I think there are a multitude of perspectives being represented in this thread that don't fit into a "this side v. that side" equation. There wasn't any consensus at all advocating for non-monogamous relationships, only a couple of anecdotes. And also, "falling in love" with someone and starting an affair with them are very different things. It was mentioned a while back that the op wasn't talking about cheating at all, even though that's how many comments took it.
And insofar as people consider it to be inherently unfaithful to develop feelings for someone that a person is not in a relationship with, I think that's a much easier thing to condemn in theory than in practice. It's how people respond to those initial feelings that makes the difference, and what the appropriate action is is going to depend on the nature of the relationship that they are already involved in and the nature of the commitment that was made, if one was actually made at all.
Like it was already mentioned, a lot of people have the mentality that a person isn't bound to the person they're dating until there's a ring. The point being that only the two people in the relationship can say what it means to honor their relationship based on whatever commitment they made to one another. Also, the thing about actual "cheaters" is just that--they're cheating. They're trying to actively have something that they know isn't compatible with what the person they're in the relationship with would want. They're telling the person one thing, acting like they agree with the commitment, but are doing something completely different and dishonoring that so that they can get the benefit of acting commited plus the benefit of not really being commited. That's different than breaking up with someone to pursue someone else.
Yes, women are very much obsessed with whether men are faithful to them. But we can't assume that all of that energy is coming from a good or sane place. I don't think that it is. Please don't get me wrong, it is perfectly right to expect faithfulness--you couldn't build a relationship without it. But unless you took lifetime vows and clearly said to one another "Nothing will ever change between us," why would we define faithfulness to mean that nothing would ever change between two people? That can't be assumed.
And if we can accept that things might change in a relationship, what difference does it make that things end because there was a better, more fulfilling, deeper, whatever, relationship to be had with someone else? That's the question that I would like answered.
So, are you saying that the OP premise was that "stealing someone's man" means that you and the man strike up an interest in each other and, before he cheats on her with you, he leaves her for you? Is that the original premise? If that's the case, then I can see your point. It's different.
But, honestly, how many men readily jump directly to "oh, this new person is 'it'" without first cheating with her? Do they leave what they have specifically to build with someone new without having tried the new lady out? And, how many women who "steal" (OP's word, not mine) actually wait to give of herself, her time and attention until he has clearly left the other relationship? If they are indeed waiting, then that's not actually stealing now, is it? He's handling his status independently BEFORE they start taking up with each other.
It's so subjective. Let's look at the A. Keyes sitch....he left home before he took up with her right? Then, by the logic in this thread, should it matter that the papers weren't filed and case closed on the divorce? Did she STEAL Swizz or did she WAIT til he left home - hence, not steal him at all?
Or, is it different with a marriage? Where anything taking place before those papers are filed is considered "stealing" regardless?
Many of the examples listed in this thread deal with men who did not leave instantly before striking up with the new woman. Just the language "stealing" implies an action on the part of the new woman. She let him in before he was gone from the other situation. Of course, he let her in before he had let go of the old situation too.
My questions about monogamy in a non-married relationship are not meant to imply that people don't have free will nor do they imply that free will is to be altered because of this "agreement". On the contrary, the decision to be monogamous is the exercise of that same free will.
I still would rather see men and women honor each other by shutting down an undesirable relationship first and independently before starting up the next one. I don't care how attracted you are to the new one. I don't care how much of a connection there is. Get your **** resolved first and then come check for me. If it is meant to be, it will be. Seems to be that you would increase the likelihood of success for the new relationship if you have done the work to tie up loose ends.