Introduction
Several authors discuss which sexual activities can already be considered sex. Their research shows that sexual interaction can occur even without having sex. Defining what we consider "sex" does not define what sexual interaction is. The analysis of these problems then offers us answers to the question of what we consider sexual infidelity.
An important term that we have to define is the term "sex". Because under the interpretation of this term, many imagine many things. It would be a myth to think that under the term sex we perceive only penetration or heterosexual intercourse. They point out, for example, broader definitions of sexuality ((Marková, 2007, 2012, Lukšík, Supeková, 2003, etc.). Obviously, sex also includes other manifestations of sexuality and affection. As long as we can define what sex is, we can say what we consider infidelity. People do not agree on what we consider sex. It can be, for example, flirting, kissing, cybersex, striptease, pornography, sex with robots.
First of all, it is necessary to define what we consider to be sexual activity. There are several opinions that define this term. Sexual activity can be sexual reproduction, touching that produces sexual pleasure (Goldman, 1977). External manifestations of sexual activity are, for example, stroking the penis, rubbing the clitoris, penetrating the vagina or anus, or licking various body parts (Mc Queen, 2020). In connection with such behavior outside the primary relationship, there is a consensus about sexual infidelity. The problem arises when we cannot say exactly what the intention of these touches is. An example could be a medical examination. We have no idea if the doctor is doing his job routinely, or if he doesn't feel excited during the breast examination. Gray thinks that sexual activity is when a person experiences some kind of excitement even without the original intention. It follows that "no activity is sexual activity unless it results in pleasure" (Gray, 1978, p. 194). Being aware of this moment is key. If at some point I realize that my sexual pleasure is not moral, I can continue the activity but suppress the sexual excitement. Then it is not sexual activity. However, if I continue and experience pleasure, then that is sexual activity (Mc Queen, 2020). Other authors think that I cannot engage in sexual activity unknowingly because I am always aware of it. This suggests the importance of intent in determining whether something is or is not sexual activity. It is about whether a person intends to satisfy his or his partner's sexual desire (Mc Queen, 2020). In the article Sexual Interaction and Sexual Infidelity, Mc Queen offers an interesting opinion when he claims that any other activity not connected to the genitals can be considered a sexual activity, as long as we perform it consciously. It doesn't even have to come to pleasure from this activity, it is enough that it is the fulfillment of some desire. However, if we perform an "activity" consciously, but with some other (instrumental) intention, such as begetting a child, or just touching the penis in order to measure its size, we do not consider it a sexual activity. Likewise, we do not consider rape to be sexual activity on the part of the victim. It would be foolish to think that the raped person enjoys this act and feels the satisfaction of sexual desire.
Sexual interaction occurs when two or more people engage in sexual activity together. I defined "sexual activity" as an activity involving the intention to satisfy sexual desire, i.e. j. to induce sexual pleasure (Mc Queen, 2020). However, it should be added that not every sexual activity has to mean sexual interaction. In order to be able to tell when it is an interaction, all of the following possibilities must be present: a) mutual response, b) consent to joint activity, c) consent to mutual support (Bratman, 1992, p. 327). It means that the partners "agree" on a joint activity, support each other, help each other to achieve the "goal". According to Bratman, sexual interaction means that two or more people willingly engage in the same activity with the intention of satisfying a sexual desire. In short, they interact to produce sexual pleasure for one or more of them (Bratman, 1992, pp. 328-329). Intention or intent is the most important point in sexual interaction. It is not necessary that both partners achieve the goal (say orgasm or satisfaction), the intention is important. From this we conclude that sexual interaction does not necessarily involve sexual desire. In any case, it involves interacting even without the satisfaction or desire of one person. If, for example, a man (tired after work) sacrifices himself and satisfies his woman for the purpose of her orgasm, this is a sexual interaction, even if he does not experience sexual excitement. This case also includes and infers sexual infidelity.
Another example of interaction is masturbation. Partners can masturbate and "use" the other as an object of their desire. They engage in sexual activity together, even if at first glance each one does it alone. In general, we understand sexual interaction as a process where both agree on participation even if one of the partners is not exactly sexually active (can only be an object of desire or observation).
To sum it up, we can define a sexual interaction as a sexual activity involving two or more people in which the participants a) intend to satisfy, among other things, one or more sexual desires, i.e. j. desire for sexual pleasure; b) they mutually respond to the common satisfaction of sexual desires; c) they support each other in satisfying (desires); d) have the intention of cooperation. For this reason, sexual interactions can take place over great geographical distances and time periods (Mc Queen, 2020).
Which behaviors can we consider infidelity and which can't?
If we talk about sexual infidelity, it is necessary to take into account that a classic monogamous relationship includes sexual exclusivity. Society expects sexual activity exclusively in a relationship, without discussing its validity. Following on from the previous ideas, we claim that sexual infidelity refers to different types of sexual interaction. It can be virtual infidelity (through a webcam, audio/video recordings), mutual masturbation, kissing, and the like. Mc Queen mentions, for example, that striptease or pole dancing may not always be understood as infidelity. If I ask a stripper to do a striptease for my satisfaction, that's infidelity. On the other hand, if I find myself at a party where a colleague has ordered a stripper who dances around me and I am not otherwise participating, I am sexually inactive, then we do not understand it as infidelity. The problem would be if I interacted with this person for the purpose of desire (Mc Queen, 2020).
It is necessary to add that we consider not only penetration as sexual infidelity, but also other manifestations of sexual affection. These manifestations can be oral sex, masturbation, erotic massage and many other manifestations associated with the body. Pornography is a specific problem. Woollard claims that viewing pornography does not constitute infidelity because one does not interact with the other person in any way (Woollard, 2010, p. 96). Instead, he sees it as fantasizing in which we imagine different scenarios. For most people, a porn video is simply a stimulus for their own sexual pleasure. They do not intend to have a sexual interaction with someone while watching the video. In this case, it is sexual activity, not sexual interaction. The problem arises when the person on the other side starts exchanging or uploading similar videos. Today, there are online porn actresses who talk to you behind a web camera. We consider this activity as sexual interaction, i.e. from even for infidelity. Another problem is if your partner has a different set of moral standards and considers watching pornography associated with masturbation to be infidelity. However, there are many scientists who agree that they do not understand this activity as infidelity towards a partner. Another issue is sex with robots. According to Scheutz and Arnold, we do not consider such an act to be an act of infidelity because machines lack cognitive ability. We also do not consider intercourse with animals to be infidelity, precisely because they are not autonomous in relation to human sexuality (Scheutz and Arnold, 2017, p. 255). These two behaviors are sexual activity on the part of a person, but not sexual interaction.
Why are people on the dating app Tinder typed?
Following the possible ways and manifestations of virtual infidelity, we will point out the modern phenomenon of dating applications. According to the research "Why are you cheating on tinder?" there is a group of specified individuals in society who use Tinder for different purposes (Timmermans, Caluwéb, Alexopoulosc, 2018). So, is the active use of Tinder by a given partner a threat or infidelity?
From a sample of respondents, it was found that 17.1% of college (partnered) Tinder users had messaged a stranger (Weiser et al. 2017). "Thus, such findings suggest that users in a committed relationship may use Tinder for reasons other than those leading to sexual infidelity. Additionally, it would be appropriate to investigate whether the motives and behavioral outcomes of individual users differ from the motives and behavioral outcomes of single Tinder users" (Timmermans, Caluwéb, & Alexopoulosc, 2018, pp. 133-134). We assume that people sign up for similar dating sites in order to find a partner. However, recent research reports a new tendency, especially among young people. With the development of dating applications, a new trend is emerging, not necessarily finding a partner on a dating site, but rather a new social contact, confirmation of one's own value, or consolidation of one's ego.
An Australian study found that 10% of Tinder users who are in a committed relationship reported using the app to find a new sexual relationship (Hobbs, Owen, & Gerber, 2017). They confirm that Tinder has made it easier for them to find an extradyadic relationship. It is not only a search for new sexual experiences outside the relationship, but Belgian research confirms that people are also looking for an extradyadic romantic relationship (Timmermans, Courtois, 2018, pp. 59-70). Many people are afraid of being single, loneliness is a punishment for them, so they use Tinder to alleviate these feelings. They prevent feelings of loneliness and discouragement, which is a double-edged sword. Young people easily become addicted to new "likes" and waste time scrolling through the screen. This is how people boost their egos and have a false sense of self-interest. The self-worth rate of single people on dating sites is higher than the self-worth rate of single people who are also active on dating apps. Persons in a partner relationship who are active on Tindra show a higher degree of neurotic disorders, lower self-esteem and the like.
52% of respondents registered on Tinder had a personal meeting with another Tinder user when they were in a committed relationship (Timmermans, Caluwéb, Alexopoulosc 2018, p. 133-134). Of these 52% respondents, 78.3% said they had a French kiss with at least one Tinder user, 63.5% spent one or more nights in the company of another Tinder user. Also, 48.3% of users had one or more casual sexual relationships during the primary relationship (Timmermans, Caluwéb, Alexopoulosc, 2018, p. 134). The data shows that the use of Tinder by persons in a relationship indicates a partial problem in the primary relationship, or it may be secondary goals of one of the persons. Rather, this research suggests that committed Tinder users are more interested in seeking out short-term encounters to satisfy their curiosity or frustration. In the case of single users, dating for a longer period is more likely than dating for a short-term episodic relationship. Another intention is curiosity, trying out a new dating platform, boosting your ego and preventing loneliness.
Research therefore supports the hypothesis that if there is something unhealthy about a primary relationship, it may trigger the need to socialize through Tinder or other dating apps. Of course, the manifestations of a dysfunctional relationship are also more or less visible, but this is one of the indicators that points to certain internal partner problems. As we have already mentioned, it is not only about the need to get to know each other, but also about the need to increase one's self-confidence.
Author: Mgr. Boris Kňažko Department of General and Applied Ethics FF UKF in Nitra The text was created thanks to the support of grant VEGA 1/0426/18: Psychological, socio-cultural and biological sources of love.
List of references
Blow, A.J., and K. Hartnett. 2005. Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 31(2): 217–233.
Bratman, M.E. 1992. Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review 101(2): 327–341.
Goldman, A. 1977. Plain sex. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6(3): 267–287.
Gray, R. 1978. Sex and sexual perversion. Journal of Philosophy 75(4).
Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53, 271–284. https://doi. org/10.1177/1440783316662718.
Lukšík, I. - Supeková, M. 2003. Sexuality and gender in social and educational contexts. Bratislava: Humanitas, 2003.
Marková, D. 2007. Premarital sexuality in the contexts of sexual diversity and variability. Bratislava: Regent, 2007.
Marková, D. 2012. About sexuality, sexual morality and contemporary partner relationships. Nitra: Garmond, 2012.
Paddy McQueen r. 2020. Sexual Interaction and Sexual Infidelity. The journal of ethics, 2020. Springer
Scheutz, M., and T. Arnold. 2017. Intimacy, bonding, and sex robots: Examining empirical results and exploring ethical ramifications. In Robot sex: Social and ethical implications, ed. J. Danaher and N.
Timmermans, E., & Courtois, C. (2018). From swiping to casual sex and/or committed relationships: Exploring the experiences of Tinder users. The Information Society, 34, https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1414093.
Timmermans, E., De Caluwé, E.C. Alexopoulos. 2018. Why are you cheating on tinder? Exploring users' motives and (dark) personality traits. Computers in human behavior, r. 2018. Elsevier.
Weiser, D.A., Niehuis, S., Flora, J., Punyanunt-Carter, N.M., Arias, V.S., & Baird, R.A. (2018). Swiping right: Sociosexuality, intentions to engage in infidelity, and infidelity experiences on Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.025.
Woollard, F. 2010. Cheating with Jenna: Monogamy, pornography, and erotica. In Porn - Philosophy for everyone: How to think with kink, ed. D. Monroe, 93–104. London: Blackwell.