Talk:Extramarital sex

Non-Abrahamic religions

From the looks of it, only the Abrahamic religions care about extramarital sex. Maybe I will get around to contributing here sometime when I know more on the topic, but in the meantime I would appreciate it if someone could expand this article to cover some perspectives of other religious groups. AliaGemma 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't write with enough detail or accuracy to improve the article much, but it certainly isn't true that only the Abrahamic religions care. Hinduism in some of its forms is very particular, though I think this is slightly obscured to Western eyes because it often talks in terms of marriage: seduction (the woman drunk, asleep or insane) counts as a sort of wrongful marriage (Paisaca) rather than as extra marital sex. I don't know about any other religon, nor do I know how to solve that problem in a page on "Extra Marital Sex". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.14 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Abrahamic Religions (and, as mentioned aboce, some forms of Hinduism und Buddhism, though not all) are notable for being based on scriptures, not on tradition alone. This scripture causes them to be more strict. There have been moral restrictions of various kinds in many other CULTURES, but before the rise of the Abrahamic religions they've always been completely separate from religion- no one said something like "that's forbidden cause Hecate said so" or somethin. Indeed, preabrahamic mythology's full of many thing considered sin in abrahamic scriptures. Even Buddhism and Hinduism are much, much more open to interpretation than the Abrahamic religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.44.200 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

While not of a "universal" theme like the Abrahamic religions, there have been religious leaders from both the Buddhist and Hindu faith who have had strong words to say about extramarital sex. While a talk page like this certainly cannot point out everything said, a few major themes have been pointed out: betrayal of one's significant other; the body is a temple and extramarital sex defiles it; extramarital sex is an evil act which causes bad karma to those who believe in Hinduism and Buddism. Other lesser known religions have also been known to bash extramarital sex. Is it a relevant point to say that condemnation of extramarital sex can be regarded as a cultural universal? USN1977 (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Comments and votes on the merge are here.A J Hay 22:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternate merge proposal

This article seems largely to be a duplicate of the Sexual Ethics page. Kasreyn, can we maybe find some middle ground here, this is really starting to get silly. Since you hate the premarital sex article so much, but it just boggles my mind to what end creating even more articles about this kind of stuff is going to do, how about we delete this page or merge it and premarital sex into the morality and legality section on Sexual intercourse?JFQ 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, I did not create this page, I merely suggested it. I suggest you learn how to use the History function; it's a very powerful tool and it boggles my mind that you've gone as far as you have as a Wikipedian without knowing how to use it. I can hardly imagine living without it! Kasreyn 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sexual Ethics page seems much broader in scope than this page. In fact, this page seems to be an expansion of the Marriage subsection in the Sexual Ethics page. I would support putting a "main article: extramarital sex" in that Marriage subsection, and keeping this page.

The Sexual Intercourse article is already very long, and I don't see a good argument for adding even more information into it. The morality section should really be a summary of the Sexual Ethics page, broader information than what is contained in this article. I do not support a merge of this article into that section. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 14:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Swinging

Is it considered to be extra-martial sex too?

If it involves sex between two people who aren't married to each other, yes. —Angr 07:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Only if they are married to other people. Sex between consenting adults that are not married is called fornication by some, or just sexual intercourse generally. Atom 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been used as a "catch all" point as "sex where neither partner is married to each other", which can be used to justify punitive action where neither the man and woman were married. Some boarding schools and military bases in the UK and US have imposed regulations on their members that "This unit does not condone extra-marital sexual intimacy", which is also their way of shooting down arguments that punished offenders cannot claim no spouses were cheated on. USN1977 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

“ Extramarital sex is the act of having sex out of wedlock. This includes fornication, but is not only confined to it, including also adultery ”

I've always understood it to mean adultery, i.e. sex by a married person with someone other than the spouse. Was I wrong? Michael Hardy 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always understood it to mean sex between two people who are not married to each other. Whether one or both of them happens to be married to someone else is irrelevant. —Angr 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Extra" meaning "outside of" and "marital" meaning "marriage." Extramarital sex is any sex outside of marriage.

The included definition of adultery is also incorrect. It includes a married person of either gender who engages in sex with someone other than their spouse.

I feel the current definition is in fact incorrect. The oxford dictionary definition states simply that it is sex outside of marriage, not constraining it to an already married person (as I feel Merriam-Webster has incorrectly defined it) this article here [1] discusses the clergy and extramarital sex, and premarital sex is considered inclusive; Not only pertaining to a married affair with someone outside of the marriage. I am not sure why it was changed from the original definition which i felt was well adequate, Prev Diff of Revision as of 02:44, 11 January 2007 , the following revision modifies this without any citations aside from the author stating that this was correct. I believe that definitions should not be constrained to common use only and that all aspects should be addressed. While the use of extramarital referring to premarital sex is much less used, for the sake of accuracy it should not be omitted. Robeph (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another merge suggestion

Well, I think the articles about Fornication, Zina (Arabic) and Extra-marital relations have so much in common content that they could be merged into this article.--MaGioZal 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong support See Talk:Fornication and Talk:Premarital sex for previous discussions and votes on similar merge proposals. Kasreyn 04:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra-marital relations is now a redirect (it was redundant to begin with, and as written was Islam-centric); anything worthy of salvage can be placed here. Fornication and Premarital sex might be mergeworthy, though they are subsets of extramarital sex and are therefore separate subjects. Zina (Arabic), I would argue, appears to be a specific sharia legal concept and likely deserves a separate article simply because it assumes a certain context separate from the general idea of extramarital sex; they cover the same acts, but the Arabic word seems to have a specific connotation that does not exist outside Islamic jurisprudence. Haikupoet 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Zina (Arabic) article could be merged into as a specific separated section of the article.--MaGioZal 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Zina (Arabic) is an article about the Islamic jurisprudence of the topic, the article needs to be there. And the title name seems appropriate. However, a article summary could be inserted in this article. Oh, wait, it already does. --Striver 13:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

dont merge this with extramarital sex... extramarital sex is sex outside of marriage whilst one is married. pre-marital sex implies the complications of contraception, under age sex and the legal issues that accompany it, and religious perspectives on the topic. now please, let the Douchebagness stop and the flaming ensue. User ?

Strong Oppose: to merging either Zina or other "sexual mores" articles - An article that fully covered "extramarital sex" to encyclopedic depth would be very very very large. So far the article just begins to cover various cultures and societies. Historical variations and conflicting attitudes within each society and the degree of "practice" of the stated rules and whether the rules are "meant" to be practiced or are just a public statement of an ideal and private practice is considered largely unrelated to the stated morals, and what actually determines private practice, are unaddressed to date. And if thats the whole of it I'd be very surprised. With this volume of information in mind I see separate articles on different areas within "extramarital sex" as being the way to go. "Zina" appears a good example of this. Although already it appears that lumping all of Islam, for all time, together is going to produce far too large an article in the future. 21st Centuary Arabic zina is probably very different 14th centuary Turkish zina. Differentiate. SmithBlue 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, extramarital includes both unmarried people and adultery, which are very distinct issues. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to disagree with your assertion that the term "extra-marital sex" includes unmarried persons. That is either a definitive error or an assumption that relies on the implication that marriage is the default state of sexuality between persons. I posit that the assumption is a culturally influenced interpretation that probably could be found in some modern definitions, but likely is not an accuracy in its coinage. "pre-marital sex" carries a similar implication but to a far less degree that can be accounted for by the great cultural influence of the practice of marriage, but still not necessarily carrying an implication of marriage as the default position in sexuality. My point is: I've never known the term extra-marital to be used to include affairs between non married partners and I doubt very much that many other people have either. You would need to really bring some solid proof to suggest to me that the term was coined with that implication: that marriage is the default state of sexuality. Otherwise stating this as part of the definition of extra-marital is illogical considering the term "pre-marital" already coexists but also is not definitively accurate.99.49.254.141 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose merge: same reasoning as SmithBlue above. Zina is an example of the way to go in differentiating the area. Adultery, Affair, Infidelity and Fornication all have both distinct differences and overlap. There are other articles that cover Emotional affair and Office romance, which add another dimension to the topic, and it has been argued for merges there as well. I think it better to distinguish the areas than merge them, though it takes more work to do it well. You will notice at Infidelity#See_also I have placed a long list of related wikipedia articles that will show the studious reader the likely intersections of merges in this area--Ziji (talk email) 08:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Since I was last here Office Romance has been deleted and the list to help differentiate the area that I added to Infidelity#See_also has been wiped. Still oppose the merge of this article with the others.--Ziji (talk email) 18:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes I'd agree and strongly oppose frivolous merges, especially when the terms are obviously distinct. I don't understand this trend toward dumbing down and reduction of the encyclopedic vocabulary AWAY from refinement especially in the realm of online encyclopedic content the trend is a movement backwards away from the progress of information..and why? The only reasons I can think of offhand for terms and definitions be being removed is if it comes to light that their usage and existence in contemporary or historic communities/cultures is unverified(don't want people putting their personal lingo directly into wikipedia content..thats what "urban dictionary" is for), or if for some reason there is a technical difficulty keeping track and cataloging the information, so prioritization becomes a necessity.99.49.254.141 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Another merge suggestion

IMHO, this article should be merged with adultery. It is almost exactly the same thing (with different information, but the same topic), and, in fact, extramarital intercourse (which is the exact same thing as "extramarital sex") redirects to it. Any thoughts? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Adultery is a moral-religious term, while extramarital sex is a neutral term, which lends itself to an analysis of the incidence and consequences of such relations, without a moral aspect.Ewawer (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is overlap with all the usual suspects incl infidelity and adultery. However, I disagree with a merge for similar reasons to those who oppose other merge suggestions above. It is an operationally neutral term and includes non-married partners. I have been editing the article to improve it.--Ziji (talk email) 07:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge "adultery" into this article

I have noticed that the "adultery" article has a large overlap with this article - both articles refer to exactly the same subject from religious and legal perspectives, using different terminology. I think "adultery" is a more of a loaded word (with negative connotations) than "extramarital sex", so it would be best to merge the former into the latter (and not vice-versa). Jarble (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree: I think a merge would be a good idea. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe they should be merged; they are not the same topic: "extramarital sex" simply refers to the act of a married person having sex with someone other than their spouse; "adultery" is about the religious and legal concept. I think two different articles are acceptable; but this article focuses too much on religious views which belong in the adultery article not in this one. Maybe this article should contain other things, such as prevalence of extramarital sex, studies done on extramarital sex, context in which extramarital sex occurs etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:AB7D (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong definition ?

The OED defines 'extramarital' as 'outside marriage', the way in which I have always understood the term would include ALL sexual activity outside marriage (ie inc 2 single people). The definition used here equates to 'adultery'. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Looking at a US dictionary, the meaning is a synonym of 'adulterous', a UK dictionary lists as ALL relationships outside marriage.Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Exra marital has always meant outside of marriage but by a person who is married. This is a problem with relying to heavily on dictionaries for definitions. Dictionaries rarely if ever coin a term and cannot be relied on for accuracy of usage. By the time a temr comes into a dictionary it has already been culturally in use for many years. Not only this, but dictionaries frequently cut corners on definitions and leave out important contexts for the sake of brevity when its not an error. I'd be surprised if the coinage for these terms was impossible to research but we don't really have to do that in this case the etymology of extra implies that SOMETHING in this case marriage is included in the definition, but that the term is describing something that includes and goes beyond it. Therefore the inference is that the term refers to activities taking place outside of marriage but between at least one person who is married. The persons are going beyond the confines of their marriage. Generally including non married persons in the definition of EXTRA-marital is illogical unless we are to believe(or think that the coiners of the term believed) two things: A) that non married persons are still somehow married by default.(similar to how "pre-marital" implies that single persons WILL someday marry) and or B)that the coinage of the term was by someone who wished to convey that marriage was the default state of sexual relations, and or its usage has come to adopt that value. I personally wouldn't put my money on either of those last two possibilities being true, but most CERTAINLY NOT the latter. Given a multiple choice survey I think the vast majority would ascribe the term to be in reference to a person who is already married pursuing activities beyond their marriage(hence the "extra" though I concede that linguistically it is accurate to presume it refers to ANYTHING going on outside of marriage..any thing at all...) Especially if the survey also included the term "pre-marital" as an alternative to the definition related to persons who are not or have never been married. As a side bet I'd probably be willing to wager that the same persons or institution actually coined both terms and so by my logic it makes even less sense that one of the terms encompasses the definition of the other. By over generalizing the term based only on its lingual simplicity we are not only ignoring the implication of the use of the "extra" part..which COULD simply mean "outside" without the implication that there is an contextual "inside", but I certainly doubt it. I'll give an illustration: when astronauts go on their extra vehicular space walks there is an implication that they do indeed have a vehicle, but they're going outside of it. If that vehicle leaves or becomes inaccessible you better believe the astronauts are no longer referred to as EVA but probably then considered SOL or otherwise marooned. The agencies are not referring to astronauts as EVA when their sitting at home with their families on Earth having dinner. Similarly THIS term implies that there IS a marriage but someone is acting "outside" of its contracts. I firmly believe this term extra-marital is making use of the "additional" context of the term "extra". If we don't consider that a possibility and go on assuming the word makes use of its more general meaning then it stands to reason that it can be applied to simply being alive and not being married. If your single your living an extra marital lifestyle whether your engaing in sexuality or not. This gives far to much implication to marriage as the default state of being and I just don't agree that the coiners of this term meant to make this implication if so they could have stuck with the religiously stigmatized term adultery, since they would thus be stigmatizing their new term with some kind of religious or morally complex/advanced concept(that people are naturally married)...and I also don't believe that the above implication is popularized in usage of the term..its almost always in my experience used to describe an action of infidelity between at least one married person and someone they are NOT married to,concurrent to the existence of the marriage. I'm not saying the lingual assumption is wrong (I just don't know at this time) but I am saying its logically unlikely. 99.49.254.141 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Extramarital sex. 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/20090315002702/http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005results.asp to http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005results.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801084310/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215043802/http://www.interpol.com/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaOman.pdf to http://www.interpol.com/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaOman.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Christianity

I would recommend a re-wording of this paragraph. It almost seems that this section is an opinion rather than stating facts. Although there is accurate use of the bible, it is recommended not to quote primary sources as your main source of information. If we could find another source that is more scholarly that shares the same facts, it may be more convincing. Also changing the words from "extramarital sex has historically been considered to be one of the more serious and damaging sins, possibly because of passages like 1 Corinthians 6:18 that speak of it as sinning against one's own body." to "historically, extramarital sex has been condemned by the Christian church due to being considered a sin." (Aslider (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Extramarital sex. 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/20100726000000/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112044954/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n2_v34/ai_19551967 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n2_v34/ai_19551967
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705191356/http://www.asmasociety.org///perspectives/article_8.html to http://www.asmasociety.org/perspectives/article_8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510180701/http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument to http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I say delete it

Not much of an article. For instance, I see

Engagement in extramarital sex has been associated with individuals who have a higher libido (sex drive) than their partner

which is "substantiated" by ONE paper... about AIDS in Africa. Really, I might as validly claim that having extramarital sex creates a higher libido.

Our culture is rife with cheating, actually seems to think it's kinda cute (so long as it doesn't affect oneself, of course!). Blaming it on "sex madness" is disingenuous at best.

It makes some sense to have Adultery on its own, as that is part of Sex and the law and Family law. Lacking those connections, I could readily contend that it ought rightly be part of Monogamy (which in turn might as well contain Marriage too.)

But with Adultery there, why do we need to also have Infidelity, much less Extramarital sex?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

With that in mind, I am going to propose a formal merge and delete of both Extramarital sex and Infidelity, putting any actual content into Adultery. Any discussion?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, merging has been discussed a number of times, including at Talk:Adultery. WP:Consensus has yet to form for merging. The Infidelity article continues to exist because Infidelity does not solely apply to married couples. Infidelity is about the topic of cheating on one's lover as a whole. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Where, exactly, are you referring to that extramarital sex and infidelity and adultery are differentiated?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, so you are saying that infidelity is the same thing as extramarital sex and adultery? You say this despite me making it very clear to you that infidelity does not solely apply to married couples? Again, extramarital sex and adultery pertain to married couples, while infidelity pertains to both married and unmarried couples. You can see this from looking at the sourced Infidelity article. Read the sources. There is no chance of getting rid of the Infidelity article. As for getting rid of the Extramarital sex article, you have the option of taking it to WP:AfD, throwing up a WP:Merge tag on both the Adultery and Extramarital sex article to get more opinions, or starting a WP:RfC about merging the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You are free to claim — albeit incorrectly — that in an overweening monogamous culture there's some difference between the three terms. Aside from irritating one's church, or family/neighbors, or running afoul of some (rarely enforced) law, there is clearly no difference whatever between "a married couple" and "an as-if-married couple." Aside from now-minor legalisms, formal marriage is moot in this context. All three terms are readily defined as violating a contracted couplehood with extra-relational intimacy (with that last term encompassing sex, Romantic feelings, "affairs of the heart," &c.). No modern authority has been cited to even claim otherwise; until then, "a difference that makes no difference is not a difference."

FWIW, it's disingenous (if not dishonest) to say read the sources when you make no effort to IDENTIFY THOSE SOURCES of which you speak. And while you're at it, could you point me to the passages — here AND in relevant articles — for the claims. You clearly know what/where they are, after all, because otherwise you'd be bloviating.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, I stated that there is a difference between infidelity and extramarital sex, and infidelity and adultery, and I've noted why. Nothing incorrect about it, despite the overlap when it comes to infidelity. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you on this. I have enough articles to tend to. Many at this site know that I provide sources for my arguments when needed. They are not needed in this case, seeing as you have no chance of getting the Infidelity article deleted or merged. And as for deleting or merging the Extramarital sex article, I've noted what you need to do. We don't delete or merge articles around here because one editor wants them deleted or merged. The onus is on you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, do I need to raise the issue of you stalking me all across Wikipedia?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The deletion or merge argument needs to be revived. For example: "People may engage in the act due to feelings of dissatisfaction emotionally/physically in the marriage and imbalance in the relationship resource-wise. The intimacy vs passion argument provides reason such that it can revive passionate arousal." The intimacy vs passion argument? When was that discussed at all? The intimacy vs passion argument clearly occurred somewhere other than this article and whoever wrote that didn't tell me where I could find it. This article needs some heavy editing, merging or deletion.2603:9001:9300:482D:DC3A:390E:55B9:CD71 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eraut1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)