"Cheating" is a propaganda term for strict or jealous monogamists.

[JackRiddler]

(I think a thread debating terminology and its implicit ideology deserves to stand alone.)

"Cheating" rather obviously prejudges the person and activities to which it is applied. And IMO the word is usually applied without discrimination, without regard to the details of a situation. It's a big part of the tawdry airing of private lives that passes for much of our public discourse (see Jerry Springer, etc.)

Love is the highest law, but in love there is no single law. Throw out general principles and preconceptions, and start with actual observation: Who are the three (or more) people involved, and what are they actually doing? What are their relationships to each other? Do I really know? What is their milieu or set, and what do they themselves consider normal?

Who am I to them? What do I actually know about the supposed "cheating"? Does my knowledge go beyond circumstantial evidence or innuendo? Assuming I really know anything for sure, the most important question will probably be: Is someone lying to someone else? Why?

How many other lies are involved in their relationship? Not all cheating is sexual; it's also possible to promise yourself as one kind of person and, to take one extreme, later to turn into (or be revealed as) a monstrous or exploitative other. Who is hurting whom, if anyone? Do I have a clue?

Maybe what's going on really isn't my business? Would an intervention as an outsider actually help anyone? What are the consequences? Not just to the wife/wives, husband(s) or lover(s) I presume to help, but to children and dependents?

Can't say what exceptions may arise, but my expectation is that even if I knew for sure someone was having an extramarital affair, and in the event that I felt something about it was very, very wrong and I would be right to do something about it: Still, I'd never talk to the unwitting partner first, I would work to persuade the wanderer to be truthful always.

Then again, you never know nothing for sure.

[aquart]

1. Well, you don't.

[Taverner]

2. It's not cheating if the partner knows and either doesn't care or enjoys it

[TahitiNut]

35. Exactly. I don't know why that's not implicitly obvious.

I guess some folks have a far different idea of what a 'friend' is, if it can be assumed they don't have an understanding of the relationship. Indeed, if it IS open then (1) it's not "cheating" and (2) sharing the information si no big deal.

:shrug:

[Blue_Tires]

39. +1

Dan Savage had the best definition of cheating, imo -- Any action (flirting, online affair, kiss, grope, intercourse, etc) with a person not your spouse that you would feel uncomfortable or ashamed to openly admit to your spouse after the fact...how couples define those rules are up to them...

[marshall]

47. Or is too sick to know or care

Part of the contract of marriage is that one fulfills one's husbandly or wifely duties in the bedroom. Many a man and woman have strayed (or cheated) when their spouse wasn't fulfilling their end of the contract--whether it be by choice or because of illness.

[sybylla]

52. Then what you still have is someone too cowardly to address the real problems

in the marriage. The solution isn't walking away, whether psychologically, emotionally or physically. It's working through the problems or facing the fact together that they are too big to solve and the marriage should be dissolved.

The biggest betrayal in "cheating" is that someone has decided not to address the problems in their relationship in an upfront way - the way they promised to do when they committed to each other.

[alarimer]

107. Bullshit.

Cheating on a sick spouse is absolutely the worst fucking thing to do. No one is "obligated" to have sex with their spouses. That is strictly voluntary and if they are sick, it is certainly not a requirement.

This is about the most disgusting thing I've heard all day to defend a cheating piece of shit like Edwards.

And cheaters are pieces of shit. If you can't obey your vows, get a fucking divorce.

[redqueen]

153. Boy this thread is a real case study in rationalization ain't it?

:crazy:

[Lorien]

83. Indeed. I knew of a couple who had to spend six months apart every year

He worked in Antarctica for half of every year and she stayed home in the US to raise their kids. I knew that she had a few suitors, and their were rumors about him and one or more of his female coworkers-but still, they were one of the happiest couples I've ever known. On their daughter's wedding day I recall the bride to be saying "if my husband EVER cheats on me that's it! That's a deal breaker and I would never forgive him" (weird thing to say on your wedding day, eh)? Her mother responded by saying " There are many things that are far worse than cheating; emotional abuse, physical abuse, or being ignored and taken for granted. Sexual infidelity is a small thing by comparison". Having suffered all of those things with the men I've been involved with over the years I have to agree.

[seabeyond]

114. except for the daughter who watched her parents and felt strong enough to say something

on her wedding day.

are you suggesting it wasnt such a big deal to her. seems like it was.

[Dorian Gray]

149. That's a good point

and that may very well be why she brought it up in the first place.

[Maru Kitteh]

136. What a "black licorice" thing to say. I would guess the daughter had a better

insight into the dynamics of marital infidelity and the effects thereof upon family life than whatever your friend allowed you to see.

[Lorien]

181. Her parents are over 70 and still act like newlyweds

I'd say that they're doing something right.

[seabeyond]

183. maybe for them

and maybe not so much for the children. who is to know. but one does have to at least take the daughter's perspective into account, dont you think? if we need to be open minded about the couple that chooses different solutions in their relationship, then doesnt that at least afford us the responsibility to do the same for the daughter. this daughter made a statement on what was important to her, on a big day for her, and her mother, without hestitation, put her in her place because of her own personal choices and maybe, possibly, a validation for her own personal choices.

just sayin

[alphafemale]

141. My guess is that the daughter probably had a better insight as to the "lack of" happiness.

A mother seeing fit to publicly contradicting her daughter about the importance of fidelity on her own wedding day is very telling too.

[Lorien]

182. Since the daughter still hopes that her marriage will always be as successful

as that of her parents, my guess is that your guess is incorrect.

[JackRiddler]

206. The daughter's statement only sounds regretful...

to those who are primed to understand it that way.

The fact that she said it on her wedding day in front of a bunch of people (apparently, according to your story) may indicate the extraordinary openness that the family had about their arrangement. If she didn't like what her parents did as a model for herself, good for her. Sounds like her comment might have been more of a joke at them than the bitter declaration that some people automatically want to see. Everything about your story indicates she had an exemplary and happy upbringing, and only those who condemn free love relationships (whether openly or implicitly) reflexively parse her words and yours (with zero context) so they can imagine she was damaged by her parents' freedom.

There are worse things to do to a child than to bring her up well with free and obviously self-sufficient, interesting parents (Antarctica!) who stay with each other happily into their 70s. Thanks for the story!

[redqueen]

154. What a joke.

This nonsense that humans are incapable of going without sex for long stretches of time is the biggest bunch of BS ever.

[Lorien]

184. Funny things happen when people believe they are going to die

and must use their body heat to survive. I don't know the entirety of the stories, but the people who worked at that outpost faced death by freezing on more than a few occasions.You may view that as a stupid excuse, but you probably have never been in a similar situation.

I prefer not to judge others for their weaknesses and mistakes. We're all human. We all have them and make them.

[redqueen]

193. First you said it was cause they were apart six months a year...

and that she had suitors and he had more than one female friend... and now it's a matter of life and death.

It'd almost be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

[JackRiddler]

208. The only sad thing here is your need to paint total strangers...

For my part, I'd love to meet Lorien's friends, who sound fascinating.

[JackRiddler]

207. Strawman. Actually, more like projection.

No one said that humans are "incapable" of that, except you.

[Lerkfish]

3. "betrayal" is a better word.

"cheating" is too cute, implies that the game is still a good game, I just nicked some of your monopoly dollars while you weren't looking, or rerolled the dice while you were distracted. In short, it trivializes a committed relationship into a GAME.

Betrayal is a better word, because the commited relationship is based on a a promise, an oath, a petition of trustworthiness, a pledge to future fidelity.
To go against that promise is a betrayal to both the other person and to the promise itself.


IMHO.

[Hepburn]

15. I totally agree...

...cheating is something one does on a new diet. Betrayal is when one trashes a relationship for his/her own selfish purpose.

[JackRiddler]

25. There are many forms of betrayal.

Can you imagine acts of betrayal that are even worse than having sex with somebody outside a marriage? I can. It's easy. It happens all the time.

What you're proposing is a general term of condemnation, prejudges the case and clarifies nothing. Might as well call it "sin" or "crime."

[Lerkfish]

100. I wasn't discussing relative levels of betrayal, but rather what was a better descriptive term

and in my opinion, "cheating" IS a sin or a crime.
and yes, I do condemn it. So for me, the term works. Apparently you don't consider affairs as anything of consequence so the term doesn't work for you. But I would say I would really hate to be the person foolish to enter into a committed relationship with someone who doesn't consider infidelity anything worse than jaywalking

[Lorien]

185. I can too, and I understand what you've been trying to say

My ex-fiance cheated on me, but that seemed like a small thing compared to the hurtful things he said to me and the physical abuse that followed.I viewed his cheating as nothing more than his baser instincts taking over or a bit of "acting out"; he didn't end up with the other woman so it really didn't mean that much. His attacks on me though; that was very personal, done with the INTENTION of causing me great pain. Those I will NEVER forget!

[Lex]

4. if monogamy was promised in the vows or promised between 2 people

and both expected it, then I'd say one person unilaterally deciding to break that vow would be cheating (or at least not playing by the rules he or she agreed to--whatever you want to call that).

[havocmom]

8. Agree with you, except in the word to describe the action

Lerkfish makes a very valid point. It is betrayal, not cheating.

[Lex]

11. I think "cheating" comes from not playing by the rules agreed to

but betrayal is probably a more precise term.

[The Hope Mobile]

79. I don't think its the word that matters, everyone knows what it means

What matters is that two people agreed to be exclusive with each other and the one did not while the other kept their end of the bargain even if they didn't feel like it. There's no excuse for it. We all have other opportunities. Its about integrity.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. There's better words like infidelity to describe the physical act of sex with another. However, most

of the time others things are going on as well. Like lying to the partner and deceiving them. Maybe we should pull that old word back out: adultery.

[arbusto_baboso]

5. There's a mistaken underlying assumption that it is "normal" for humans to be monogamous.

The biological research of Sherfey has shown this to be false. Even culturally, we are - at best - only serially monogamous.

I think it's the assumption that we are all - or can be - monogamous that leads to hurt, anger and damage.

[Mike Daniels]

10. Regardless, if people make a committment to be monogamous

then they should stay monogamous.

If one of the partners finds that, for whatever reason, they are no longer able or willing to hold to that committment then they need to either get out of the relationship or have the decency to inform their parter.

[arbusto_baboso]

14. I don't disagree with you on any of your points. What I am saying (in perhaps too roundabout a way)

is that we should stop teaching children from little up that it is reasonable and "normal" to expect a monogamous relationship. Sexual jealousy is a learned thing, and it therefore can be unlearned.

[Kalyke]

41. It is not a learned thing!

It physically, emotionally and mentally HURTS when your loved one betrays you - whether it's sticking it in another woman or lying to your face about another matter.

One can have sex without being in love, true, but when sex accompanies a loving relationship - as I would hope it would in a marriage - then it becomes far more than the physical act of humping another person - it's about using a way to express your love for your spouse with another person, not your spouse.

In that way, it's not sexual jealousy - it's betrayal.

[arbusto_baboso]

53. You are missing my point AND misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I've been married 17 years and never cheated on my spouse. However, for the past 5 years, we've both realized that weren't entirely happy being monogamous, even though we love each other immensely and want to remain married. So we "unlearned" our sexual jealousy and opened up our marriage.

Just because you aren't mature enough to handle such an arrangement, do not condemn those of us who are.

[Kalyke]

60. I find it rather immature to call others immature.

Maturity has nothing to do with open marriages or monogamous ones.

And, I don't care about your marriage. You have an agreement. If it works for you, great - but don't put others down because it would not work for them.

Other people, for a multitude of reasons, do not have that agreement and are not any less mature than you profess to be. The OP was talking about the traditional agreement/contract of marriage, which includes monogamy.

And you missed my point. I was speaking to the fact that many couples reserve sex as an expression of love allowed only between them and their spouse. If one member of that couple chooses to break that covenant by having sex with another person without the consent of their spouse, then it's wrong. It's cheating and it's painful.

And, it's not immature.

[arbusto_baboso]

If love = sex, then yes, that IS immature.

I'm often asked how I can consider my marriage to still "have any romance left". My reply? "Think about it. How romantic is it when you boil marriage vows down to their essence - 'I agree that you are the only person I will fuck for the rest of my life'. How romantic is THAT? How about the fact that I'm okay with my spouse doing whatever makes her happy, and building my life together with her?"

If you choose monogamy, fine. Just don't try to tell me that's because you're more evolved, because that's crap.

[seabeyond]

66. you are the one insisting who we are and what we are and name calling

i think everyone is pretty "open" to your decision on your marriage

[arbusto_baboso]

72. Really? Look back thru the thread and you will see that I was attacked first.

Probably because my ideas threaten your dearly held fantasies.

[The Hope Mobile]

84. Wrong. YOU attacked what many still believe is a better way to live

NOT "fantasies" which is condescending and rude. Many people are able to be monogamous and find the ultimate reward in doing so. That doesn't mean its all butterfly kisses and fuzzy lights. Again, its about integrity which is its own reward. Its a part of growing up to learn to take responsibility for your decisions and to learn to co-exist with another in a healthy satisfying way. I've heard your thinking many times before, always from people who don't feel like putting in the effort and who have few successful relationships. Its crap. Many things that are difficult and feel like they're "too hard" are that much more worth doing. The last thing I would ever want to teach my kids is to not plan or expect to have monogamy in their relationships and to not therefore, feel that they should bother with putting the effort in. Anybody who goes into marriage thinking that if it gets difficult they can just sleep around is screwed from the outset and doomed to failure. Good luck!

[seabeyond]

94. to disagree is not to attack. and the conclusions you draw are purely speculative

with people you dont have a clue about to validate your behavior. hey.... i already patted you on back for making your own choices happily.... go for it. you dont need to validate to me. you are doing fine without my approval

[Dorian Gray]

150. You are using

the negative terms "immature" and "fantasy" regarding monogamy.

I'm glad your arrangement works for you, as it does for many marriages. But it wouldn't work for many others, and people in those marriages are not lacking anything.

[quaker bill]

103. it is nice

that you hold yourself in such high regard. But to conclude that others who do not follow your path are less mature, is a form of immaturity. Your apparent need to create a comparative image for self justification is a weakness. Grow past it. Just be who you are, this is always sufficient for the mature among us.

[Gemini Cat]

131. Why the hostility?

You are allowed to live your life the way you want, and so are others. Get it?

[iamthebandfanman]

137. that has nothing to do with maturity.

ill be sure to tell the oodles of teenage kids sharing partners openly that what they are doing is the mature thing.



jealousy mostly comes from the want or need to protect that which is proceived to be 'owned'.


youre an adult, and so is ur wife and youre free to live however youd like to live with whatever arrangement youd like to make ur situation work...

take some of ur own anti-condemn advice and dont try to tell those of us who treat sexual experiences as special and exclusive to those we dedicate our lives too(beyond our own).



lol, making a decision to have sex with other people a sign of maturity ? paaaaaaleeease.

id ask how your sexual life is with each other , but frankly thats none of my business( so dont tell me ).

to each their own.

i can accept that, why cant you?

[seabeyond]

51. oh bullshit. lol lol. right. n/t

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

58. if you two came to that conclusion, i am all for it. to suggest that all feel as you is

bullshit.

many of us of both genders find it quite "normal" being sexually and other exclusive with our mate and dont consider having an open marriage. i call bullshit on teaching our children to not have that expectation cause you and your wife made your choices. not all is made of the same clothe. many many people can and do, willingly, monogamous.

[arbusto_baboso]

62. You're fooling yourself.

AT LEAST half of all people are not monogamous, and probably not genetically equipped to be monogamous (do some reading. Sperm Wars is a good place to start). While, I could easily have remained monogamous myself, I would not have been entirely happy doing so, and I suspect most humans are also in the same boat.

If we inform kids that monogamy is a CHOICE and not a choice that everyone can or will make, then they'l be better equipped to handle life and relationships, and maybe they'l even take the issues of birth control and STD prevention alittle more seriously.

[seabeyond]

65. why? if we do not validate your behavior do you insist you know me and who and what i am

15 yrs married, 47 yrs old.... i am pretty self aware and know whether or not i am satisfied and happy in my marriage that i am in 24/7 year after year after year.

yet people justifying affairs tells me it is in all of us. people with open marriages demand i am not happy with just hubby

[arbusto_baboso]

74. Not saying you're not happy.

What I am saying is that the chances are about 50/50 (and I'm being generous to your side of the argument here), that any human being WON'T be.

That's one in two. So, if you're happily monogmaously married to your hubby, chancea are that he....

Well, you know where I'm going.

[seabeyond]

96. ah... you innocent, to suggest my hubby is not happy? nah, no impure intent on your part

and in all your contentment, do tell, your need to denigrate?

[Dorian Gray]

151. Don't listen to those insinuations

they are made in order for you to feel as insecure as he feels. If he didn't feel insecure, he wouldn't be so negative toward those who disagree with him.

[seabeyond]

169. i am raising kids, i clearly see the intent of poster and the silliness of it

not to mention the demand for respect on his own personal choice yet fear of others living happily in their own choices. makes one woner just how well this is working for him

[sybylla]

57. Wow, that is just so messed up on so many levels.

If you think its unreasonable to commit to a monogamous relationship, then don't. I have no problem with that and a great deal of respect for anyone who refuses to live the life of a hypocrite.

But to suggest that the revulsion and true pain the majority of society has about cheating is based on some sort of buried jealousy because we can't fuck whoever we please is absolute bullshit. I don't need to tear you down to justify my monogamous relationship. Why do you feel a need to tear down monogamous relationships to prop up your polygamous behavior?

[arbusto_baboso]

59. ONCE AGAIN someone misses the point of what I'm saying.

I committed to a monogamous marriage, but my wife and I BOTH agreed after 12 years that we wanted to change that. Yes, it is a betrayal to AUTONOMOUSLY pursue non-monogamy without letting your spouse have a say, I will not dispute that.

What I am saying is that monogamy is NOT NORMAL for human beings, and that the sooner we change our culture so that we no longer automatically assume that marriage means monogamy, the better of we'll all be.

No, can you quit fucking piling on without knowing the whole goddamn story?

[Kalyke]

63. Who says it's not normal?

Some researcher in some ivory tower?

Or the woman who's devastated because the person with whom she has remained monogamous - and normally so - has been fooling around with someone younger or richer or, well, not her?

It is quite normal for many people. Not you - but for many.

[arbusto_baboso]

64. Many yes. But not most. At least half of all people cheat on their spouse.

That suggest to me that it isn't a deficit of character (or not JUST a deficit of character, anyway), but a trait of humanity that cultural conditioning can't completely banish.

Just because you have personal issues and hurt around this issue doesn't make your "points" valid.

[The Hope Mobile]

87. It is a character deficit. We'd all like to trade in our car for a newer

model or have as much money as one of our neighbors but we agree to certain rules because they benefit everybody in the end. These including not taking a new car just because we want it, a new sex partner, our neighbor's money or anything else that indicates a lack of character. We all need to learn to look at our partner as an investment and put the effort in. In the end that payoff is much greater than a new conquest or dalliance to relieve the monotony. Monogamy does NOT have to equal monotony. The harder it gets the more you try until you get it right. If you have the right attitude, even the trying can be fun.

[seabeyond]

67. monogamy is NOT NORMAL for human beings... and people that find this perfectly normal

are telling you to please quit telling us our normal

[Sapphocrat]

132. Wow, you've really taught me something tonight.

I've never seen anyone go so batshit insane trying to browbeat other people into validating his own lifestyle choice by insisting that everybody else is "immature" for honoring his/her end of an agreement within his/her own marriage.

You may as well say: "YOU'RE immature because YOU just can't free yourself to the idea of urinating on your six wives while they run around in circles wearing horse bridles and singing 'The Anvil Chorus.'"

Not that there's anything wrong with urinating on your six wives while they run around in circles wearing horse bridles and singing "The Anvil Chorus" as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, but very few people would put down everyone who's not into his particular flavor of kink, and then get so damned defensive when they say, "Fine for you, but not for me."

Get a grip, dude. Nobody gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what you and your wife do with your genitals, don't do, or who (or what) you do it with.

And you call those of capable, willing, and delighted to live up to our wedding vows "immature"?

The only thing I wonder is how "mutual" your "open" agreement with your wife was -- one person usually comes up with the idea first (and it's not uncommon for the shell-shocked spouse to "go along to get along," in fear of losing hearth and home). But, please, don't enlighten me to any more details of your Hipper-Than-Thou, Swingin' Sixties arrangement. I really don't want to know.

[MadrasT]

218. Ahem

"Polygamy" and "polyamory" are not one and the same.

Dang, there is a lot of hostility in this thread.

[redqueen]

220. Yeah, the subject line kind of gets people started before they even read it.

It seems so blatant as to be intentional... but I'm sure that's not the case.

[Realityhack]

78. "Sexual jealousy is a learned thing"

I seriously doubt you can back that up.

[Deja Q]

125. Let the moron try. In fact, let's steal that person's partner and do it in plain sight.

Let's see what gets learned.

:popcorn:

[Kalyke]

38. Thank you.

That is, indeed, the point.

They made the promise and it should be lived up to.

[hunter]

95. I'm sure there's a normal curve, or overlapping curves of some sort.

Biologically, I'm monogamous, probably even more than I'm heterosexual.

Judging by their behavior, many people are not so monogamous. I can very easily imagine what I'd be like if I was a gay man, but I can't really imagine myself being unfaithful.

I'm so very monogamous I can't even dream about being unfaithful, which is sort of irritating sometimes because I'll be dreaming that I'm making out with someone who's not my wife, and then I always realize, "Hey! I'm married, how did I forget?" Then the dream either fizzles out or morphs into something else where I'm with my wife. I can look at someone with "lust in my heart" as Jimmy Carter might put it, I can dream or daydream about other women, I can even flirt a bit if it's a polite thing to do, but it simply doesn't occur to me to take it any further than that, there's no actionable desire there.

The thing that bothers me most in these threads is not the "cheating" or the infidelity or adultery, or whatever else you want to call it. The thing that bothers me is the dishonesty and the deceptions in relationships, the sorts of deceptions that have hurt many of my friends and members of my own family.

[redqueen]

155. Each individual can only speak for themselves. If one can't be monogamous,

then one should inform one's partner, so they can decide if they want to be with someone like that.

I think there's a reason people lie and cover up cheating... they know their partner expects more.

How cowardly and rude.

[alcibiades_mystery]

189. the Devil Made me Do It!

:rofl:

[kid a]

6. if the parameters of a relationship are based on comittment to monogamy

and one of the partners actively pursues a "sexual encounter" with someone else, I'm OK with the word cheating applied to that.

I can see it getting cloudy and gray in the description of the "sexual encounter".

Is porn cheating?
Is "too long of a hug" with friend cheating?
A cordial goodbye kiss that lingers on?
Office flirtation that becomes obvious?

[The Hope Mobile]

86. Anytime you do something that you know your SO would not be comfortable

with, which would hurt them and make them feel betrayed its wrong regardless of which word you use to describe it. It doesn't have to be physical or obvious at all. What matters is that you promised to love your partner. Mature loving does not include anything that is hurtful to them. Nobody's perfect, everybody breaks these rules at times, but its still the goal.

[renegade000]

133. spot on

People have different sets of behaviors they are comfortable with. Learning what you are comfortable with and finding a partner that shares this sense of what is acceptable/unacceptable is key to a mature, loving relationship.

[The Hope Mobile]

191. Exactly!!

You enter a contract and rules are set. You don't get to changed the rules without permission of the other party in the contract.

[xchrom]

7. recommend -- complexity can be an awful thing.

and one never knows what a new day will bring -- and what you will do before the day's close.

[Raskolnik]

16. But sometimes you know very well that if you engage in certain behavior, you are an asshole.

Cheating on one's spouse being on that list of behavior.

[xchrom]

49. i'm personally not jealous like that.

i've been in and out of many relationships -- all kinds of things happen in them.

i choose how much pain my s/o causes me.

your mileage may differ.

[The Hope Mobile]

88. Nice reframing of the paradigm but it has nothing to do with jealousy.

This may be WHY you've been in and out of relationships.

[xchrom]

97. what a bunch of fuckin horse shit -- if you are a grown up

then you are responsible for your own happiness.

does mommy still hold your pee-pee for you when you winkle?

you don't OWN anybody's body -- i dont care if you're married or what -- take care your own emotional well being and stop depending on others for your sense of well being.

no wonder the divorce rate is so high -- bunch of fuckin juveniles who can't grow up and leave home.

goddamn -- if you wanna get it on with mommy or daddy then leave the rest of the grown ups out of it.

[The Hope Mobile]

110. Very mature!

I'm a woman in her forties who has lived 2500 miles away from her parents for 20 years. I counsel people who have been cheated on. Its not about jealousy - its about betrayal. You need to check yourself. You're way off base on a lot of things. Lot o' denial going on there.

Welcome to the world of ignore. Notice you're getting a lot of that in this thread? Probably in life too.

[xchrom]

113. what the fuck are talking about? -- i feel bad for your clients. nt

[seabeyond]

120. all this name calling and stuff is grown up? who knew, lol. n/t

[The Hope Mobile]

163. My point exactly. nt

[dionysus]

9. let me guess... rationalizing smoove johnny's behavior are we?

hmmmm?

:rofl:

[Alexander]

37. They never stop, do they?

Smoove johnny's more fanatical supporters will never eat crow and admit that they were fooled by a con artist.

[redqueen]

156. Yep... lots of people in this thread apparently have no desire whatsoever to be monogamous.

And wish to foist that behavior onto the entire human race.

It'd be funny if it wasn't such a tired, tired act.

[seabeyond]

159. what i see though, it is a few, not lots. most in htis thread know better, know it

doesnt work, know it isnt honest, know regardless of what op says, it goes against nature. more people of both gender are not buying this spew

[redqueen]

161. Good point...

just a few... 12 whole recs for this nonsense. :)

[seabeyond]

164. and they are probably people that have chips on their shoulder with opposite gender

life isnt working for them, full of anger or beyond. i have found on du there is a group that skews reality. i have to be careful to not buy into it. not how strong majority feel.

these posters have a purpose

[Warpy]

12. The problem is the health consequences for the other spouse

can be dire. Stepping out generally means exposing your partner to a lot of things he or she needs to protect himself/herself from.

If all cheating spouses used condoms for the affair, the consequences wouldn't be that serious, but we all know how males feel about condoms.

Emotional cheating is far worse and threatens the family unit with abandonment by the cheating spouse, whether or not it has progressed to sex.

It would be better if no one cheated, but since so many do, it has to be taken as a marital norm.

In any case, other people's marriages are none of my business. Chances are that the innocent partner suspects something but chooses to look the other way to protect the family. Intruding and forcing him or her to admit the cheating is not a kind thing to do.

[Hepburn]

18. That, to me, is the real deal.

If someone is in what he/she believes is an exclusive relationship and the other partner is screwing around? Ummmmmmm...that is the absolute lowest form of betrayal.

Look at Elizabeth...this is a woman with MEGA health problems and taking meds that make her even more open to medical problems. The last thing she needed was exposure to another person's sexual history.

JMHO

[ShortnFiery]

23. One could also suggest that the last thing EE needs is to continue to *FEED* the sordid details

to the public square in what many perceive is "a sad attempt" to keep her plight in the public spotlight.

Continuing to "replay the tapes" is ALSO not a healthy behavior for EE to pursue. :(

[The Hope Mobile]

111. That's ONE of the problems.

[ShortnFiery]

13. "Cheating" does depend on both "the here and now" and what's in the alleged "Cheater's heart."

Having served in the military (sent out on many Temporary Duty (TDY) assignments with others) and OBSERVED what can be termed "cheating" in close proximity, I can vouch for what I believe to be many phenomena involved to include: 1) A lack of maturity; 2) belief that it is just "for now" an effort to relieve stress; 3) errors in judgment due to a marital difficult situation; 4) etc.

What I tend to allow my silly and sometimes unfounded IRE rise-up is when the person who "cheats" does it repetitively. Your "chronic cheater" if you will. This is a personal problem on my part and probably could be resolved after years of therapy. :silly:

In any run of the mill, average marriage (if there's such an entity) it doesn't matter IF both parties are satisfied with the overall relationship.

The problem comes when "cheating" involves celebrities and political leaders. IF within these core relationships, "cheating" doesn't matter, then that's the end of the controversy.

HOWEVER, many times "cheating" DOES MATTER to one or the other parties THEN the public is served-up a media frenzy banquet.

Cheating often does matter - albeit it's none of our business where it concerns non-public "strangers." Well, unless you're a Private Investigator. :shrug: ;)

[Vickers]

17. If I entered a contract with someone and started a business and

subsequently broke some of the agreements in the contract...is that cheating?

:shrug:

I'm pretty strict on a PERSONAL level with how I conduct myself both publicly and privately. I don't judge how other folks do things (but I do make a note of it).

FTR, I didn't get married in a church, but simply signed a marriage contract at a government office.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

21. LOL, that reminds me of a recent Seinfeld episode where Jerry is helping George "problem solve"

whether or not George is in "a relationship" with his girlfriend.

If so, George should not date other women, i.e., cheating on her. :spray:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. NAILED it!

:D :rofl:

[dionysus]

29. please don't attribute that to all men... not all of us are slimebags!

[JackRiddler]

31. Define slimebag.

I suspect for some here it breaks down into, "male possessed of a powerful drive to engage in the procreative act." Even though it takes two (and more) to tango.

[dionysus]

32. if you're with a woman and you're sneaking around fucking people behind her back, then you're a

fucking piece of shit slimebag.

do i take it you cheat on your wife? or are you just sticking up for smoove johnny?

[JackRiddler]

40. Assumptions, assumptions.

This is what I'm talking about. Thanks.

Carry on.

[dionysus]

43. you can justify cheating on a terminally ill spouse all you want... it just makes you look more the

fool.

carry on, indeed...

because you know we're not talking about swingers or polyamourous relationships.

[JackRiddler]

68. WTF is your problem?

It took like 20 minutes before I even realized who you meant by "Smoove Johnny."

Sad as that is, it was of no concern to me in starting this thread. The OP was prompted by the thread asking when is it okay for someone to tell on an acquaintance who is "cheating," and deals generally with the language people use to describe what other people are doing whether or not they have a clue.

Thanks again for demonstrating the rapidity with which assumptions take over. It's exactly what I meant.

[dionysus]

75. these threads pop up EVERY time there's Ewards news, like clockwork. no coincidence...

[Alexander]

44. You think cheating is okay. We got it.

No assumptions need to be made.

Thanks.

Carry on.

[JackRiddler]

69. No, wife-beating.

:eyes:

[Alexander]

82. Yay, a worthless non-sequitur.

That really hits the point home, whatever your point was.

[JackRiddler]

30. The question here is whether...

you are always in a position to know and judge others. What appears one way to you, may not be to them. Or there may be a lot more in a situation you don't know anything about. IF so, your pat pre-conceptions will guarantee you never do.

With all the cruelty that people can inflict on each other in close quarters, why is violation of sexual fidelity rules held up as the exemplary worst-possible crime, the one that trumps all else? (Why is Glenn Close the monster who must be shot in the heart to assure a happy ending?)

[bunnies]

46. Of course not.

Its not my place to decide whos a cheater and whos not because I dont know what every couples personal sex-deal is. Although in the case of JRE I think its pretty clear that he is, in fact, a cheater.

Why is a violation of the sex-deal so horrific? Lets think about what we're talking about here. I think its safe to say that sex is one of the most intimate things two people can share. It involves being vulnerable, it involves trust, it involves people being inside one another. Thats a sacred thing to some. And to be disrespected, lied to and humiliated by someone with whom you have that sort of relationship, well, its pretty damn hateful thing to do.

[Dorian Gray]

48. Unless they had an open relationship

or she was made aware of his activities, then what he did was a violation of their marriage and completely wrong. And we know, from what she said, that he was not honest about his affair until he was caught, and even then he lied to her about the magnitude of it all.

I think that qualifies him as a cheating and betraying slimebucket.

[Caliman73]

61. Who said Glen Close was the monster?

She was a woman that felt slighted and used by Douglas after he ended their sexual relationship. She was unwilling to terminate the relationship and became unstable and threatening. She was shot because she was a mortal threat to the family and there was no reason to believe that she was going to stop escalating the situation. Douglas was at least partly responsible in setting up the dynamic in which this played out. In my opinion there were no winners or happy endings in that movie. Whether the couple address the issues in their marriage is their business.

By no means is infidelity the worst possible crime that one person can do to another. It is a betrayal of trust however that can severely damage the relationship and family system. When we enter into what we believe are exclusive relationships we make ourselves vulnerable to the actions of our partner. We place trust in the idea that our partner will have a minimum of respect for our feelings. We can never be perfect, but when problems arise it is our responsibility to address the problems, resolve them, renegotiate the agreement, or terminate the relationship.

We never fully know what is occurring within a relationship nor within the mind of an individual. If we use that logic in our interactions, then why not suspend all laws? I mean laws are merely social contracts that we submit to in order to have a functioning society. If we have to understand and not pass judgment on anyone because we do not know every thought or detail about a situation, then we should just stop attempting to enforce any type of social order in societies. That is the conclusion to that line of thinking.

[DawgHouse]

116. That movie...

Can't remember where I read this tidbit but did you know that movie originally had a different ending? In the first planned ending, Glenn Close's character committed suicide in a very dramatic fashion. The test audiences hated that ending so we ended up with the scene where wife killed the mistress and the audience was much more satisfied and happy.

[seabeyond]

117. ya. that is what i heard. n/t

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

42. As a male, I disagree. Such broad-brush attributions don't serve ANY good purpose.

I don't know where you find your "typical males" but I sure don't have people in my circle of friends possessed of such attitudes - either yours or those you claim are "typical."

:shrug:

[stray cat]

22. As long as you marry someone with the stipulation that you will sleep around its not cheating

just skip any vows that require love, honoring and cherishing above anyone else you happen to meet.

[Bucky]

24. "Pollution" is a propaganda term denying my rights for hygeinic diversity!

Laws against wearing a police uniform and badge a placing rolling red-&-blue lights on my car violate my First Amendment rights.

[JackRiddler]

26. Hm, who brought up the question of "rights"?

Bit of projection there? Reductio ad absurdum, much?

The post arises from the question, first, of how outsiders appoint themselves to judge - or not to judge - a situation they are not part of themselves.

[Swamp Rat]

28. Cultural bias?

"Laugh with my wife, missionary man?" :D

[Canuckistanian]

85. Way 'yat, Swampie?

We been wonderin' about you!

[NNN0LHI]

167. I thought I read here you were in South America?

Welcome home.

Don

[Swamp Rat]

202. I am

:D Tudo bem, Don? :hi:

[Alexander]

36. Oh yeah, not like there's anything wrong with giving your partner diseases...

...because you just need to use your John Thomas with someone else.

:sarcasm:

Get a life.

[dustbunnie]

45. If it were not for the concept of cheating -

We would be bereft of 90% of the world's most beautiful literature. Longing for what you can't have, irresistible desire, it's all part and parcel of the human condition.

A lot of cheating is the result of "familiarity breeds discontent." People promise to love, honor and cherish, but then they forget about one or all three of the pledges. We get bogged down with the quotidian and often romance and passion can't survive it, or these go through periods of ebb and flow. People stop taking care of their physical selves, or they become self-absorbed. Some eventually lose interest in sex, and expect the other to deal. Sometimes a couple marries young and find they've become different people within a few years. Sometimes people just fall out of love, but because they're trapped financially, or have kids to worry about, splitting isn't so easy. In the case of celebrities/politicians, sometimes a career is at stake.

[mzmolly]

50. Hmmm, sorry JackRiddler. But I think the term "cheating" applies when one agrees

to a particular set of rules and then breaks said rules. If people agree to an open marriage, that's their prerogative of course.

[JVS]

56. Is this agreement done explicitly or not?

I have no problem with someone being called a cheater because he or she has broken marriage vows stating that they won't have sex with other people, but just because someone has been dating someone for an extended period does not mean they have agreed to a particular set of rules. I suspect that most cases of "cheating" involve people with serious disagreement about what the rules they have agreed to are.

[mzmolly]

105. Of course.

eom

[Realityhack]

76. Exactly!

The issue is that people agree to be monogamous and one breaches that agreement. There are ways out of the agreement but if the other person still thinks the agreement is in effect and you breach the agreement... that is cheating no mater what the contract/agreement is including being 'faithful' to each other or whatever.

As you said there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from creating a different agreement/contract where one or both parties do not agree to be monogamous and in that case cheating would not apply to such behavior.

[Deja Q]

124. Then it isn't a marriage at all.

It's a union, a bond.

Then what is anybody fighting for? (pro-, against-, or otherwise...)

[JackRiddler]

130. Maybe not to you.

Marriage is what the two people involved decide it is, within the framework of the marriage contract. Many may consider the familial parts of their bond (a life together, a home together, children) more significant than the sexual, which tends to burn out over time. It's not on you to tell married people who do not conform to monogamous sexual ideals that they're not married. Or to imply that equal rights to enter a contract for all must go together with monogamous sexuality.

[Forkboy]

55. I'm having an image of a guy coming home after midnight, shirt untucked,

lipstick on his collar, and trying that line on his wife.

To be a fly on that wall....

[NashVegas]

70. Did You Or Did You Not Vow to "Cleave Only Unto"?

If you did, it's cheating. Deal with it.

[JackRiddler]

73. Um, no.

Not everyone's a church-going Christian, you know.

The civil documents read rather differently.

[NashVegas]

80. Fine

If the documents don't have anything to say about marital fidelity, your partner has no justification to use that against you in court.

Doesn't mean you're not a snake.

[LanternWaste]

71. I imagine many, many people will...

I imagine many, many people will contort the intent and the content of honesty to better suit their own dishonesty. I'm certainly not surprised by it. Surprised by the mental gymnastics sure, but not by the ultimate agenda of dishonesty-- as dishonesty is much more pervasive than actual honesty; and, as indirectly implied up thread, honesty may not even be the genetic norm for humans (not that I agree with the editorialized hypothesis). If people so wish to justify their lives that way, so be it.



Cheating is the norm.

Honesty is archaic.

Monogamy is abnormal.

Your chocolate rations will increase this month...

[seabeyond]

98. man, i enjoy your posts.

love hearing what you have to say. a neat and precise perspective, consistently

[LanternWaste]

101. Yours was a rather nice compliment to end a rough day...

Thank you. :blush:

Yours was a rather nice compliment to end a rough day. :) I'm glad you and I are on the same side.

Have you ever seen a movie called The Princess Bride? Every post of yours that I read, I am reminded of a simple quote-- "we are men of honor-- lies do not become us" (yes-- I know you're not a male, but who am I to bastardize great movie quotes?).

[seabeyond]

102. wavin

and cheers to a relaxing weekend. i started my friday with a fender bender.... rollin eyes, lol.

"we are men of honor-- lies do not become us"
sexy beyond words.

[redqueen]

157. Oh so very well said...

"contort the intent and the content of honesty to better suit their own dishonesty".

Bra-fucking-vo!

:applause:

[CTyankee]

77. This thread is some food fight! I haven't seen one of these in a long time!

I'm glad some folks came in to save it. Otherwise, I'd be begging the mods for "locking" mercy!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

81. Cheating a client in business is a propaganda term for strict or jealous ethicists.

One goes to a business expecting it to be run within certain ethical guidelines. When those ethical parameters are breached it's a violation of an implied (or written) contract due to what is deemed a reasonable expectation.

If one goes into a traditional one-on-one relationship one is not out of bounds to expect certain parameters, monogamy being one of those expected parameters.

It's all about what the participants agreed upon going into the relationship.

[JackRiddler]

92. Actually, the real world financial system is based on exactly that premise!

1. BUSINESS ETHICS

The cavalier interpretations of caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") in real-world practice belie any model of ethical business. Too many people consider it acceptable to practice any deception, as long as it is within the law (bury the loophole in the miles of fine print, employ legal battalions to redefine the terms, let derivatives go completely unregulated, etc.) In fact, this is how you get ahead. The system encourages this tendency.

That being said, every business transaction IS a contract, down to retail purchase of chewing gum. When not written, the contract is presupposed and supposed to be utterly clear. No contract, no business transaction. The economic ideal is the smoothly functioning machine.

But what does this have to do with sexual relationships?

2. SEX AND LOVE

Modern sexual and love relationships in the Western mold are not contracts! They arise spontaneously as the lovers-in-becoming experience the emotions, perhaps before they have even understood what is happening.

Contractual relationships like marriages are signed to protect the partners, or the children of existing relationships, or to institutionalize a given social goal, but relationships themselves are not contracts. The rational model of fully conscious, fully eloquent actors entering explicit agreements can never describe them. Sex and love are a realm where people generally have trouble voicing all of their feelings, or making themselves understood. The majority of what happens in a relationship often goes unspoken, or even remains unconscious.

And it happens within a web of other relationships, conflicting mores and social rules, and assumptions that may not be shared equally by both partners (or all six of them, if you prefer). People may end up assenting (or assuming mutual assent) to a set of rules they didn't fully understand, especially with regard to consequences. And they may revise the rules and their own memory of the rules as they go along.

Another reality is that people change. They can protest eternal love and fidelity and be happy about it, that won't always remain the case forever. Again very difficult to talk about when everything in society encourages monogamy or at least serial monogamy and makes any other option deviant. Many people don't feel the same way about their own drives from day to day, or know how they really relate to their partners. That goes for women and men!

My plea is to be more reserved about judgements and allow for complexity. Start with using a neutral term, like extramarital affairs.

All of which has nothing to do with John Edwards, by the way. There is no excuse for what he did to his dying wife and to the progressive movement of which he briefly became the voice, by presenting himself as a monogamous, religiously pious goody two-shoes while running for president and having an affair.

[JuniperLea]

89. If you say you won't

And then you do, you are a cheater.

If your spouse or s/o knows, or you are in some agreement in the matter, it is not cheating.

Simple, really.

[Time for change]

90. Well said

I am very hesitant to judge people for what they do in their private lives, since I rarely know all the pertinent details.

[JackRiddler]

93. Thanks but here's some self-critique...

I plead for nuance and a reserved approach, but I lead with a provocative attention grabber.

[whoneedstickets]

91. Cheating on the Monogamous contract....

I agree that cheating is wrong and constitutes infidelity or betrayal of the pledge of monogamy.

However, embedded in the monogamy agreement, which stipulates that each party will not seek out intimacy with another, is the principle that each party's need for intimacy will be supplied and satisfied by the other. If legitimately requested intimacy needs are not being met within the contract, then the monogamy bargain has already already been breached. The term for whatever happens subsequently is an open question.

[dustbunnie]

118. What you say is really what it all boils down to.

Many people have relationships outside the marriage because they are lonely. If you've agreed to a whole lot of other pledges while taking your vows, then you eventually break them by becoming distant, withholding sex, taking the other for granted, why would the fidelity pledge matter a whit? Everything else has been thrown away. People tend to see things in black and white, when the reality is that human relationships often work in the gray area. And it's as they say, "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point."

[smalll]

99. LOL - Rationalization City! Also, is "monstrous" a euphemism for "fat?"

"Not all cheating is sexual; it's also possible to promise yourself as one kind of person and, to take one extreme, later to turn into (or be revealed as) a monstrous or exploitative other."

[JackRiddler]

129. To your question: certainly not.

Fat is nice.

[quaker bill]

104. It is not about the intercourse

It is about the deception and the lack of respect that motivates the deception. In the larger scheme of things the intercourse involved is but momentary and symbolic, it is the lack of respect involved in such deception that lasts a lifetime.

Setting aside symbolic taboos and infractions thereof is child's play. The notion that one can set aside these things is no sign of maturity. One does not go to find great sages at swingers clubs. These establishments have another purpose.

[knitter4democracy]

121. Exactly.

Even though the knowledge that my STBX-husband had sex with other women hurts, what hurts more is that he played house with them, too, cooking for them, etc. More than that, he lied every time he said he loved me, every time he covered for his long-term affairs, every time he blamed me for what was wrong between us. Apparently, I was married to a stranger, as I have no idea who he is anymore. That's the infidelity--it's not about the sex anywhere near as much as it is about the betrayal.

[quaker bill]

134. I see that you have been there as well

hope your recovery goes well. I ended up in a far better place with a sane person at my side.

[knitter4democracy]

168. I hope so, too.

It's still really rough. Mediation went okay (with the mediator insulting me and my lawyer repeatedly--infuriating!), so I'm hoping that the rest of the divorce can get settled quickly. My guess is that it's going to trial, though.

[alarimer]

106. Only assholes cheat.

Real men and women are able to resist temptation and not boink anything that breathes.

[dionysus]

108. ding ding ding...

[seabeyond]

109. da ding ding ding, lol. n/t

[dustbunnie]

119. What about someone who finds him/herself in a controlling or abusive marriage?

Sometimes people are so demeaned they can't find their way out of an awful situation until they've met someone else who makes them feel human again. Or what if you find yourself with someone who loses complete interest in sex, and after a few years you're basically living with a roomate. What about those people who end up in a situation where the spouse is living with a debilitating disease or paralysis that precludes sex forever, even though they may both be quite young? None of these situations requires asshole-ishness as a character flaw per se...

[knitter4democracy]

122. As our judge said at the second hearing, you get the divorce first.

If you really can't stand that person or are living in hell, then you get the divorce first before moving on. If you are in a relationship where there can't be sex, then you talk openly about your sexual needs and come to the decision together to have an open relationship.

Going off and having relationships outside of marriage without facing it, making it open and honest--that's the problem.

[Deja Q]

127. Oh, but being an even lower piece of used toilet paper is so much more fun!

:party:

:sarcasm:

if there's a problem, communicate and then get out.

People don't even try any more and Levi really was right; it's just not realistic to expect _____ out of people.

[dustbunnie]

128. That sounds great on paper. Or a message board post.

It just doesn't always work out so neat and gift-wrapped in real life. It's very easy to judge people, especially when we don't live their life circumstances. Sometimes divorce is simply out of the question.

[JackRiddler]

146. dustbunnie: Wise and simply said, thank you, hope anyone even gets it. nt

[redqueen]

158. This issue is being brought up in the context of Edwards' *pattern* of cheating

on his non-abusive spouse.

One would hope that such a sad person as you describe would, after the cheating somehow built up their self-esteem (seriously doubtful, but I digress)... that they would then finally do the right thing and leave the situation, so they'd no longer have to cheat and lie.

Congratulations on finding some kind of situation in which we might actually have some compassion for a cheater. And yes, they are still a cheater... no matter the circumstances surrounding it, it is cheating. And it is wrong.

Extenuating circumstances make it so that we might sympathize and understand why the person did this wrong thing... cheating... but it does not change what they did into something else. It is cheating.

[seabeyond]

160. sometimes when one lives in integrity they might actually have to do without, do something

hard, not get what they want, ... but can look self in the mirror. that is what makes integrity so damn hard, but integrity it is

[redqueen]

162. Well said. It is hard, and most of us fall short.

But attempting to redefine words in order to try to absolve ourselves of our own responsibility for our own mistakes... I dunno... it's weak and cowardly to me.

[seabeyond]

166. i am not big on lying, but lying to self is the worst. lie to me, lie to the world

but when lying to self there is damage done. life is just so much easier if one can be honest with self, even if what we may chose is not the most appropriate or responsible or even best choice.

[dionysus]

197. .

:thumbsup:

[dustbunnie]

210. I know the thread was inspired by the Edwards scandale. But people are responding with -

"ALL people who cheat are POS." I was just responding to that, and gave an example of when it may be wrong strictly speaking, but understandable under the circumstances.

People have replied here by saying that the honorable thing to do is to get out first, then go forth and copulate. It may be honorable, but it hurts just as bad. If my SO came home today and told me that I've bored him to tears for the last six months, he can't bear being with me one more minute and wants out, it would devastate me probably even more than being told he stepped out. It's rejection, plain and simple. At least if he admitted to an affair, I could delude myself into thinking he still loved me in his heart. When people have vowed to honor and cherish each other, then one day decide they want out, that's flouting the vows just as much as committing adultery. The adultery seems to have an added "insult to pride" caveat attached, and so it seems worse than plain old vanilla rejection. But is it really?

Many people find it hard to leave a spouse, even when the relationship is horrible, and especially after many years. Affairs or one night stands are often a spring board toward that end. It's weakness for sure, but sometimes understandable. Other relationships include children in the picture and while there's no possibility the two adults would consider divorce, sometimes the loneliness of being in an emotionally disconnected or otherwise bad relationship is too much to bear.

[JackRiddler]

211. Aaarrrrrrrrgh!!! This thread was NOT inspired by Edwards!!!!

I wouldn't defend Edwards because he's a hypocrite, a slick fraud piously who exploited his traditional family-man image and churchgoing goody-two shoes bullshit. He posed himself as the progressive voice and then sucked any leftist energy out of the primaries by prematurely resigning. And at the same time as posing, he ran around fucking while his wife looked fatal. Fuck Edwards!

I swear, I did not notice Edwards was in the news again until AFTER I wrote this thread. The thread was inspired by another thread about cheating, which was probably inspired by the return of the Edwards story.

Okay?

[dustbunnie]

212. Sorry!!!

:D I stand corrected. I figured the other cheating thread was inspired by Edwards, so just ass-umed this one was as well.

But regardless, it's a good thread!

[knitter4democracy]

213. With an affair, though, you can't really delude yourself that he still loves you.

At least in my experience (he had at least two long-term affairs and ended our marriage so he could marry the latest one), I just don't think he could "step out" on me and the kids that many times and for that long and still actually love us. Thinking that he actually loves me would definitely be a delusion.

[dustbunnie]

214. You're lucky to be rid of him!

There's no reason to remain with someone who has denigrated your relationship like that and I wish you lots of happiness in your new life! I was thinking more along the lines of a one time thing, falling at my feet and begging forgiveness. That might be less hurtful to deal with than "I don't love you anymore and can't wait to leave." Today I would leave, but if we had spent 30 years together, maybe the last 10 without sex because we've become too comfortable and are too close as friends to sustain any excitement in that area, I might hesitate to end the relationship over a fling. Or even really blame him. After so much time, I might be tempted myself. Many adultery stories are terrible, but sometimes the reasons are complicated. You can be friends with a couple for years, but you can never really, really know what goes on their house after you leave.

[knitter4democracy]

215. Maybe a one time thing, but the trust is still broken.

Once that trust is broken, it's amazingly hard to fix the relationship. I tried, but it was a losing battle.

[knitter4democracy]

165. Well, that's what STBX says.

See, it was totally fine for him to cheat on me and the kids ever since our six y.o. son was just two months old. I was a terrible wife, it was all my fault, it was the kids' faults, the house wasn't clean enough, whatever excuse he's using today . . . all perfectly good reasons to cheat on me.

Sorry, but when I'm in the middle of a divorce because that rat bastard cheated on me, spending thousands of family dollars on his tramps while not letting me spend it on the kids, it's hard for me to be objective and say that in some Harelquin romance reality, it's okay to cheat. It's not. People get hurt.

[renegade000]

176. I'm all for not judging people, but

you also have to recognize that people may find certain behaviors unacceptable from their perspective and their own set of life circumstances. Just because we can understand and sympathize with a person's position, doesn't mean we have to find his/her actions to be palatable. An individual's actions are interpreted in the context of that individual's plight. You can argue that in an abusive relationship, the foundation of mutual trust and respect has already been broken by the abuser, and acts of polyamory by the abused are means by which the abused try to salvage their life. I can buy that.
However, there are plenty of people who don't live in abusive relationships, and the infidelity itself would be the initial violation of the foundation of trust and respect of the relationship.

[Deja Q]

126. But that's not realistic an attitude!

:sarcasm:

[Midlodemocrat]

186. +1

[xchrom]

195. only immature adults expect others to fill their every emotional need at every minute. nt

[AspenRose]

201. "You cannot add this person to your buddy list because they are already on"

:thumbsup:

[AllentownJake]

112. No, if you agree to have an exclusive relationship

and than before breaking up that exclusive relationship you fuck someone else.

You are a fucking cheater and a poor human being. I don't care if its a man or woman.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

115. EE said that she asked for only ONE thing from JE---To be faithful.

He failed that.

[Deja Q]

123. Levi was right after all. Thanks for helping to prove him right.

It's "not realistic".

I'm going to get a time machine, go back in time 11 years, remove every affirming bumper sticker, revoke every donation, and fuck until I get a terminal illness. Oh, that way I'll have propped up lots of stereotypes too.

You're welcome.



/reversepsychology

[JackRiddler]

145. Sorry, I don't follow tabloid characters, so I have no idea what Levi even said.

And the fight for equal rights in contract law and an end to discrimination against a historically oppressed group is not a fight for everyone to be like Ozzie and Harriet (except both can be of the same sex), and it is untrue that the only other alternative is horrific death from horrible diseases as the righteous fruit of your sin. Correct me if I'm wrong but honestly, you sound as though you would get along fine with the Christian fundamentalist cultural program, if only they would accept gay marriage.

[redqueen]

135. Maybe you could make up new terms.

Like we do for murder... manslaughter, aggravated murder, premeditated murder, etc.

I kinda see your point... but no matter the legal term for whatever kind of murder it is... it's still murder.

So IMO it follows that no matter what extenuating circumstances may be involved in an affair or other form of betrayal... it's still cheating.

[JackRiddler]

148. I guess you could!

Perhaps with a neutral blueprint that doesn't reach for homicide and murder as the analogy? If it comes naturally to you, perhaps that serves to illustrate my point? Something that at least acknowledges an initial state in which the outside observer may not actually know anything about the situation and needs to withhold their friggin' preconceptions?

Yes, maybe one could...

[redqueen]

152. Oh please.

If it offends you so much, think of another type of crime in which people strive to portray shades of gray, and use that one... cause really, the drama act doesn't help your argument.

[eridani]

138. Polyamorists get polysyllabic about this

"Cheating" = "non-consensual non-monogamy"

[iamthebandfanman]

139. whys it so hard to understand?

not happy with the person ur with ?
leave them!

not satisfied sexually ? leave them!
emotionally ? leave them!


its true, cheating isnt just sexual...
but sexual cheating can have the most consequences for the other person involved...
you are risking someones health beyond their mental state...

i really fail to see whats so hard to understand about getting outa a relationship before entering a new one.

it has everything to do with respect and love, and less to do with jealousy...

jealousy is just the by product of respect and love being thrown into doubt...

people do infact get jealous over other things, not just relationships...

thered be less jealousy if people just broke off commitments before going outside of them...

but hey, thats not nearly as exciting is it ? nah, its much more daring to sneak around.

theres no need to 'cheat'. all it takes is 'im not happy anymore, i want to see someone else' or even 'im not sexually satisfied anymore'.

if a couple wants to make an agreement to see others sexually while maintaining an emotional exclusive relationship, then more power to them (as technically thats not really cheating, since everyone knows about it)... but the few (2) relationships(married) ive seen attempt this have both ended in divorce... it just delayed the inevitable and made the marriage exciting again for a while...


i personally dont care what other people do tho, its their lives and if they dont wanna be committed to one person thats fine...
just dont try to pursue something with me ;)

[readmoreoften]

140. A "propaganda" term? Like a FOX news piece or a slanted newspaper article?

Who is in charge of this vast conspiracy? What do these uber "jealous monogamists" who control the world's minions of lovers have to gain from their crafty plot? Exciting bar fights? Plot points for Hollywood cinema?

Or...maybe some people find polyamory banal and instead enjoy a little passion every now and then.

[JackRiddler]

147. Oh, brother...

Now here's one with zero tolerance for wordplay...

Anyway, I'm sure no one wants to get in the way of your "little passion every now and then."

[MrScorpio]

142. I guess some people have more love to give than others do

Let's just hope that they're using protection

[eShirl]

143. Why bother to enter or stay in a monogamous relationship?

What is the opposite of "strict monogamy?" Loose monogamy? (Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it?)

If you're in a monogamous relationship and not going to remain monogamous, please at least have the decency to tell the other person (preferably *before* but at the very least, at the earliest possible opportunity afterward) so they have the option of staying with you anyway or leaving. *Don't be dishonest.* They have the right to know.

For people who have a mutual understanding/agreement allowing sex w/ other people or even other partners, more power to you! I just don't consider that monogamy, that's all.

[JackRiddler]

170. Most people don't "bother to enter"...

It just happens. And half the time peoples' lives go on from there, together, without any of them knowing exactly how or why it's happening, or necessarily spelling out exactly what they think is happening, or knowing who they themselves will be down the line. (Imagine how any relationships would form if there had to be written contracts in advance!)

And it's good and it's bad and it's ambiguous, and it's hardly described by the model of contractual business relationships that many people here falsely use as an analogy (including someone who compares sexual love relationships to investing in a car and not just stealing someone else's!). Which in most cases is presumably a joke, since some of the most ardent defenders of the Ten Commandments approach to adultery here are no doubt just like most people, i.e., love happened to them, they didn't "enter an agreement" or sign the fine print on a whole model in advance.

[seabeyond]

171. "It just happens". maybe that is the problem. to have so little control

of self or conscious decision making would be a tough place to be. i dont think there has been a thing in life that just "happened". i have been aware of every choice i made. universe didnt just zap me as a non participant. maybe people ought to not let life "just happen" to them.

maybe that is being a pragmatist so love didnt blind and take control. gosh i would hate to be one where life did me and not me doing life. what an interesting concept and play on my brain. i have simply never looked at life as ever just happening.

hm

[JackRiddler]

172. oi vey!

Am I on the wrong thread? Is this actually about types of car insurance?

So, let me get this straight. You chose when and with whom to fall in love?

Did you also chose who would like you, and they fell in love with you too?

As your lips approached for a first kiss - or was it a handshake? - were you both already in fully conscious and explicit, voluntary concordance on every last clause of the implicit contract you entered by falling in love with each other? Or did you sign it in writing before the kiss/handshake?

Well then! Bully for you! You are the superior human with the relationship biography of maybe 3 percent of the people on the planet (if everyone were to be fully honest -- which of course may be difficult when they're busy rationalizing their own relationships as the best of all possible worlds and of "course this is what I wanted and I'm totally sovereign over every aspect of my wonderful life in which nothing I can't control ever happens, how could anyone not be," etc. etc.).

All the rest of us crawl the earth like maggots in awe of your free will, your complete self-knowledge and freedom from irrational or subconscious drives that you cannot fully control, and your utter mastery of your self-made life.

[seabeyond]

173. really.... doesnt seem hard or foriegn to me and cannot believe there arent many

many more like me. i always assumed it was the norm. as i say.... this concept of lack of control in life is totally new for me and i am just digesting it. give me time to understand. it will allow me to be more empathitic to all those that are absolutely powerless.

[JackRiddler]

175. Just landed on this planet, eh?

So, you've never before seen or heard evidence that people fall in love and do impulsive things for reasons they only half understand (or don't care to analyze while it's happening) and get themselves in unexpected situations, sometimes producing babies they (we hope) have to take care of, etc. etc.

Or that, due to similarly irrational drives and insecurities, they end up in false matches and bad relationships before even figuring out that it's happened.

Who would have thought such things transpire! I know, it will take you a few months to digest these highly foreign concepts, having only just emerged from your self-built castle in the sky. Please be gentle with us, when you finally complete your study of the Earthlings.

I'd say that faux naivete and false superiority are not becoming, and practically beg for the usual fall from grace in which one realizes that indeed, one is not in control of everything in their life --which provides the source material for both tragedy and comedy, but what do Greeks know anyway? But I guess it fits the "extraterrestrial" theme. Thanks for playing.

[seabeyond]

177. you make them powerless, i tell you that concept is foriegn. in my world

i have never experienced a time where i did not control, where i was out of control, ergo powerless. that is what we are disagreeing on. even that impulsive move, there is a time in my brain, when i know exctly what i am doing. sheeeeit, i always know exactly what i am doing, not just a time. now.... doesnt mean i chose not to do it, but i do it with eyes wide open.

that is our disagreement

[renegade000]

179. I don't believe in human free will either, but

That doesn't mean we can't contemplate the consequences of our actions, and that this analysis can't inform how we ultimately act. I mean, isn't that the point of our higher cognitive abilities/consciousness? To plan ahead? We are not slaves to every single impulse that we get.

We also have the ability to empathize with others, and think about how they would feel about our actions.

Thinking before we act and considering others' feelings is hard to do all the time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least aspire to that ideal and recognize when we have failed and caused people unnecessary harm.

[Dorian Gray]

174. Nothing "just" happens

If you enter into a relationship in which you don't want to be monogamous, but your partner is unaware of that, then you are allowing your partner to live in ignorance of your feelings.

[seabeyond]

178. see, i knew i wasnt the only one dorian. self awaremess is possible.

wink

you and i

the two on the planet that things dont "just happen"

[JackRiddler]

203. self-deception is also possible ... and known to simulate self-awareness...

In fact, the self-deception that one is perfectly self-aware, sovereign and in great shape is something like the normal individual perception among the Earthlings.

Not that this would have anything to do with you guys!

[Bluenorthwest]

144. Your problem lies with the lies

Sorry, but Johnny Edwards and the rest of the gas bags ought not pretend to be God inspiried defenders of Holy Marriage if they are going to be living in another way. If John and Lizzy or any other people want to declare that they do as they wish as free humans, I'd support that. But, please understand that John by his own free choice, spent lots of time on the campaign trail blathering about how he could not bring himself to support marriage equality because, you see, he was raised with Baptist traditions, and that Sacramental Marriage is just a part of him that he can not alter, and his Dad the Deacon, and Goddy God just make him live in a Sacred Union between one man and one woman. Just too dang holy, you see, to approve of gay people having rights, because we would not respect the Sacred Bond like he does, we'd trash it, unlike he and Liz, who live in a God annointed monogomous marriage, the only kind he can imagine upholding. He said those things by choice, out of his own free will.
One can not take the stand that marriage is a divine sacrament that must be protected from teh gay, and also that marriage is to be whatever the couple wants it to be. I'm all for people living as they wish, but only if they speak the truth of how they live. John and Lizzy were hypocrites to the fullest possible degree. He did not have to declare they were so much more 'married' than any gay couple ever could be, that their marriage was 'real' and 'of God' and he did not have to continue on that gay relationships are lesser than their holy set up, in such detail, invoking divine powers and all of that.
John could have just shut up about other people, knowing what he knew of himself. The fact that sex is involved does not somehow make it ok to lie, to slander, to defraud. It does not. John is not some free love advocate getting in trouble for being how he is, he is a promoter of 'traditional marriage' that claimed his marriage superior to other's right up until other people told the truth he would not tell. He actually said 'one man, one woman' while he was seeing two women. He talked about being a christian, well Christ called men like John 'whoremongers', ok? Let's hear him talk about the aspects of his faith that apply to John, not some verses he's clipped out to shove at other people for his own advantage, to cover his own truth.

[malletgirl02]

187. +1

Best post of the thread.

[dionysus]

198. you should break up the paragraphs, because that is an awesome post.

:thumbsup:

[Chovexani]

180. It's a shame you picked that trollish subject line

Because you brought up a lot of interesting issues. I'll just start by saying none of the following has anything specifically to do with the Edwards issue, because I feel like that's a can of worms no one is qualified to open except JE, EE, and RH, media feeding frenzies and tell all books notwithstanding.

These threads always say more to me about the people answering than about the issue itself. That having a rational dialogue about people's expectations is pretty much impossible because people's baggage and society-induced hang ups about sex and intimacy make their lizard brains kick in. It's such a charged topic. I look at this thread and suddenly it's perfectly obvious why the divorce rate in this country is so high. When even having a discussion about something beyond "OMG BAD!!111" is perceived as apologizing for it, that's pretty fucked up IMO.

I also have to laugh at all these staunch monogamists in the thread that keep screaming "if you want to fuck around be in an open relationship!" First of all, understand that some people just plain fetishize cheating, they get off on the "forbidden fruit" type of thing, so that wouldn't really solve anything. Secondly, uh, no. It doesn't work that way, and it's fairly telling that people think it does. Having an "open relationship" (whatever the fuck THAT means), is not about having carte blanche to get down like Caligula with no thought or consequences. All the staunch monogamists putting forth that view are no different than the selfish douchebags who use "open relationship" as an excuse to behave in such a manner. Responsible non-monogamy demands a basic modicum of respect for oneself and one's partners, and demands constant, open communication and negotiation of boundaries. Just like monogamy! Yes, Virginia, non-monogamous folk can and do cheat on their partners. And it hurts just as badly as in a "monogamous" relationship.

Cheating is not about whom you are fucking, or when, where and how many times you fuck them. It is not about the act of fucking. Cheating is about betraying the basic tenets and principles of a relationship as set forth by the principal parties.

I think that whether you are Molly Monogamous or Polly Promiscuous, society would benefit from more people having the maturity and the temerity to talk to their partners about their boundaries and expectations in a relationship. I'm not one of those obnoxious poly folks that thinks I'm oh-so-enlightened compared to the poor, huddling monogamous masses, not by any means! But I think, in general, one thing monogamists could learn from us is the importance of communication. I've seen a lot of monos say that they couldn't be poly because it seems like "too much work". It makes me wonder how much "work" they're putting into their own relationships, because owning your feelings and discussing what is and isn't working for you seems to me like it's just plain common sense to any relationship. How else do you make it work? They talk like it's extra credit instead of standard stuff on the test. It seems to me that a lot of heartbreak could be avoided if people stopped expecting their partners to be the Great Kreskin, Santa Claus, Supergirl and Jesus rolled into one. Fucking talk to each other for Chrissakes. No, it's not easy sometimes, but most things that are worthwhile are hard. And when I say "communication" I mean straightforward, honest communication not laden down with passive-aggressive "If you loved me, you would know" bullshit. That's not communication, that's manipulation. And sometimes people just don't know, for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they love you. Maybe they grew up in a fucked up, dysfunctional home and have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like.

I'm with xchrom (as usual) in that I believe adults are responsible for their own happiness. Note that this isn't about victim-blaming. This is about being a fucking adult and not putting the responsibility for your own happiness on SuperKreskinJesusClaus. No one can "make" you happy. Only you can. If you want to fuck around with a bunch of people, it's your responsibility to let your partner know that, and if that's not what they want, leave them alone and find a partner who does. If you think even talking to someone of the desired gender is cheating, it's your responsibility to let your partner know that.

I see an awful lot of what I like to call mono supremacy at play here. I also see a lot of projecting people's own personal hang ups and beliefs upon the definition of marriage. Marriage is nothing more or nothing less what the parties involved decide that it is. "But, but, that cheapens marriage!" I hear people yell. O rly, Jim Dobson? Not everyone wants or needs the traditional American nuclear family model for romantic relationships, but that doesn't make those relationships any less meaningful or valid for the people involved. People are, ya know, different. And I think selling the dominant relationship model as the One True and Only Way, or the definition of Real Love is what causes a lot of this shit in the first place. We as a society try to shove round pegs into square holes and then wonder why our pegs and holes are so damn sore (pun intended). True, there are some people who are just plain selfish and sociopathic and are all about getting theirs no matter who they hurt in the process (we generally call them "Republicans"). But I wonder just how much misery is caused by people feeling they absolutely have to fit into the standard relationship model, when it's something that just isn't right for them. I will freely admit that prior to becoming poly, I was a serial monogamist who cheated a lot. I'm not proud of that at all, nor am I trying to justify the shitty behavior I engaged in when I was young. But I also know that if I had the tools and resources to talk about and deconstruct that pattern of destructive behavior, it would have stopped. Sure enough, once I did, it did. I'm just not wired to stay in love with just one person forever and ever, and I wouldn't want to be--I want the richness of experience that comes from being in love with different folks at the same time and pursuing relationships, and I want the same for my partners, if they so choose. The starvation economy model of romance is cruel and nonsensical to me. So I choose to opt out of that. That doesn't make my relationships any more or less meaningful than the people who marry their high school sweethearts and are monogamous forever, or the people who feel if they fall in love with someone new and want to pursue, their current relationship has to end. People. Are. Different.

I'll say it again: "cheating" is not anything except the act of crossing the boundaries people set for their relationships. It's horrible, and painful when it happens, because it's a betrayal of trust. That's what people should be condemning, not the very act of non-monogamy.

[JackRiddler]

192. Very thoughtful post & you're right about the subject line...

though please don't call it trollish. It's a grab for attention in a competitive environment. Maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise, see? But you're right, the title provokes people too much, adding flames and a lot of distraction about Edwards. (Who, contrary to many people who like their cereal reflexive, I was not thinking of at all. Anyone with that kind of public hypocrisy can fuck off!) On the other hand, it's meant to counterbalance all the posts that transport all the customary assumptions about cheaters as the worst and most unforgivable scum of the earth, without even knowing anything about a given case, tabloid style.

Enough, though. I like your post very much, and I'll just repeat this paragraph as endorsed:

I see an awful lot of what I like to call mono supremacy at play here. I also see a lot of projecting people's own personal hang ups and beliefs upon the definition of marriage. Marriage is nothing more or nothing less what the parties involved decide that it is. "But, but, that cheapens marriage!" I hear people yell. O rly, Jim Dobson? Not everyone wants or needs the traditional American nuclear family model for romantic relationships, but that doesn't make those relationships any less meaningful or valid for the people involved. People are, ya know, different. And I think selling the dominant relationship model as the One True and Only Way, or the definition of Real Love is what causes a lot of this shit in the first place. We as a society try to shove round pegs into square holes and then wonder why our pegs and holes are so damn sore (pun intended). True, there are some people who are just plain selfish and sociopathic and are all about getting theirs no matter who they hurt in the process (we generally call them "Republicans"). But I wonder just how much misery is caused by people feeling they absolutely have to fit into the standard relationship model, when it's something that just isn't right for them. I will freely admit that prior to becoming poly, I was a serial monogamist who cheated a lot. I'm not proud of that at all, nor am I trying to justify the shitty behavior I engaged in when I was young. But I also know that if I had the tools and resources to talk about and deconstruct that pattern of destructive behavior, it would have stopped. Sure enough, once I did, it did. I'm just not wired to stay in love with just one person forever and ever, and I wouldn't want to be--I want the richness of experience that comes from being in love with different folks at the same time and pursuing relationships, and I want the same for my partners, if they so choose. The starvation economy model of romance is cruel and nonsensical to me. So I choose to opt out of that. That doesn't make my relationships any more or less meaningful than the people who marry their high school sweethearts and are monogamous forever, or the people who feel if they fall in love with someone new and want to pursue, their current relationship has to end. People. Are. Different.

Thanks.

[Adelante]

199. Thoughtful post - thank you nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

188. Apologia Pro Vita Edwardsia?

:rofl:

Ludicrous.

[LWolf]

190. I don't agree.

Of course, I'm not really sure of the context that inspires your post.

I don't consider non-monogamous relationships to be "cheating" when it is agreed upon by all parties involved.

"Cheating," in the case of monogamy, is when one makes a monogamous commitment, and then violates that commitment.

It's a violation of trust, and a violation of one's word, which speaks to the character of the violator.

As far as politicians go? I don't need a politician to be married, or in a monogamous relationship. I don't care if they are married, or who they marry, or if their marriage is "open," but I do care when they use their marriage as an image to campaign on, when they present it publicly as monogamous, if it's not, and when they "cheat."

[JackRiddler]

196. The context (that inspires my post)...

would be this thread by TahitiNut here:

Cheating Spouse - Would you inform a friend if you were aware of their spouse's extramarital affair?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5612438

(QUOTE: "Let's say that you became reasonably certain that the spouse of a friend was having an extramarital affair. Would you inform your friend?")


That prompted me to think about the way "cheater" is used as a way to brand people before circumstances are necessarily known, and how hard it is to know. So the OP is really about how people view others and judge the lives of others, and less about how they justify themselves.

But most of the responses have taken it as the latter, and assumed, in some cases aggressively, that the OP is either

a) secretly an attempt to justify John Edwards (absolutely not, and I did not even notice that he was back in the news until after starting this thread) or

b) secretly an attempt to justify some cheatin' of my own -- something of which, actually, I have no need, and certainly would not do by way of a thread on a very flame-prone public board. Honestly, the idea that I'm here looking for approval from anonymous DUers is, on its face, rather silly, no?

I did pick a provocative headline, of course.

I don't share the contractual model of sexual/love relationships. It's an absurd reduction. Most people enter relationships by falling in love well in advance of codification. And this is a mostly good thing. I certainly preferred it to the idea that I should pick a mate off a checklist.

As for monogamy, it is simply a voluntary option, though it is also that. It is is the hegemonic ideal, and very aggressively pushed on people as the only good way to live. For the majority, it is a required conditioning, all other options render you deviant, dirty or deficient.

Ironically, about half of this same majority who aggressively front monogamy as the only healthy and "mature" way will, at some point, fail to live up to the ideal. In fact, they have failed to live up to this ideal in ever greater numbers ever since we freed ourselves (relatively speaking) from the more restrictive forms of marriage as required bastion of patriarchal arrangements, and the old-fashioned strict control of sexuality, especially of female sexuality.

It's easy to talk about a big contract and integrity, but that may not apply years down the line when people discover they are strangers to each other.

And I'm mildly alarmed at the idea that you judge one's public "character" on this basis, or that this is any consideration whatsoever in our hopelessly personalized political system chock full of "leaders" and largely void of ideas (oh, for the ideological parties of Europe to come here!)

Does that mean the Republicans were right about Clinton's "character" compared to that of the monogamous Bush?

[LWolf]

219. I agree with most of your thoughts about relationships.

I think that monogamy is perhaps not natural to the species, and that it should be less frequent, not prevalent. Monogamy IS a voluntary option, although you make a good point about societal conditioning.

It's certainly not the only way to have a healthy relationship.

When people enter into such a relationship knowingly, and willingly, I think they ought to honor their commitments.

Integrity begins there; don't make that commitment if you don't value it more than attraction to others. And have the simple good sense not to make such a commitment with someone you don't know well enough.

I don't judge anyone's character on monogamy; I do judge it on the integrity to keep one's vows. Again, don't take vows that you can't, or won't, keep.

I disliked Clinton from my first exposure to him, which was a 60 minutes interview in '92. The one where Hillary claimed not to be a "stand by your man" kind of wife while she did just that, excusing his already known infidelities.

Do I think Clinton is comparable to Bush? Of course not. That doesn't mean I think that screwing an intern in the oval office is not poor judgement, to say the least, or that infidelity is not a character flaw.

[Occam Bandage]

194. I'm seeing a lot of amusing "um...what I did isn't cheating, either" in this thread.

Heh.

[Nikia]

200. Although I am monagamous, sometimes I wonder why adultry is considered the worst crime

Aside from maybe domestic violence that causes injury.
My own marriage and those of others I have known have suffered other betrayals leading to hurt feelings, but none of that is considered cheating. Some examples that have affected couples I have known in which one partner did something serious against the wishes of the other and lied about it for a time, stopping the pill to have a child, getting sterilzed, having an abortion, being involved in criminal activity, making a large unnessary purchase when the couple was financially struggling, losing ones job but pretending to go to work for weeks, serious addictions, dangerous hobbies, and engaging in other activites that the spouse believed to be immoral among other things.
I do think that adultry is usually wrong, but sometimes am puzzled it is worse than all the other situations I mentioned. No, I don't tell on friends who are adulters nor do I in those other cases unless I think that someone's life might be in danger. If they talk about it with me, I will tell them I think they are wrong, however.

[JackRiddler]

204. Thanks for explaining my own thinking in this, but with greater clarity!

[redqueen]

205. It's considered worse because that is how the vast majority of people view it.

Lying about the pill, or work, or addictions... none of that involves actually leaving the partner and forming a new partnership with another romantic partner.

To most, that is on a whole other level than other forms of deception, because it involves leaving the partnership to go start another one... at whatever level.

[JackRiddler]

209. And the earth used to be flat for the same reason.

The "vast majority" need to stop imposing their judgements and false paradigms on the free minority.

[redqueen]

221. Cheating is cheating.

No matter how much you stomp your feet and demand people think otherwise.

[JackRiddler]

222. "Stomp your feet"? Yeah, childish your world-view is!

How about, "mind your own business"?

[seabeyond]

223. lol, one can mind their own business and still cheating

bah hahahha, this is funny. i was out of thread BUT

you say childish

your statement is the little kid, got into the cookies and has crumbs all over face saying, no mamma, i didnt have a cookie.

i think the point many are making on the thread is .... we dont care what another does, but it is still cheating. that is minding own business, and stating an obvious and reality. even with reasons for cheating, even without judgment, it is what it is

[imdjh]

216. I only use cheating to mean a breech of their agreement..... more

"Maybe what's going on really isn't my business? "

I will be the judge of what is and isn't my business.

[imdjh]

217. My mom's advice- Ladies, never marry a man who is prettier than you are.