Cheating as a concept doesn't exist in a vacuum, and Cheating is what is being argued.
True, from an anthropological perspective and polyamorous perspective, I was looking at one factor in cheating--the non-monogamous drive.
It's like saying humans are genetically predisposed to cheating in exams. An outrageous claim given exams aren't naturally occurring instances. If exams aren't natural we can't have any natural instincts towards them specifically.
Similarly, in relation to cheating in relationships, it's the betrayal of expected monogamy, that qualifies cheating. In a world with no societal expectation of monogamy there'd be no concept of cheating as we understand it.
Yes, the other factor would be a lack of integrity regarding agreements, regarding the well-being of those one proport to love.
I'm reminded of how some people assume it is impossible to cheat in polyamory. Polyamory will diffuse the non-monogamous drive, but it doesn't excuse the integrity factor. If anything, because non-monogamous options exist, because the culture doesn't impose a strict monogamous standard, polyamory actually requires a greater integrity, a greater responsibility to honor agreements.
Comparing stats on the levels of infidelity in contemporary times versus times when societies views of many things, relationships included, were vastly different isn't fair, it's a bad comparison.
The problem here is that it is hard to rely upon historical self-reporting of fidelity. Is there more infidelity now because of relaxed expectations, or do we just have more
acknowledged infidelity now. The only way to determine the truth of the matter, to get beyond self-reporting bias would be genetic testing. Much like we discovered about some assumed monogamous birds. We found that many will mate with one male for offspring, but stay with a more stable, less flashy male to raise chicks. It was quite a surprise to scientists who'd assumed that they were totally monogamous for life.
Being non-monogamous by nature is completely different that being cheaters by nature. In contemporary ethical non-monogamy, as I'm sure you know, everyone involved has to give knowing consent otherwise it's cheating, you're betraying the other person. No one partner can decide it's a poly or open relationship.
Already addressed above.
My reason for likening it to rape is this; using supposed natural instinct or genetic predisposition to any given behavior, in this case Cheating, and stripping it of it's societal moral judgments not to mention individual human agency, and treating it as, if not good, simply inevitable and thus something to be accepted is something that can be used on any negative behavior.
Rapists will often, already, claim that they just couldn't help or stop themselves. Cheaters the same.
Rape, and Consent, also don't exist in a vacuum. Much like everything else I've talked about are a human concept. There's rape the action, and rape the crime. Marital Rape was legal in Ireland until 1990, meaning the act of rape was not the crime of rape until the law changed.
Yes, they could be considered similar in that they both are self-centered actions that do not consider others. Rational or not, I see a big difference.
Cheating is a violation of one's partner, but unless the cheater has brought home an STI, the violation is more of an emotional/psychological nature.
In the case of rape, it's a very clear psychological, emotional, and physical violation of a person's body autonomy, a person's physical safety.
Cheating involves emotional harm on a third person. A sin of disregarding a supposed loved one.
Sexual assault/rape is all the harms on a first person basis. Causing active harm to an individual.
Of course, marital rape is both of those things.
All in all, I think we're more in agreement than discord.
