Talk:Infidelity

March 2006

I propose that this article is amended to reflect the more widely-understood definition of infidelity, i.e. sexual unfaithfulness. The current i am a chicken and would like to eat some pie now Also isn't the rest of the definition of sexual infidelity a bit on the woolly liberal side?? --Thoughtcat 08:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the religious definition. I don't think it's what people expect to find here. I can't really argue with the wooly liberal thing, but I was trying to stave off complaints from polyamorists that not everyone who has sex with person B while in a relationship with person A is engaging in infidelity—I think it's an NPOV issue. That said, I'm a wooly liberal myself, so I will readily admit to the possibilty of having gone too far in the other direction and being unable to recognize it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Better article elsewhere

This article is, frankly, not very complete or encyclopedic - it is barely more than a stub. The subject is dealt with far more fully and in a far more encyclopedic way over at Incidence of Monogamy. I think this page should just be a redirect there. No useful content would be lost.

(Actually I made the redirect to a full article at Adultery.

DanB†DanD 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Affair and Emotional Affair

I suggest re-opening this page and merging the contents of the other two into this one. Then apply careful links to some related topics in order to faciltate the reader's research of this area viz: Adultery, Affair, Emotional affair, Mistress (lover), Friendship, Monogamy, Incidence of Monogamy, Forms of nonmonogamy such as Polyamory, Polygyny. Platonic love and Romantic friendship as well as Human bonding, Human sexuality, Interpersonal chemistry, Intimate relationship, Intimacy, Emotional intimacy, Physical intimacy. And the related topics for example: Lovemaps, Love styles, Romantic love, Love (scientific views). Then there are the Sugar daddy, Transactional sex, Enjo kōsai articles and the series on Love.--Ziji 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Begun merge with See Also sub-header

Please don't delete any of the links in the sub header, even if they offend. It has taken me ages to find them. It is not yet complete. I have tried to make this list useful to any one from any culture or religion researching the topic through wikipedia. I have included incest because some extra marital affairs could conceivably be statutory rape in some cultures, a concensual crime in others and depending on the proximity of relationship (eg 1st cousin, step child) or variation of age of consent or differing cultural defintions of sexual contact --Ziji 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm coninuing a merge by steath - have moved the section on office romance from Affair back into it's own article and wikified it, placed it in a broader context. In the process reduced Affair by one section and at same time edited and improved Affair, which now might stand on its own?--Ziji (talk email) 22:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition

At this moment, infidelity is defined through definitions of fidelity, perhaps somehow the result should be that the word is defined through its proper denominator? As one can see, there's more fidelity definition in this Infidelity article than there is in the actual Fidelity article, which is rather a stub than a good article. How do we cope with definitions of words that are their opposites?
thedarkestclear ^Talk 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Operationally? Would it help if we defined each type, such as sexual infidelity, by its acts and effects - always a bit long winded but can be done without reference to fidelity per se? I checked the fidelity article - you are right it is a stub and this article defines fidelity better as well.--Ziji (talk email) 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Check the first sentences:
(1) Infidelity is literally a breach of faith. (2) Fidelity, derived from the Latin word for faithfullness, is the principle of not deceiving one capable of being deceived. (3) Infidelity is a breach of good faith that applies in a number of other contexts (for example religious). (4) In the context of this article about close relationships, the infidelity referred to is also called cheating, defined as "any violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of a relationship".
(1) and (3) are the same, whilst (2) is defined from fidelity instead of infidelity, and (4) overlaps (3) with a confusing of context. These four points could be put in one to two sentences, followed by the fact various contexts can exist (as with any concept). I'll give it a shot.
thedarkestclear ^Talk 09:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thatt would be much clearer and if you don't get to it I will have a shot, at same time as following your thoughts on a merge.--Ziji (talk email) 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Ziji, I noticed you're working on Emotional Affair and other articles on the subject and you suggested merging that article into Infidelity, how is your stance on this now? I saw you placed and removed Emotional Affair's merge tag, and you're now looking how to place articles such as Office Romance etc. Either case, Infidelity is the subject that contains the core of this subject: a breach of connection between two parties, other articles such as Emotional Affair, Office Romance etc., rather are various ways of "interpreting" that core (for example a physical or emotional breach, or both). Henceforth, what'd you think about merging anyway, or at least keeping a to the point core, apart from interpretations (for example in subdivisions). All the information concerning the core problem is divided over different articles about the same subject, either case. How would you see it?
thedarkestclear ^Talk 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi darkestclear. I am still of the view that the core (and separate) articles are Infidelity and Adultery. The rest are as you say, variations. I have made Office romance more in the org psych/sex harrassment realm and that may not merge so well into Infidelity. But the rest definitely belong here. Do you have the time for the merge and tidy up job?--Ziji (talk email) 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ziji, I agree with your view and I do have the time to have a look on it. Step one is to take out all definitions of one subject out of other articles that use these definitions reversedly ("let's first say what it is NOT", or "infidelity is the opposite of fidelity, and fidelity is......"), put them to the right subject and work on from there.
thedarkestclear ^Talk 09:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will help along those lines as I get some time into July. I will keep in touch here--Ziji (talk email) 10:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Having done some more work on the six articles: Affair, Emotional affair, Adultery, Infidelity, Office romance and Extramarital sex, the one most needing styrict editing remains Affair. I would prefer to merge it into Infidelity but the problem is where to put those affairs which do not breach faith or a covenant of monogamy. 'Affair' remains in common usage and often where infidelity or adultery would be more accurate. On balance I now think these 6 related articles are a better solution than two on Infidelity and Adultery. I will now go and slice into Affair. Any thoughts?--Ziji (talk email) 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have made a number of small and larger edits to the page after some time being away from the page. I would like to add a new section about children conceived in or witnesses to an affair. And perhaps a little more about the recent changes to Family LAw in Australia, that introduces a new risk to extramarital affairs of 2 or more years duration - that is that they may be considered defacto by the court. Children conceived in an affair may apply to the court for assistance--Ziji (talk email) 07:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have often thought that there are many types of betrayal that are not explicitly sexual or romantic/emotional attachment. Withdrawal of affection (emotional and physical) is certainly a betrayal, and can be a causal factor prompting sexual or emotional betrayal by the spouse experiencing the withdrawal. We can argue semantics, but if we're trying to get at understanding ... it's a bit more convoluted that clear cut definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.21.16 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported assertions

This article violates policy in many ways. Just to concentrate on lack of support, the first sentence begins: "Infidelity is any violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of a relationship..." This un-footnoted statement is not only controversial but poorly written. (As written, it means that if I have agreed to clean up the dishes each Tuesday dinner but fail to, I have committed infidelity.) The second paragraph begins "There are two types of infidelity: sexual and emotional." This blanket statement also has no footnote. But it's controversial: if you ask ten people for a definition of infidelity, I'll bet the majority respond by referring only to sexual infidelity. The largest area of disagreement would probably be in the definition of sexual infidelity. Under "Different Types of Infidelity" the third sentence reads: "There are five types of infidelity." The footnoted source is the personal opinion of one Cathy Meyer; moreover, Ms. Meyer is misquoted. What she actually says is, "Below is a list of reasons for infidelity." She makes no claim that there are not, say, twenty-nine reasons for infidelity, or for that matter six billion. In any case she is no Kuebler-Ross. A glance at the footnotes shows that most sources fall into the categories of personal opinion or journalism; only two (from the Mayo Clinic public website) appear even vaguely academic. In sum, this article is a string of unsupported personal opinions and should either be completely rewritten or deleted.C. Cerf (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Marvelous comment, put a wry smile on my face, please edit the article to clarify those issues and by all means, nominate it for deletion. It would be a relief not to have to watch this page.--Ziji (talk email) 23:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

US Military

I have removed the following from the main article because its subject matter is divorce not infidelity.

== Infidelity in the U.S. Military ==

The divorce rate among soldiers increased in 2007 as military marriages suffered continuing stress from America's two . An estimated 10,200 failed marriages in the active duty Army and 3,077 among Marines were recorded in the budget year that ended September 30.

That is a divorce rate of 3.5 per cent among more than 287,000 married troops in the Army, up from 3.3 per cent in the previous financial year, according to Defense Department figures. "With increasing demands placed on Army families and soldiers, including frequent deployments and relocations, intimate relationships are tested," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce. The spouses left behind also find it difficult to be separated from the military member while he or she is deployed and seek comfort; emotionally, intimately, and physically.

--Ziji (talk email) 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Gay male (sexual) infidelity?

In the "Incidence of Infidelity" section, there is a dubious, uncited assertion:

"Gay men are more likely than lesbians to commit sexual infidelity. Study by Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) showed that 82% of gay male couples reported having nonmonogamous relationships, while lesbian couples reported 28%."

Their description of the Blumstein and Schwartz study would suggest that gay men have more nonmonogamous relationships than lesbians, not more (sexual or non-sexual) infidelity. Somebody should check this (now dated) study and either re-word or delete this part from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.220.250 (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Operatic characters

I'm deleting the bit about how the arts are rampant with egotistical adulterers and so forth, which appears to be a thinly veiled rant from someone who was cheated on by an opera singer. The only source in the whole thing, entitled "examples of operatic characters and infidelity", was just a link to some opera singer's (presumably the one who did the cheating) web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtPhysics149 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. --McGeddon (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

The Wikipedia manual of style suggests that the title of the article should be the subject of the first sentence. The recent edit of that intro paragraph does not follow this guideline. I think the recent edit may have solved some problems with the old lead, but I think we should attempt to adjust it to be in accord with project standards. Jojalozzo 22:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to German page

The link to the german page is misleading, the page there describes infidelity as a punishable crime and not infidelity in relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.102.98 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Defense Mechanisms to Prevent Infidelity

Defense Mechanisms to Prevent Infidelity = Original research. This article is the most POV and biased article I've come across on Wikipedia. It must be ignored by the experienced editors because a rewrite is in order!178.25.213.210 (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of POV language

I do not think that the repeated use of "cheating" is appropriate in an encyclopedia, as it is judgemental and tabloid. It is also inappropriate for situations in which deceit is not involved. I suggest that it be replaced with neutral language.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidence of Infidelity

I'm proposing to remove the first two sentences in the "Incidendce of Infidelity" subsection. The sentences read:

"Some researchers say there's a 50–50 chance today that one partner will have an affair during a marriage including non-physical relationships.[1] It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage.[3]"

In fact, the first sentence incorrectly cites from a USA Today article. In that article, there is no mention of "50-50 chance that one partner will have an affair". The article does cite research establishing that:

"Rates among older women tripled from 5% in 1991 to 15% in 2006; rates among men rose from 20% to 28%. About 20% of younger men and 15% of younger women say they cheated, up from about 15% and 12%, respectively."

As for the second sentence, the citation referenced is from a private website "Truth in Deception". Not an appropriate primary or secondary source. Further, this sentence conflicts with the first citation from USA Today and its referencing of the published research.

If editors agree, I will remove the two proposed sentences. Thank youRonsword (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I support removing those statements but there are reliable sources that discuss rates for infidelity so it deserves mention. A blog on Psychology Today's web site says University of Chicago's General Social Survey consistently reports "12 percent of men, 7 percent of women" admit having an affair in their periodic surveys. Jojalozzo 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with replacing the above sentences with the U of Chicago data you cite. However, the initial misquote ("50-50 chance" of extramarital affair) was from a USA Today article (see 1st reference) which also cites the U of Chicago General Social Survey; according to that USA article, rates of infidelity were 15% female and 28% male. Suggestions?Ronsword (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The GSS cumulative (1972-2010) results are as follows: 75.4% of the respondents were married and 13.4% of those had sex with someone other than their spouse during marriage. That gives us an infidelity rate of 18%. The link for these results is: http://sda.berkeley.edu/sdasearch/?study=gss10&query=evstray http://sda.berkeley.edu/sdasearch/?study=gss10&query=evstray] (EVSTRAY is the GSS variable name for this question). In any individual year we'd get different results (and it seems the rate is increasing) which can explain the various results reported in the press. I propose we go with the cumulative numbers (with the primary GSS source) since they will be more stable but we could also mention that the rate is increasing using any of the many news articles to support it. Jojalozzo 01:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The link doesn't work for me...it only shows a page with a question on it; the 'view' link doesn't work either. Any other links to the actual study you cite? Like to give it a look over.Ronsword (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Try the "Go" link to run the search for evstray variable results. My starting point for working with GSS is: http://www3.norc.org/gss+website/ http://www3.norc.org/gss+website/. Jojalozzo 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back so late. Yea, I agree with including the data from the GSS survey you cite (12% male/7% female) as it sounds like a reliable source. For additional consideration: I'd like to also possibly include two more divergent and reliable studies (to highlight the sometimes variability/difficulty in acquiring reliable date): the Atkin's study from the U of Washington, Seattle (as cited in US Today) found a slightly higher rate for older and younger populations, while the National Marriage Project, University of Maryland, found a slightly decreasing rate, in general. So, we can cite the GSS stats as one of the more reliable core studies, but then, perhaps, include a brief description of how there may be slight divergences in the data, with some studies showing slightly higher infidelity rates (possibly so in older/younger populations), but other studies showing possibly decreasing rates? Ronsword (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: National Marriage Project - University of Virginia :-) Ronsword (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go ahead an make the change, as no one has added or challenged the data presented above since discussion started one month ago.Ronsword (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

An old study done in the 1800s - when grain was harvested by scythe ( large gangs of men moved from farm to farm) - statistically showed that about 50% of children born during a marriage were not the husbands. This was in the days before contraception. 2601:181:8301:4510:6126:3874:20F5:56C2 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Legality opinion

I removed a section that appeared to be an editor's opinion rather than the opinion of the sources. It has the markings of a copy-paste job from an external document. I am pasting the content here in case it has value:

Marriage is a very common thing in today’s society. It is estimated that 85% of American adults will get married (Campbell and Wright 329). Along with the high rate of marriages, studies have shown that 97% of Americans see cheating as morally wrong (Campbell and Wright 333). The belief that marriages should last forever and remain monogamous has been around since marriages first began (Campbell and Wright 331). With this being said, why have studies shown that over 50% of men and women will cheat on their spouse (Major 60)? American’s beliefs do not match the way they act. Laws against adultery have been around for over 200 years, but are no longer regularly enforced (Turley). These laws should be enforced. Adultery can cause great harm to both spouses and any children involved. It is an act that can harm people emotionally. When the cheating becomes known to a spouse, it can cause feelings of worthlessness, fear, sadness, and despair (Marano 68). Children will eventually feel these same effects as the marriage falls apart and they find out the truth. If laws are enforced to protect the population, why shouldn’t the pain caused by adultery be punishable?

Resources:

Campbell, Kelly and David W. Wright. “Marriage Today: Exploring the Incongruence between Americans’ Beliefs and Practices.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 41.3 (2010): 329-345. EBSCOdatabase. Web. 1 Apr. 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aclin.org:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4ed8f818-f561-4085-9570-17a0443acb53%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=107

Major, Ish. “Why Do They Cheat and Lie?.” USA Today Magazine 139.2788 (2011): 60-62. EBSCOdatabase. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aclin.org:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d63ecdb8-0fe4-4dc6-b005-576342543bf4%40sessionmgr12&vid=8&hid=4

Marano, Hara Estroff. “From Promise to Promiscuity.” Psychology 45.4 (2012): 60-69. EBSCOdatabase. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aclin.org:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d63ecdb8-0fe4-4dc6-b005-576342543bf4%40sessionmgr12&vid=6&hid=4

Turley, Jonathan. “Adultery, in Many States, is Still a Crime.” USA Today. 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.htm

Jojalozzo 22:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-WP intro

The intro is a citation - albeit it a definition - taken from one author, followed by another sentence taken from another author. And to call it "a subjective feeling" is so out off the mark, I can't believe it has been left to stand. Infidelity is not a feeling. In some legislatures, it is even a crime, in many it has legal status (grounds for divorce; grounds for disowning/ disinhering a spouse). It is not a feeling. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Calling the USA a homogeneous culture?

In the "Other Contributing Factors" section there is a claim that states "Furthermore, within a "homogeneous culture," like that in the United States". Maybe I am incorrect about my definition of homogeneous culture, but I would definitely not consider the US to be homogeneous. I mean, the nickname of the US is "The melting pot".

Is it possible that the source is either misquoted, or that the source is not an accurate source of information?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Infidelity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110821053741/http://www.dailytargum.com:80/university/adultery-has-roots-in-psychology-biology-1.2208541 to http://www.dailytargum.com/university/adultery-has-roots-in-psychology-biology-1.2208541

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infidelity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229202935/http://psychology.utk.edu/people/gordon.html to http://psychology.utk.edu/people/gordon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infidelity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314023645/http://netaddiction.com/articles/cyberaffairs.htm to http://www.netaddiction.com/articles/cyberaffairs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

wow, what a mess

For starters, how is it that an article entitled Infidelity has any space filled with nattering about adultery? If they aren't clearly distinguishable concepts, then the articles ought to be merged.

Throughout, I see plenty of original research, personal essay, and synthesis, not to mention poor grammar and usage. Some subsections appear to have been placed randomly, and I noted a bit of redundancy, indicating that people are splodging their hobbyhorses and class papers here without actually reading the article first. Clearly, pruning is long overdue.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

So as to not repeat myself about merging, I'm just going to link to this. As for WP:OR, our WP:OR policy states, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." With a note, it states, "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Most of the material in the article, as currently seen, is sourced. If any of the sources don't support the content, then, yes, that content is WP:Synthesis, which is an aspect of our WP:OR policy. Some wording in the article clearly needs cleanup, and I see that you've cleaned up some of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have taken a few minutes to rework the overall structure, specifically attempting to bunch related topics together so as to make the redundancy more readily apparent, and incidentally in hope of creating a more logical flow. As a result, there are now section headings that make even less sense than previously, which was sometimes little enough. Anyone with more apt heads in mind is welcome to have a fling.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I undid your changes. Most of what you added was uncited. PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll guess that you're very new around here. Please check my changes, and take note of how I did not add much, and that entire list has been lurking around here for YEARS. I'm confident someone will assist you in learning how to use the revision history pages effectively.

Being an editor consists of MUCH more than doing mindless reverts and deletions — if it were so simple, there'd be bots handling those tasks. For instance, I have actually taken a few moments to research the organization asserted to have published that list, and will preserve the list until I can establish a source.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Before you accuse anyone else of being "mindless", maybe you could read WP:CIVIL. I went for a hard delete not just because because the list wasn't ref'd, but because I when I did my best to hunt down the "International Infidelity Law Consortium" and its "standardized definition of infidelity", I came up completely empty-handed. The Consortium doesn't seem to exist, and the list is pretty much confined to dodgy bit-on-the-side dating sites. PepperBeast (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment, as being point-by-point verifiable by anyone who could be stirred to care. For instance, that move is an entirely different concept from add, as even young children can discern.

By day, I am a mechanical troubleshooter. An old aphorism has it that one should not attribute to malice what can be well-explained by ineptitude; I am far from perfectly apt, and I accept that you are not malicious. (A foolish act doesn't always indicate a foolish person.)Evidence of a middle path is always welcome.

However, you do appear to have lost touch with what set all this off. Namely,

• there is an eleven-point List of Escalating Infidelitous Acts (presently hatted) that for years was lodged deep in the bowels of Infidelity.
• I found it, and thought it deserved to be moved closer to the beginning because it nicely illustrated how some acts can be "more infidelitous" than others,
• therefore I moved it.
• the list was credited to "The International Infidelity Law Consortium." I thought the organization sounded intriguing, and wanted to see who makes up the membership, but upon looking up the website found it defunct.
• before I could make a foray into the Wayback Machine, someone popped in here, erased the list without doing any actual work, and chided me (waving a superior finger) for making stuff up.
• disgusted, I walked away from it.

Dudgeon aside, there's actual editing that could be done 'round here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still unsourced content. You're still making personal attacks. Stop it. PepperBeast (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

list of escalating infidelitous acts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A standardized definition of infidelity, used by the International Infidelity Law Consortium, includes the following acts: sexual fantasy with someone outside marriage talking with an attractive stranger flirting exchanging contact details meeting up without accompanying spouse(s) playful touching kissing erotic massage one night stand regular sexual intercourse established affair with long-term commitment Netorare listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Netorare. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC) "Jaime ellis" listed at Redirects for discussion A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jaime ellis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Jaime ellis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Polyamory (and swinging) should be removed Polyamory and swinging don't belong in this article. They are no more related to infidelity than a section on monogamy, or being single, or asexual. These are relationship styles/preferences/identities. Associating them with infidelity is offensive to members of those communities and to me personally (I am polyamorous). In fact, the incidence of infidelity in monogamous relationships is higher than in ethical non-monogamous relationships so maybe that should be included instead? Cataniaj (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Jeff Catania (Beyond Affairs Network Worldwide Lead)