real than more instinctual emotions) and see how they fit in our societies. If you do it right, you can make a strong case for the current monogamous setup.

It's not ridiculous. It is exactly how it does. As soon as you form connection with someone else, then through conditioning you are led to believe 'maybe I'm not in love with her (your wife)'. And that causes you to further slide down the other side of your marriage even though your love for your wife had not lessened one bit.

Answer: OLTR.

Works under our current economic system too.

VagueClarity said:
Okay, not to be rude, but what world are you living in? Where I am, close friends are allowed. They don't intrude on marriage, because people understand that they are separate entities, one romantic and one platonic. If your society conditions you to believe that having a friendship is equal to cheating on your spouse, by all means destroy that society by any means necessary. But I don't know of any that does that.

VagueClarity said:

Okay, not to be rude, but what world are you living in? Where I am, close friends are allowed. They don't intrude on marriage, because people understand that they are separate entities, one romantic and one platonic. If your society conditions you to believe that having a friendship is equal to cheating on your spouse, by all means destroy that society by any means necessary. But I don't know of any that does that.

That's not true. In our current economic system, some open relationships can be maintained because the number of single parents caused by divorce or no-marriage relationships is already relatively high. If open relationships were the norm, with marriage being unnecessary, there would be many, many more single parents requiring financial assistance from the community as a whole. Additionally, as I already said before, there are physical risks associated with sex with multiple people, namely sexually transmitted diseases. Looking at recent history, it's fairly easy to see that in areas with high rates of that sort of behavior, sexually transmitted diseases were also significantly more widespread. And any person who thinks it's not wrong to spread such diseases needs serious therapy to restore a somewhat acceptable mental state. We don't need more of that in the world. Also, if you're going to say that what's wrong and what's right is purely subjective, please keep in mind that that argument can also be applied to not imprisoning serial killers and rapists, because they would obviously argue that it's going along with their own morality. Sure, it might be subjective, but at some point we have, as a society and as decent people, to draw the line.

Also, about the answer to why it's wrong, why is the only answer you've accepted one that relates to love and emotions? I do think that my arguments also provided valid reasons to maintain a monogamous culture, despite my avoidance of anything regarding emotions except in my replies. There isn't only one reason why it's wrong, at least in my view.