When a couple is having a normal sexual relationship (i.e. sex on at least a reasonably regular basis) I would consider it cheating if one of them had sex with someone else without the other partner knowing (not that I would NOT condone it). But, is it cheating when a couple has not had sex for a long time, and one of them has sex with someone else without the other partner knowing, just because he or she needs it?
Quote by NorthernFlicker Is it cheating when a couple has not had sex for a long time, and one of them has sex with someone else without the other partner knowing, just because he or she needs it?
Yes. In my books, cheating is cheating regardless of how you want to "sugar coat" it.
Not only is this cheating, but this is actually the most basic, blatant and obvious form of cheating: you're not satisfied in your relationship so you go look elsewhere.
I guess we’re dealing with a matter of semantics here. Yes, cheating means cheating, no matter how you spell it. What I was trying to get at in this thread is this. Cheating on a partner during an otherwise normal relationship without the other partner knowing has, unquestionably, all kinds of ethical overtones. But if the ‘cheating’ partner has been driven to go elsewhere because of a sexually indifferent partner is there the same ethical element to it? The covenant that is made when a relationship is established is usually cemented by what is the most basic part of the bond, and that is the sexual part of the relationship. When one partner eventually refuses to give the other partner that essential and most basic part of the relationship then aren’t they, in some way, releasing the other from that part of the relationship? And if the ‘cheating’ partner doesn’t tell the indifferent partner that he or she has gone somewhere else to get the sex that they are being deprived of hasn’t that ethical part of the equation been diminished, or even erased altogether?
I’m in a circumstance where I’ve developed very strong feelings for a woman, but that’s as far as it’s gone. Otherwise we are just very good friends. She is married but she has told me it’s a very unsatisfactory relationship. We haven’t discussed it further but, knowing him reasonably well, I have no doubt that she isn’t getting any sex from him. She’s a very vibrant woman: good looks, intelligent, witty, funny, a good conversationalist, well... the list goes on, and I would love nothing more than to have sexual relations with her. She has told me about one of her girlfriends who caught her husband cheating on her. From what I gather, it is an otherwise normal relationship. But the way she told me about it (the cheating) she’s leaning hard on the ethical part of it. When I eventually try to further our relationship I think there’s a good possibility she will bring the ethical thing up. So, based upon what I’ve said above, I’m wanting to hear others’ thoughts on it in this forum.
Whew! That was a mouthful, but thanks for any replies.
Cheating varies from one relationship to the next. Boundaries have to be set in a relationship as far as cheating goes, and anything that violates these boundaries is considered cheating.
For some it's a text or an email, or maybe a kiss. It just depends on the standards of that relationship, which is something that should be addressed prior to entering a relationship.
Typically any form of involvement with someone behind your partner's back because you know they wouldn't like it can be considered cheating, or at the very least a violation of trust.
Semantics? No. Lack of honesty and clarity, yes. Sort out definitely what is happening in each committed relationship, then you can move on. But taking the steps to sexual change and thinking everything will stay the same? Your just kidding yourself. Sorry, I'm just being straight here.
Quote by NorthernFlicker I guess we’re dealing with a matter of semantics here. Yes, cheating means cheating, no matter how you spell it. What I was trying to get at in this thread is this. Cheating on a partner during an otherwise normal relationship without the other partner knowing has, unquestionably, all kinds of ethical overtones. But if the ‘cheating’ partner has been driven to go elsewhere because of a sexually indifferent partner is there the same ethical element to it? The covenant that is made when a relationship is established is usually cemented by what is the most basic part of the bond, and that is the sexual part of the relationship. When one partner eventually refuses to give the other partner that essential and most basic part of the relationship then aren’t they, in some way, releasing the other from that part of the relationship? And if the ‘cheating’ partner doesn’t tell the indifferent partner that he or she has gone somewhere else to get the sex that they are being deprived of hasn’t that ethical part of the equation been diminished, or even erased altogether?
Why would it matter if the act is 'ethical' or not? If this woman ever gets caught cheating by her husband, the consequences would still be exactly the same: I doubt that her husband would go "Oh, I kinda had it coming, so I'm going to overlook it and pretend that nothing happened".
To a certain extent, everybody tries to perceive their actions as an 'ethical act', it just liberates our ego and our conscience: the person who steals isn't all that wrong because he stole from a selfish corporation, the man who beats his wife can't be held responsible because he had a defective childhood and his wife deserved it, Hitler most likely thought he was doing his nation a favor by killing 6 million Jews. And yet, the matter of fact is that stealing is still stealing, domestic violence is still domestic violence, and a genocide is still a genocide.
And the same could be said about cheating. If we did a survey and interviewed people who cheated, I'm sure most of them would have a 'good reason' to justify themselves: my partner wasn't attending to my needs, he was so bad in bed, he was such a jerk to me, he once cheated on me himself anyway, etc.
Maybe I'll sound very old school here, but to me a relationship implies that your partner is the best person to attend to your overall needs, may those be sexual, emotional or financial. And that way, you somewhat owe him/her a certain reciprocal devotion. The fact that the woman you mention is still with her husband somehow implies that he still has that role in her life; if she thinks that he's no longer up to the task and that someone somewhere will satisfy her better, that's her prerogative, but I'd at least advise her to show some decency and break up with him first.
And yes, we can play around with 'semantics', but that doesn't change the fact that it's still cheating. Call it 'rightful cheating', 'compassionate cheating' or 'mindless cheating', it's still cheating and a very obvious form of it.
Well, I KNOW before I begin that I'm going to be in the minority here, but I'm used to that. NOT being one of the more narrow minded sorts here, as far as I'm concerned cheating is quite simply entering into ANY sexual relationship WITHOUT your partner's knowledge and willing consent. What a couple SHARES is NOT "cheating" as the other participants are; for all intents and purposes: nothing more than living, breathing sex toys.
Quote by Dani Cheating varies from one relationship to the next. Boundaries have to be set in a relationship as far as cheating goes, and anything that violates these boundaries is considered cheating.
For some it's a text or an email, or maybe a kiss. It just depends on the standards of that relationship, which is something that should be addressed prior to entering a relationship.
Typically any form of involvement with someone behind your partner's back because you know they wouldn't like it can be considered cheating, or at the very least a violation of trust.
This is perfect. Agree 100%.
I've just published chapter seven of Undercovers Detective. I would love your feedback on this story. I'm planning on ten chapters at least. If you haven't read one yet, I've included links. I hope you like them.
Quote by Weavindreams Well, I KNOW before I begin that I'm going to be in the minority here, but I'm used to that. NOT being one of the more narrow minded sorts here, as far as I'm concerned cheating is quite simply entering into ANY sexual relationship WITHOUT your partner's knowledge and willing consent. What a couple SHARES is NOT "cheating" as the other participants are; for all intents and purposes: nothing more than living, breathing sex toys.
I'm pleased to tell you you're in the majority, sweetie, as that's pretty much what everyone else has implied or said on this thread. Apart from Derek *rolls eyes* ;)
I have read several places here that "cheating is getting caught." In a morally bankrupt society that would be true. Apply that concept to everything. Robbery is only robbery when you get caught. Kinda like speeding. How about violence or even murder?
Who will know? You! That's who. What happened to honor and character? Laws are not created to give suggestions but to create parameters that should not be crossed.
Cheating is cheating in a relationship when you violate those agreed upon parameters. One gray area for me are when a couple agree to an open relationship, therefore changing the rules but still have boundries.
I've just published chapter seven of Undercovers Detective. I would love your feedback on this story. I'm planning on ten chapters at least. If you haven't read one yet, I've included links. I hope you like them.
What about , murder and bombing? Is it only , murder and bombing when you get caught?
They are crimes! As far as I know, cheating isn't.
To ask the question beggars belief. No matter how you sugar coat it, no matter how you excuse it, everyone knows what cheating is.
If they don't, they should not be in a relationship.
Quote by dpw They are crimes! As far as I know, cheating isn't.
So what? The same logical reasoning still applies...
What if I masturbate and don't get caught? Am I only 'masturbating' when I get caught in the act?
If that's the case, I swear I have never masturbated even once in my entire lifetime.
And here's a very similar scenario to cheating:
Imagine that I throw a party at my place and invite many people over. Then I prepare a huge bowl of sangria before anyone arrives, and malevolently pee in it. I then taste the preparation myself, and realize that the taste of urine isn't apparent at all. The party then goes on, and everybody drinks my sangria and compliments me on how awesome it tastes.
Did I do anything wrong here? Nobody realized that they've been drinking pee and their health isn't jeopardized in any way, so no harm has been done, right?
Here, you have an action that's not illegal and that absolutely no one noticed, much similar to cheating. But it doesn't mean that this action isn't despicable, reprehensible and morally questionable.
cheating on an emotionally or physically absent partner is *maybe* slightly more understandable than cheating on a completely dedicated and fulfilling partner, but it's no less wrong. your life isn't mine to judge and i'm not going to, but don't lie to yourself. you're trying desperately to justify something to yourself that you probably already know is wrong.
Cheating is cheating, if she is in a relationship and has sex with anyone else without her partners consent it is wrong. Ethically even if he isn't satisfying her you cant argue its right to cheat because in that circumstance she should really talk to him to either rekindle the sexual side of her relationship, break up with him or seek his approval for her to sexually experiment with other partners.
It's cheating only if you get caught...
