Cheating

[mtnman2003]

Esoteric Answers........

The amount of thought and ink placed here shows a tremendous attempt to provide norms by society and individual rules.

Tate appropriately states that we can not live in anothers shoes.

I am wondering, given the proclivity for sex and more of the members here, if under circumstances each would evaluate emotionally or physically the decision to participate in a "cheating" opportunity. Or do we just write about such escapades? For example, are we more eager to participate in a relationship others may classify as "cheating" than others, or do we just write about the sexual encounters of others as an outlet for these desires?

It would seem that the mind of the participating individuals would either define it as cheating, or justify the occurrence as necessary or acceptable given their set of moral codes. If the individual does not consider it to be "cheating", then the encounter plays a different role from their perception. Granted, society may disagree, but this outside encounter gets justified for a variety of reasons.

Easier to live by ones own moral codes than to accept blindly those established by the norms of society.

 

[Mhari]

I definitely agree with your last statement, mtnman...goodness knows that's what I do!

As for the rest, maybe it's my headahce, but I can't quite make out your meaning. Care to elaborate a bit? Maybe with a hypothetical example or two?

 

[curious2c]

Throughout our marriage, ever since her...digression (sp), I have had oppourtunity to...stray. For me, since I knew how that had felt when discovered, and the pain it entailed, there was never any other choice. Call me what you will, my love for her is such that I couldn't hurt her as she hurt me that one time.

My temptations were quite strong several times, to the point that I almost succumbed to them. In the back of my mind, those minutes just after I found out came into play. Also, her tears and yes, even her shock at my finding out about that whole sordid thing showed me what I would feel like in her shoes as well.

Over twenty three years, soon to be twenty four...there have been times when I felt like tossing it all in and walking, but the cheating aspect only came up one time. One time I almost walked because of it, and that was a year afterwards. It all boiled down to whether or not I would or could ever trust her again. I had to make a concious choice of yes I could and would before we could move beyond that point. Probably the biggest choice I have ever made in our time together.

The trust in the relationship takes a long long time to be built back up. If a couple survives that first year it will get better, but it takes time and great effort on both parties. We had only two years married, and four years beyond that knowing each other. It could have been easier and perhaps for some, better to just walk then and there. With only six years invested we could have called it quits and been ok I guess.

My heart, my heart refused to allow me to do that. So my answer is...it is what is in your heart after the fact. That is what makes the difference. The heart of both.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I left out a set of questions that I'm also curious about:

What about the person being taken back? Why is he/she willing to enter into a relationship where he knows he'll pay for his crime? (Using just "he" from now on to make it simple.) Or does he perhaps not realize this is the case?

As I don't understand taking someone back when you're gonna make him pay, I also don't understand being taken back when you know going to be made to pay.

"Thanks, but I think I'll move on now" is what I think I'd say...

Well, let's just say- as always in life- there are other circumstances involved. One being practical matters, another being family matters and a third being emotional matters.

Perhaps the person subconsciously believes that they deserve the bad teatment. Or perhaps the good outweighs the bad. Or perhaps they are a dreamer and simply believe in the hope that things will get better. Or maybe they are just to lazy to make a life change.

 

[sweetnpetite]

That said - I do certainly agree with you that at some point in time your partner will let you down - But that's human nature, and isn't necessarily malicious on their part.

I also don't feel that it counts as a betrayal. If there's doubt about something in a relationship, you should talk about it - Whisper and I discuss literally *everything*. Unless she's been lying to me, I'm 100% certain on how she feels about kids, about how to raise them, where we're going to live, what sort of house, about dividing up household chores, etc etc.. And I don't think she's been lying to me

I'm the sort of guy who doesn't like surprises, especially nasty ones. I don't think she's ever going to 'betray' an unspoken understanding we have, or 'let me down', because none of our understandings are unspoken, and the ones we haven't talked about yet are ones which we don't feel we need to worry about yet.

What if she were to change her mind about something that the two of you had planned out? Just because she's honest and your certain were she stands, doesn't mean that she'll always feel exactly the same way. Life will always throw you a few suprises- weather you like them or not.

Women who are certain that they want to be stay at home mothers often find they need more- and vice versa. Or a woman who doesn't even want children may eventually start to feel "broody." ONe who wants six kids, may later find that two is all she can handle. And this is just on the subject of children. Even honest woman change their minds- it's our perogotive after all.

If you expect life to be simple and uncomplicated- and go according to your 5-steps-ahead plan, a lot of people are going to consider you nieve. And some are going to tell you so. I think I'd get used to it- that way their wont' be any nasty suprises..

 

[whispering_surrender]

What if she were to change her mind about something that the two of you had planned out? Just because she's honest and your certain were she stands, doesn't mean that she'll always feel exactly the same way. Life will always throw you a few suprises- weather you like them or not.

Women who are certain that they want to be stay at home mothers often find they need more- and vice versa. Or a woman who doesn't even want children may eventually start to feel "broody." ONe who wants six kids, may later find that two is all she can handle. And this is just on the subject of children. Even honest woman change their minds- it's our perogotive after all.

If you expect life to be simple and uncomplicated- and go according to your 5-steps-ahead plan, a lot of people are going to consider you nieve. And some are going to tell you so. I think I'd get used to it- that way their wont' be any nasty suprises..

I think Raphy's point is not that I'll never change my mind about things that we've talked about. It's that he knows where I stand now, and can plan from that. And , if I change my mind about something, we talk about it, compromise, mould, change plans to accomodate it. The same if he changes his mind.

It's human nature to change your mind, or to try something and decide it's not quite how you expected it to be. It's how you present it to your partner that makes it betrayal.

Using your children analogy: If I decided that two children was all I could handle and we had planned on four....talking about it, coming to the conclusion that we both think we have a large enough family and modifying our plans is healthy and productive. Me running off and getting my tubes tied without his knowledge would be betrayal. And not something I would ever do to him.

Do you see what I, and what I think he, means?

Whisp

 

[Dirt Man]

Could someone please tell me why, when people become a relationship, do they think that they suddenly acquired the sole Possession of the other person's body and soul? Weren't these people free to choose before they met? And didn't they have other relationships before entering into an agreement of marriage? Did they have sex with other people before tying the knot? Is sex a relationship, or just something the body needs every now and then? Is eating a relationship, or just something the body needs every now and then.

What I'm thinking here is that there should be, in fine print no less, a clause in every marriage contract, license, or whatever allowing for a certain amount of indiscretions (within reasonable limits assigned at the start of course) for both parties as long as they are handled discreetly, and don't embarass the relationship. That way neither jealousy, or mistrust can be used as a factor against the one using their discretion loophole by the other for the purpose of acquiring a divorce. That way going over one's limit of indiscretions would automatically put that person on the automatic losing end in any divorce proceedings as someone who is totally unable of being trustworthy.

What do you think?

As Always
I Am the
Dirt man

 

[SadieRose]

Pure sex, or something more?

If a person strays from the marital bed, where not much is happening in any case, and into another bed where more stuff is happening, but without making any kind of 'emotional' commitment to that person, is it any more of a betrayal than if she/he suddenly began to spend more time with friends/shopping/down the pub instead of being with his/her Sig.Other??

If two people are having sex without any intention of disturbing the status quo of other relationships, then yes, it does address the question of what is wrong in their other respective partnerships but it also fills a hole in their lives and if the SO does not ask where they were or what they were doing whilst they were not at home, does this in any sense constitute a betrayal?

Is there, in fact, any relationship to betray?

 

[minsue]

Re: Pure sex, or something more?

If a person strays from the marital bed, where not much is happening in any case, and into another bed where more stuff is happening, but without making any kind of 'emotional' commitment to that person, is it any more of a betrayal than if she/he suddenly began to spend more time with friends/shopping/down the pub instead of being with his/her Sig.Other??

If two people are having sex without any intention of disturbing the status quo of other relationships, then yes, it does address the question of what is wrong in their other respective partnerships but it also fills a hole in their lives and if the SO does not ask where they were or what they were doing whilst they were not at home, does this in any sense constitute a betrayal?

Is there, in fact, any relationship to betray?

That's an impressive rationalization, but lack of marital sex does not mean it would not be a betrayal.

 

[Dirt Man]

Re: Re: Pure sex, or something more?

That's an impressive rationalization, but lack of marital sex does not mean it would not be a betrayal.

This brings to mind one question then; Do you believe it is okay for people to use sex as a weapon in a relationship? Because that is exactly what your answer implies. And that being the case what's the sense of calling it a relationship, or even a marriage?


As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[minsue]

Re: Re: Re: Pure sex, or something more?

This brings to mind one question then; Do you believe it is okay for people to use sex as a weapon in a relationship? Because that is exactly what your answer implies. And that being the case what's the sense of calling it a relationship, or even a marriage?


As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

Whoa! I was not intending to imply using sex as a weapon by any means. No, that is not OK either.

 

[NoJo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pure sex, or something more?

Whoa! I was not intending to imply using sex as a weapon by any means. No, that is not OK either.

How about using a weapon during sex?

 

[destinie21]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pure sex, or something more?

How about using a weapon during sex?

hurt me hurt me

 

[NoJo]

You know the joke, des:


Masochist: "Whip me, please whip me!"

Sadist: (evil grin) "No. I want you to suffer."

 

[destinie21]

lol I always get my way.

 

[raphy]

Re: Pure sex, or something more?

If a person strays from the marital bed, where not much is happening in any case, and into another bed where more stuff is happening, but without making any kind of 'emotional' commitment to that person, is it any more of a betrayal than if she/he suddenly began to spend more time with friends/shopping/down the pub instead of being with his/her Sig.Other??

If two people are having sex without any intention of disturbing the status quo of other relationships, then yes, it does address the question of what is wrong in their other respective partnerships but it also fills a hole in their lives and if the SO does not ask where they were or what they were doing whilst they were not at home, does this in any sense constitute a betrayal?

Is there, in fact, any relationship to betray?

Well, personally, I think that's a betrayal.. This goes back to what was said earlier in the thread. It's a betrayal of an unspoken (usually) contract - That when you're in a monogamous relationship, you don't have sexual relations with any other person, regardless of what you are or aren't getting at home.

Now, whether it's right or it's wrong, in today's western society, it's usually assumed that when one enters into a relationship, it's going to be a monogamous one. If it's not discussed beforehand, it's pretty fair to assume that it's going to be a monogamous relationship.

I've been in all sorts of relationships. Monogamous, open and polygamous, but in all the ones that weren't mono, the subject was discussed right at the start, and basic ground rules were laid out. Those rules differ from relationship to relationship, but they were always there. In one open relationship, we agreed that we could sleep with whoever, but not make a point of talking about it. In another, we told each other all the dirty little details. I've seen open relationships where partners had to ask each other permission on a case-by-case basis. All sorts of things, but the common factor is that it was talked about.

I'm rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that in all the non-mono relationships, sexual ground rules were established. In the mono ones, it was just assumed that we were going to be mono. That's just the way western society works today.

So yes, I think that would count as a betrayal - Because if the subject of extra-marital sex hasn't been discussed previously, I think it would be fair to assume that monogamous behaviour would be expected.

 

[minsue]

Raphy, you have eloquently written what I was trying to say. I knew there was a reason I should leave this to the writers!

- Mindy

 

[raphy]

Could someone please tell me why, when people become a relationship, do they think that they suddenly acquired the sole Possession of the other person's body and soul? Weren't these people free to choose before they met? And didn't they have other relationships before entering into an agreement of marriage? Did they have sex with other people before tying the knot? Is sex a relationship, or just something the body needs every now and then? Is eating a relationship, or just something the body needs every now and then.

What I'm thinking here is that there should be, in fine print no less, a clause in every marriage contract, license, or whatever allowing for a certain amount of indiscretions (within reasonable limits assigned at the start of course) for both parties as long as they are handled discreetly, and don't embarass the relationship. That way neither jealousy, or mistrust can be used as a factor against the one using their discretion loophole by the other for the purpose of acquiring a divorce. That way going over one's limit of indiscretions would automatically put that person on the automatic losing end in any divorce proceedings as someone who is totally unable of being trustworthy.

What do you think?

As Always
I Am the
Dirt man

I think that that fineprint should be tailored to each and every individual couple, as every relationship is different

 

[raphy]

Raphy, you have eloquently written what I was trying to say. I knew there was a reason I should leave this to the writers!

- Mindy

 

[Dirt Man]

Re: Re: Pure sex, or something more?

I'm rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that in all the non-mono relationships, sexual ground rules were established. In the mono ones, it was just assumed that we were going to be mono. That's just the way western society works today.

So yes, I think that would count as a betrayal - Because if the subject of extra-marital sex hasn't been discussed previously, I think it would be fair to assume that monogamous behaviour would be expected.

This is only a Christian belief, not what you call a Westeren society belief. It works on the principal set down by God himself when he wrote the Ten Commandments, his first law was: "Thou salt have no other Gods before me!" And then the living God; Jesus later likened his followers as the brides of Christ. And so in conjunction with the first law of God marriage became holy, and considered to be monogomous for all of the above. So basically, if you aren't a Christian why would you think that monogamy is expected in any relationship other than it is the law of the land in America for being married. But then the constitution was written mostly by Christians, wasn't it. Still, few here profess to being christians.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[raphy]

I think it may have been a gross generalization on my part, but since most of western society bases it's roots in christianity of one form or another, I don't think it was inaccurate for me to say what I said.

Basically, all i was trying to say was this:

Bill meets Betty

They have a relationship.

If they don't discuss the sexual boundaries, it is commonly accepted in western society that it will be a monogamous relationship.

If it is to be something other than a monogamous relationship, it's usually always discussed beforehand.

Am I right or not?

(oh, and please don't quote the 'exceptions' like Mormon society, or the deeper parts of the alternative lifestyle where poly or open is the norm. I'm talking about Bill and Betty from nowheresville, Indiana. Besides, those exceptions prove the rule )

Okay, given that unless the subject's been previously discussed, they're having a monogamous relationship, I hereby do submit that either of them sleeping with someone else would be considered betrayal, regardless of whether or not they were getting any at home.

That was the point I was making, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether monogamy is a christian ideal or a western ideal, or even if the two are separate.

 

[rgraham666]

'Cheating' is one of those forms of human behaviour that I have a great deal of trouble understanding.

I will admit up front that my personal experience is quite limited. But I have been observing the human species for as long as I've been sentient. And I don't understand why people fuck around.

I, myself, would not cheat. In the very few relationships I've had, I've never cheated. It's just the wrong thing to do. Relationships are difficult to maintain without throwing the hand grenade of betrayal into them.

As far as making someone pay goes, well, I won't make up someone's mind for them. As a rough outline I would say it depends on the emotion each individual has invested in the realtionship, how much more they are willing to invest, and whether they decide the rewards of this investment will be greater than the costs.

The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.

 

[Dirt Man]

I think it may have been a gross generalization on my part, but since most of western society bases it's roots in christianity of one form or another, I don't think it was inaccurate for me to say what I said.

Basically, all i was trying to say was this:

Bill meets Betty

They have a relationship.

If they don't discuss the sexual boundaries, it is commonly accepted in western society that it will be a monogamous relationship.

If it is to be something other than a monogamous relationship, it's usually always discussed beforehand.

Am I right or not?

(oh, and please don't quote the 'exceptions' like Mormon society, or the deeper parts of the alternative lifestyle where poly or open is the norm. I'm talking about Bill and Betty from nowheresville, Indiana. Besides, those exceptions prove the rule )

Okay, given that unless the subject's been previously discussed, they're having a monogamous relationship, I hereby do submit that either of them sleeping with someone else would be considered betrayal, regardless of whether or not they were getting any at home.

That was the point I was making, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether monogamy is a christian ideal or a western ideal, or even if the two are separate.

Nothing you've said here, which is pretty much what you said the first time changes the fact that unless Bill, and Betty are Christians why should they feel that a monogamous relationship is expected? Bill could very easily William Akmed Abdul for all I know, and Mormons aren't the only ones with a background in polygamy you know. It may sound like I'm harping here, but what with all of the harping against Christianity on this board, I figure that I'm entiled to bring up a point or two, here and there.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Belegon]

varied thoughts

I honestly don't believe that raphy is equating monogamy with christianity, and that is exactly why he restated the query in that way. Just as Mormans are not the only ones with a background that can be non-monogamous ( and the vast majority of LDS members ARE monogamous) so too are derivatives of the once all-invasive (in Europe) catholicism not the only cultural background to engage in monogamy. I belive he honestly thought he had not stated his point clearly enough.

To me the danger of infidelity lies entirely in the emotional side. I truly do not feel physical jealousy, and yes, I have been cheated on in the past. What bothered me was the cover-up and the lies.

I feel that the "rights" should be unchanged, but that the person who did the betraying must realize that he/she has granted the sig other a reason to feel suspicion and must be reconciled to this. If you feel the need to restrict the other person's "rights", than things are very unresolved.

The first time I was ever cheated on, I didn't feel anger so much as dissapointment. For me , the former is much more fleeting than the latter.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Nothing you've said here, which is pretty much what you said the first time changes the fact that unless Bill, and Betty are Christians why should they feel that a monogamous relationship is expected? Bill could very easily William Akmed Abdul for all I know, and Mormons aren't the only ones with a background in polygamy you know. It may sound like I'm harping here, but what with all of the harping against Christianity on this board, I figure that I'm entiled to bring up a point or two, here and there.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

Perhaps they shouldn't- but in general they *do*

The question of weather they should or shouldn't is really a whole other discussion.

For the record, I pretty much agree with what you are saying, as far as *should* goes. In this modern day and age, when will the concept of *belonging* to another stop being considered romantic? (Maybe when 'daddy's girls' stop singing about being Independant Woman)

Not only because it's off topic, but also because I think that it really does deserve a thread of it's own, I think you should start a thread about it. "Why Monogomy" or "Should Monogomy Be the Rule or the Exeption" or whatever your topic is. I think that it will probably take off on this board


IN the case of the actual question on the board, fidelity was expected, although I don't believe that it was ever specifically promised, the cheater knows that what they did was a betrayal and hurt the other person badly- none of that is in question.

The cheating person is starting to wonder if the betrayed person is actually pleased that the ballance of power has shifted even more toward themself. (AS in "you are the bad person in this relationship and I am the good person) and using that guilt as leverage.