The American Heritage Dictionary defines
fidelity as:
NOUN:
1. Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances; implies the unfailing fulfillment of one's duties and obligations and strict adherence to vows or promises:
I'm critiquing a book for a good friend. The book is great—a paranormal kicker that has all kinds of unusual twists—but part of the plot concerns a man who engages in a sexual relationship with a married woman … on the Internet.
The setup is this: They began as colleagues then became friends and confidantes. It seemed natural that they should become online lovers as well. Rarely did they talk on the phone and they never met in person. Now, in the book, the man tells a woman-friend about this and she reams him a new one.
Okay, I thought,
he deserves that. After all, his online lover was married and their IM logs were smoking with a whole lot more than dirty talk. But the female character acted like an unwanted conscience. She didn’t stop with ONE reaming out—she went on and on, until finally I had to stop and reason with this character. (Yes, I often talk to characters, even ones who aren’t my own.)
Dee: What’s the deal here? Give the guy a break. It’s not like he dragged this woman to a Holiday Inn and forced her to betray her husband in the most shameful and degrading ways. Making her lick him and touch him—
Conscience: I get the picture.
Dee: Well, okay. I mean it’s debatable whether they even committed adultery. The two never even kissed much less exchanged bodily fluids. They didn’t share a bed or a night or feel skin against skin. Her sweet aroma never filled the air and his groan of passion—
Conscience: Good Lord, will you stop? You’re right, they never did any of those things.
Dee: So what’s the big deal? They chatted, they got hot and heavy, they got off and then she tucked in beside her husband. Who’s the loser?
Conscience: Tsk, tsk. How
long it’s been since you were in catechism listening to Sister Mary Paul. Didn’t she tell you that sinning in the heart is the same as sinning in reality? For those minutes of chatting, that woman committed adultery, and the guy encouraged it since he knew she was married. She gave her online lover access to emotions that by right should only have gone to her husband.
Okay, I think bringing age into this was hitting below the belt. Just like a lousy, good-for-nothing conscience. It
has been a hell of a long time since I’d sat before Sister Mary Paul but she had been unrelenting: Thinking a sin = doing a sin. That fear alone had kept me in line during the BJ years. (Get your mind out of the gutter! In this case, BJ means Before Jack.)
Anyway, this whole "are they guilty - are they not guilty" thing got me thinking. Where is the line drawn? If I go to a party and see a good looking guy and I imagine him with no clothes, am I betraying my marriage vows? If a husband drinks a little too much at the local bar and makes a pass at a woman that goes no farther, is he a cheating bastard? How far does harmless flirting have to go before I’ve crossed the line? What about fantasies? If a husband imagines Nicole Kidman for a second while he’s making love with his wife, where does put him on the adultery meter?
To see how other people thought about this I conducted a very scientific survey. Okay, I asked four people, but two men and two women, so I thought that would be scientific enough.
The results were interesting. I started the scenario with the two women sitting together. “Suppose a man talked to a woman online in a sexual way. They never met, just chatted online and—“
“I’d never put up with that,” said Lady Number 1. “No way.”
“Me, either.” Lady Number 2 didn’t seem to need to hear more.
“But it’s not like they checked into a hotel room or anything, they just talked sex.” Gosh, I at least wanted to get to question two.
“I don’t care,” said Lady Number 1. “It’s the same thing to me.”
“Right,” chimed in Lady Number 2. “It’s cheating.” She nodded at me. From the corner of my eye I saw Lady Number 1 cross her arms.
Okay.
I asked the two men separately. Both of them took their time and really thought about their answers. I also noticed that before they answered, their eyes lit up as though thinking about what that might be like.
“I don’t know,” said Man Number 1. “I’m not sure it would be. I mean, it’s just talk, right?”
“Just talk,” I said. “The man and woman would never meet.”
“Well, I don’t see where it would be cheating,” he said. Then he stopped and thought again. “Unless … if they developed a relationship. If they talked online multiple times and he went online for the purpose of talking to her, then that would betray his wife’s trust.” Then he kind of breathed a sigh. He smiled.
He could go home and face his wife, his smile said. He’d come up with the right answer.
The second man was Jack. He thought about the answer a little too long for my comfort. “Flirting is okay as long as both parties know the limits,” he said. “But regular online meetings between a guy and woman where they have sex talk is a relationship and that’s too far.” He waited a moment, watching me.
I smiled and patted his hand. “Great answer, Sweetie.”
He smiled back. “I know. I learned how to handle trick questions a long time ago.”
So, what do you think? When is it crossing the line between a man and woman not bound to each other through marriage or mutual agreement? I wish I could offer the book I’m critiquing as a prize for the best answer—it’s a good one!
If I don't respond right away to your posts, it's becasue I'm still working and don't have access to a computer until I come home. So hang with me!
Thanks for visiting—
Dee
