Comments on: Against the Promise Keepers: On the Contract Theory of Infidelity

By: ultrahedonist

ultrahedonist — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:41:15 +0000

I think there’s a lot to the contract theory and that the breaking of trust does account for a large proportion (but definitey not all) of the pain of infidelity for many people. But it’s just that this *particular* contract many people regard as an extremely important one, and that’s because of, yes, their strong feelings about sex and fidelity. Hence the breaking of this contract and the lying -together with the thought of the act itself – is more upsetting than the breaking of other less subjectively important promises. I guess my point is that I don’t see “it’s the sex stupid” and the “contract theory” as all that incompatible.
I can also speak from my experience as someone who finds monogamy to be odd and impracticable, and who has been in a non-monogamous long term relationship for 7 years. If my partner had done the sexual things he’s done with other women and we *hadn’t* discussed and agreed on openness beforehand, finding out about it would have devastated me and without a doubt I would have ended the relationship – evidence for the contract theory. At the same time, while I don’t judge him for his extra-relationship exploits because we have an agreement, I have nonetheless, on rare occasions, felt sick with jealousy, hurt and insecurity despite our agreement – evidence for the “it’s the sex stupid” theory. Hence I am quite sure that, for me at least, it’s a combination.

By: Leaf

Leaf — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:49:07 +0000

You might enjoy reading Sex At Dawn for a strong argument against evolutionary monogamy.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:15:11 +0000

Sex can be seen as a symbol for intimacy, an act that says “i am yours, and nobody else’s”, which is a defining characteristic of a marriage. Marriage holds the emotional weight because it is makes a person’s life what it is; some people say their partner completes themselves (or some other vague poetic-sounding statement). Thus, even if the symbol was arbitrary, it would not be unjustified that people feel that way when they are cheated on. If agreeing to the sharing of the same cookie-diet was conventionally seen as a gesture of intimacy and a defining symbol of marriage in our culture, it would likely have a similar effect.
But it isn’t arbitrary. Physical intimacy is an essential element to marriage; some would say a defining characteristic, and sex brings this to a maximum. Otherwise it would be little more than a friendship with economic benefits. The reason that physical intimacy is key to a good marriage, and why we consider it right for couples to have a monopoly over each other’s sex lives, seems to be benefits for evolutionary fitness, thus both cultural and natural.

By: Leaf

Leaf — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:01:08 +0000

I wouldn’t say that it’s on par, obviously eating a cookie and sleeping with someone carry different weight. I just think a certain number of cookies can add up to the same weight over time, and we should be aware that small acts of deception can be causing damage even while forgiven at the time they happened. I agree our intuitions and beliefs definitely don’t match, but then I don’t believe we interpret our intuitions correctly much of the time, similar to how a child will react to a situation physically but can’t articulate beyond “I don’t know” or some indirect reply. Every year piles of new books come out to explain why we do things, because we never quite sure. Of course, we shouldn’t dismiss them entirely since they carry a lot of emotional value to people, but I think we’re better off when we’re open to discussing what the source is. I suppose what I’m thinking is that we base our relationships on contract but be sympathetic to intuition, then revise the contract based on that. Since a contract can’t cover every situation, we’re forced to bring in intuition, and that just makes a mess of things…and now I’m just rambling…

By: neil

neil — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:22:18 +0000

Leaf, your comment implies that the man who secretely ate the cookies really is committing an infidelity, on par with sleeping with someone else. He broke trust when he snuck off to the grocery store. I think that is a perfectly rational, consistent view, but it does not seem to fit with the intuitions most of us have about the case. (I take it that’s what you mean when you say that our view of infidelity is skewed.) I was pointing out that there is a possible divergence between our intuitions and our beliefs — we believe that the harm is from promise-breaking, but we intuit that the harm is from the sex. You seem to be suggesting we should ditch the intuition and try to go all-in on the contract theory. That is certainly one solution.

Arthur, I think you and I disagree about the data, or at least in our hypotheses about it since we have no actual data, but agree on the basic principle — that the contract theory on its own is insufficient. We agree there is a harm beyond promise-breaking. That was all I was trying to establish here. As a matter of hypothesis, I don’t think the gender variations will be especially large, nor very important, since I believe that most people are harmed by infidelity because of the close connection they tend to form, or worry that their partners tend to form, as a result of sex. In any case the two crucial questions remain unanswered. First, why do we think sex and intimacy are so closely tied together? Is there a natural connection, or merely a cultural one, and would we be better off trying to disentangle the two? Second, why do we want emotional monogamy — what is the harm in allowing our partner to form intimate connections with people besides ourselves?

By: Leaf

Leaf — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:51:33 +0000

@arthur schafer – I have heard this argument before, but even though there may be different levels of reaction to different types of infidelity, it doesn’t change the fact that both can be treated as betrayal and both can hurt, whether male or female. We can put it anywhere on a scale, but the scale is still measuring the same thing.

I think the most important point here is that our view of both sexual and emotional infidelity is skewed, and that not breaking trust should be what’s important to us. Beyond that, we can negotiate any sort of relationship rules we want. No two relationships will ever be the same in every way.

By: arthur schafer

arthur schafer — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:29:29 +0000

To summarize your theory, Neil, “It’s the sex, stupid”. This may be true for many/most men but I suspect it’s not true for most women. Ask some women this question: “You discover that your husband/partner has had a one-night-stand while out-of-town on a business trip”. How upset are you (on a scale of 1-10). Then, ask the same women this second question: “You discover that your husband/partner has a female friend at work with whom he shares intimate problems and feelings, problems and feelings which he does not share with you or, alternatively, which he also shares with you.” How upset are you (on a scale of 1-10).

I want to offer you a wager. I’ll wager that most women would be more upset by either of the second two alternatives, both of which involve sharing intimacy with another woman, than they would be with one instance of casual sex.

If I’m right about this then, for women at least, it’s not so much the sex as the intimacy. It would be easier to forgive sexual infidelity than emotional promiscuity or non-exclusivity. I concede that men are more likely to be upset by sexual infidelity or find it more threatening than emotional infidelity.