When I married I said a vow that said " from this day forward, forsaking all others".

Squid and I decided to take that vow when we WANTED to move into a position of security with each other.

Before marriage we HOPED each other would be faithful, bt we realised that no nails were holding us together.

I ask because it is as plain as the nose on my face to me that BEFORE marriage, the compulsion to be faithful or 'decent' is one of personal morality NOT any formal responsibility. Both parties know what they're getting because they're not married.

I seem alone on Alphs thread on thinking this way.

Am I unusual in this respect ? Its not commendable to two time a BF or GF but there is no formal framework of expected trust there is there?

I'd be interested to hear the views of the fine folks on the boards.

ps I was dumped by Dawn Green when I was 17. I was GUTTED but I'm not at all bitter 'cos I met Squid soon after <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I am with you on this one Bob.

Legally? No.

Morally, ethically, courteously and just plain decent-ly? Yes.
Mulan

Bob, I am with you, there is a huge difference between the level of obligation between a married couple and a BF/GF. They are not even in the same orbit system. With the former, there is a formal committment, with the latter there is no committment; maybe an expectation at best.

I'm with Mulan

One can still be a liar and a cheat prior to marriage, but it does not constitute adultery and/or an affair.

Once you marry you make a vow to God or a legal affirmation that binds you. Not so prior.

The definition of "adultery" has already been established. BF/GF does not come into play. Cheating on your SO, does not threaten a "family" It may speak to character, and one should heed that if considering marriage, but it is not adultery and should not be viewed as such.

One can be crushed by it, I’m not trying to minimize that, but after the shock of being cheated on by your SO, you should be happy, cuz now you can see that they are not marriage material!

Another vote for Mulan's take. Before marriage it's about your self respect and how you want to be as an individual. No written framework there.

Lots of couples don't have formal proposals, but DO develop an understanding that they will marry.

In that case, a betrayal is a betrayal of personal integrity, if not technically an infidelity.

I'd be interested to know if any of you who posted that pre-marital = no-commitment, had unprotected sex before marriage with your current spouse?

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to offer a respectful disagreement with some of this.

I have 24 neices and nephews range from about 6 weeks to 33 years. I have a son in his early 20s. I have 2 baby brothers in their early 20s. I'm a devoted aunt.

Let me tell you how this works. Say you and my son are dating. You haven't had the commitment talk. You start seeing other guys. Son's not real happy but that's the way it goes.

Ok. Nephew and you are dating. Things have been moving along. You make promises, you have the commitment talk. You screw other guys, the family hears about it. Hey we liked you before but you are not only out of his life, I don't like you and everyone in the family has lost respect for you. You're no longer welcome 'round here.

(In this scenario, she tried to crawl back later. No go.)

Ok. Nephew meets new girlfriend. Things move along. They have the commitment talk. They move in together. Into my Grandmother's house I might add, rent free. Commitment is expected and if not maintained whoever breaks it is out on her a$$. (Nephew wouldn't, you should have seen how upset with Mr_Incredible he was. Very strong values around here.)

Real life scenarios.

You make a commitment, it ain't technically adultery, but it shows the type of untrustworthy person you are, thereby you give up your standing in the running of serious partner / marriage material. It's viewed on the same level.

the compulsion to be faithful or 'decent' is one of personal morality NOT any formal responsibility. Both parties know what they're getting because they're not married.

This is what I said. I can't work out who disagrees with me.

pre-marital = no-commitment

I never said that TA.

Lots of couples don't have formal proposals, but DO develop an understanding that they will marry.

I guess I am one of those people that believes that an "understanding" doesn't nail anything down. Goodness, one person can "understand" that they are going to get married, and the other person remain clueless! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

I have to agree that a dating situation dealing with cheating is totally different than a marriage dealing with infidelity.

I don't even consider it infidelity UNLESS they are married. I would not use the word infidelity describing it to someone either.

JMHO
committed

So..if they're living together and it's the same....why get married then other than to get 3 - 4 of her closest friends to buy some gawdy over-priced custom made dresses that no one in their right mind would wear again.

Sorry BOB..I re-read the topic and you're referring to non-cohabitiating couples.....I've gotten drawn into the digression.

So can you define what level of trust/commitment you would expect?

At what point would you become fully trusting? At the altar? How much would you trust up to that point?

How much would you trust a year into the relationship? How much would you trust if your partner promised sexual exclusivity and asked for you to reciprocate? How much would you trust if your partner gave you access to her current account and put you on her car insurance? At what point do you 'decide' to trust that person's honesty and integrity?

If she wouldn't actually live with you prior to marriage, would that negate all the trust?

And what kind of trust would you expect? I'm not suggesting total trust while you're not yet formally bound to each other, but some level of trust is appropriate, surely?

The marital commitment formalises a promise and raises the stakes, but it rarely effects a dramatic chemical change in an individual. If you can't trust someone before that moment, why should you trust them afterwards?

Would you advise wearing rubbers all the way to the honeymoon suite?

TA

I would say that until the person is married, there is no real formal committment. Maybe an informal agreement for exclusivity certainly, but it's not the same as a formal committment. I would expect complete exclusivity in the pre-marital stage, but wouldn't consider it adultery if they weren't faithful. Trust and fidelity would be an expectation while dating, but it's sure not binding until the person makes a public, legal committment.

No-one's answered my question. Did none of you have unprotected sex with your spouse before marriage?

If so, at what point did you decide it was safe? And on what did you base your decision?

I'm not getting your point, TA. Can you elaborate?

I think it was after the 4th or 5th pint. Probably based my decision on the same thing. Lighten up.....we were kids, do you think I thought about all the ramifications? Does that imply unequivical trust or rather youthful stupidity?

ROFL! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

For me, I dated long distance (London/Liverpool). Seemed perfect because it enabled me to have a boyfriend but still mess around a bit with my friends. We never spoke about what we expected from one another during that time and I considered myself far too young to settle down. However, once he placed an engagement ring on my finger, my whole perspective changed and I knew we were taking things to the next level.

As for Dawn Green, I wonder how you'd feel if she contacted you on Friends Reunited? Peter and his family always said he was 'gutted' when Tina dumped him. But luckily it paved the way for him to meet me!! Fast forward 20 years and they contact each other again and ... Obviously that first love bond is a strong one.