It has been bothering me for some time... I think probably some 98% of the population of married or LTR folk, at one time or another, have stepped across that sexual taboo line... be it a one-night-stand or a full blown affair. I think 99.9% of those actions were driven by pure lust, or a depressed ego needing a lift, or simple need for affection and intimacy. I don't think there is any reason to believe that those folks had lost respect for their mate, or despised their mate... I think they did it FOR themselves, not AGAINST their mate. There is a big difference. What bothers me is when the word "cheated" is used to cover all cases. I think that word has the connotation of a hostile act toward their partner as the prime drive, and I just don't believe that is true. One could use words like "had sex with" or "slept with" or even "fucked" = those words don't have a hostile connotation, only descriptive... I think the word cheated is a mean word reflecting a deliberate deliberate act to hurt or victimize ones partner. Well, maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, nevertheless, I think those who like to use the word cheated are being mean minded, on purpose. They make any further discussion of such complex messiness impossible to solve, and thereby ending the conversation.

it's not the sex that makes it cheating it's the lies.

you're right, but everyone who has told their children there is a Santa and/or tooth fairy is therefore a lier. Ya can't say "Oh, that's different" if you're gonna handle things as black or white.

you don't manipulate your spouse as a child you can tell your spouse you are faithful and weave a fantastic little world for them in which they are in a happily monogamous marriage, but that makes a child of the spouse and puts you in the parental role, the one who knows what really goes on. grow up, they lose their belief in santa. likewise, a spouse who is lied to about an affair eventually gets the drift. it is different, and it is still black and white. parents telling stories to children about santa is very very VERY different than a husband telling a wife stories about nobody else.

well, the definition of cheating is... among a few others...To violate rules deliberately, or To act dishonestly. it doesn't matter what happened, ie, sex, emotional. what really matters is that in a relationship people have certain expectations about their partner, and one of those is that each person will not go outside of the relationship for sex or emotional connection. if you or your SO told you from the start of the relationship that they were in fact going to cheat on you at some point, im very, very sure the relationship would not have started! the truth is that if cheating or having sex, as you put it, outside of the confines of a committed relationship was ok then you or your partner would have no problem pulling your SO aside and saying, "hey sweetie, im gonna go have sex with this guy/girl, ok." no, you dont do that because you and I both know they would not be ok with that! and it is a deliberate act, because 99.9% of people find out after the act is done, not before! and i think it's bullshit when you wrote, "I don't think there is any reason to believe that those folks had lost respect for their mate, or despised their mate." if they had respect for their mate, they would think, "will this hurt or upset them?" cheaters know why they cheat, they want something they are not getting. and, instead of working through the situation and being an adult about it, they cheat like a little bitch. cheaters are the weak ones, they are the ones that have no real integrity or self respect. an adult can say, " hey, i want to bang this girl/guy, but im not going to because i have somebody that i love and respect at home, and this would hurt them and our relationship!" so it what you want, cheating or "had sex with" or "slept with" or even "fucked" it has and always will equal a piece of shit!

All of your thinking is based on the assumption that the transgression is gonna get caught, but I disagree and suggest only the ones who want to get caught, get caught... and I further suggest that if that happens, it is indeed a hostile action against their partner. I just know too many folks who stepped across that line, in situations where they couldn't possibly get caught, only did it once, and it had zero negative effect on their LTR... they loved their SO before and after... and their reasons are many which may or may not be true (I think the human animal lies to himself more that to others). I'm not trying to sell sexual misbehavior, but I find the automatic label of cheater as harsh as ing anyone who speaks up against the Iraq war as a traitor.

I have no argument with you. I thank you for your kind words. I think if we had four hours to waste in a coffee shop to rap about such things, that we'd come to agree on most things. I think my post here is best summed up with ma last sentence to the above poster = "I'm not trying to sell sexual misbehavior, but I find the automatic label of cheater as harsh as ing anyone who speaks up against the Iraq war as a traitor." I'm suggesting there is a mountain of gray area where one has to play the cards dealt, and it should not automatiy make them a traitor.

I don't think the percentage is that high... But I bet it's pretty fucking high, anyway. That's why I developed the "If your partner thinks it's cheating, it is." theory. Seems a pretty perfect theory, if you don't mind me saying.

i have the same theory - works pretty well.

Unless it's taken to extremes, of course. Some women think that looking at porn is cheating. I think that fails the common sense test.

I agree... ... and since I agree, I wouldn't get with such a partner.

good point... ...if she thinks porn is cheating she wouldn't be a partner so I wouldn't be cheating on her ;-)

Yes! :)

Conscience The individual is left with the consequences of their own decision. If you don't protect your own conscience then you can look out side your self for approval. This is why we value acceptance. In the end, we each have to accept our conscience from the path chosen. In the end, we each have to accept the consequence from the path chosen. In the end, your left looking at your self. This is why there are so many addictions.

Only the Sith think in absolutes The dark side is strong with you, my friend.

the courts differ. intent does affect outcome. that's why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter, etc.

while your distinction makes SOME sense it has the difficulty that it sounds like its justifying cheating in some cases. There are folks who come to forums like this for validation of their cheating, and thats something most folks dont want to do or to hear. And of course theres a considerable body of folks who have been victims of cheating, and have a gut negative reaction to any mention of it. Clearly there is a reason for the distinction for purposes OTHER than validating cheating. The question of when and to what extent a spouse should forgive, the question of a former cheater forgiving THEMSELF, the issue of dating someone who HAD cheated in a former relationship, etc, etc. In all of these the nature and extent and motivation of the crossing of the line seems to be relevant, at least to me. Again, some disagree, whether on religious (though most Western religions counsel repentance and the acceptance of repentance) or personal grounds. Thats their privilege. And of course an anon forum allows people to express their anger without restraint, so it makes calm discussion difficult.

The actions are mean done to hurt your partner so, the word is appropriate. But, we give meaning to our words. So, the fact that you think cheating is a mean word doesn't mean I agree.

I think yur right, basiy speaking What happens is we are all living for many many decades. So instead of dying at x we die at x. Well, centuries ago it was logical to 56 for staying with one partner till death. Because death was only about x years away, and u were probably in a log cabin far away from any potential other partners anyway! Life is much different, science has transformed what life is. We don't stay with one employer our whole lives now either. Our traditions and institutions have not caught up yet. If I could make a bet for $x, it would be that we will see marriage either fall away completely or become a x or x year contract for raising a child, somethign like that.

The Boogyman will get ya. Your little dissertation evoked a thought. There is a consensus that given the right situation, the right time, and the right person, everyone is vulnerable and will succumb to adultery. It’s just fate, kismet or luck of the draw that many of us have never been to this moment of overpowering lust. So, that being said- -where does this leave our pompous position of judgment and name ing? Are we THAT invulnerable and self righteous to allow our selves the RIGHT to “cast the stones”. Or is their a window of understanding and compassion for those who have crossed into this realm and looking for a bridge back to the land of Nod? “There But for the Grace of God go I”

is it just a matter of semantics or do you personally resent the label and it's implications

Some good stuff here. In particular, "I think that word has the connotation of a hostile act toward their partner as the prime drive, and I just don't believe that is true. ... I think the word cheated is a mean word reflecting a deliberate deliberate act to hurt or victimize ones partner." I agree with this and applaud szondi's courage in top-posting to discuss it. I might it all cheating, but there are surely *degrees* of cheating as there are of other, more literal crimes. Often it's not 56 ed at the spouse, is planned to make it very unlikely they'll find out, and is primarily an act of release or pleasure or discovery for oneself, NOT intended to hurt one's partner. That doesn't make it right exactly, but it makes it understandable and less egregious. Those who stray briefly and learn from the guilt not to do it again; the person who strays rarely, as a release because the spouse is no longer interested in sex, and can be kinder to the spouse the rest of the time because they have less pent-up frustration; the person who genuinely loves someone else who brings out good qualities that had lain dormant for many years, and wanders over the line for a little while to rediscover themselves, are human and perhaps forgiveable. They should NOT be automatiy put in the same condemnatory bin as those who cannot resist any temptation, however transitory; those who rub it in spouse's face that they're cheating because they don't give a damn about hurting the spouse; those who neglect and lie to their families for years on end while pursuing outside relationships.

there are mitigating circumstances that are often overlooked when people cheat. Some people just refuse to accept anything but black and white. "A cheater is a cheater". But in my opinion what has kept me from cheating is to realize that I am fully capable of it--and why I am so. All of us are susceptible to circumstances, and we all have different circumstances. AS the old indian saying goes about walking in another man's moccassins. That being said, some people are just fucking slimy players. And not necessarily because they are trying to hurt anyone. Its because they don't give a shit if they hurt anyone.

Very nice post. I agree with many of your points as to the degrees. And hypothetiy could find sympathy and forgiveness for those who had their moment of weakness or need align with opportunity. I think I could allow for this for anyone. Except myself or my husband. How hypocritical is that? I need to ponder further.

I'd think of it as hope, rather than hypocrisy. I know what you mean about forgiving others who'd been through that (from either perspective); humans are universal in their fallability, after all. And it makes sense that you'd extend understanding and encouragement for anyone in that situation, while simultaneously hoping you'd never even have to think about it for yourself. Maybe because the words would sound just as tenuous to you as you imagine it'd sound to them? I'm not sure either. But I'd say it's not hypocritical. It's just ... it's a situation which no one could ever truthfully count on as a known set of variables. Like looking into a lake with no discernible bottom. The water's dark, and the levee's not that high, and you hope you never have to see it tested by what's below.

That was a beautiful post. And I think the hope of never being tested by the depths of certain waters is true in many cases for me. Much of what we may believe about ourselves hypothetiy could change if tested by reality. But, I see inner hypocrisy on this issue because although I think some scenarios may be forgivable, I'm rather certain I'm not strong enough to truly forgive them.

So I'm curious on the question of harm ... On a purely hypothetical level ... if I could take a large sum of money from someone who did not know any better, and they would never find out that I'd done so, would no harm have been done to anyone? Or, a more concrete example if you would. There was a group of military contractors in South Carolina who sent packages of weapon parts (nuts, screws, throwaway things) marked with a special military code for urgent delivery or somesuch. The end result is that using that special military code for two consecutive shipments netted them several millions dollars (there was no need for the parts). Now, in the real world, those people got caught because they came back to the well a third time and someone noticed. They were arrested, etc. But had they not been arrested, and had they successfully made off with over three million dollars ... would you say that no harm had been done to anyone? After all, no one other than the contractors knew they'd taken the money. This is, to me, the same as the question of cheating; a philisophical difference of opinion, entirely. In your view, if I read this correctly, if the spouse doesn't know, then no one got hurt. In my view, simply because the spouse doesn't know a person cheated, doesn't mean they didn't cheat. It just means they didn't get caught. And it also means (to me), that an unfaithful spouse is fine with lying to their spouse (to conceal infidelity, or who knows what else). NOW. I'm not saying everyone should be honest about every single thing. I'm not saying people don't do stupid things and regret them later. But it doesn't change the act itself, which is in some form infidelitous. And even if the cheater gets away with it, and continues with their life as normal, it still happened. And no amount of justification changes its factual classification as an act. It's like classifying stars. Some are big. Some are small. But everything weighs upon their shoulders, and they all endorse fusion as a way to deal with the pressure of it all ...

I don't fail to grasp. I simply don't agree. One, if I were to cheat, I would certainly know about it. And I would be aware that I had broken a promise to my husband that is very important to him. I would feel that I had given him less than he has earned from me. I would also be ashamed that I had fallen shy of my own principles. So, although I have had situations presented in which your odds of being caught were probably covered, I wouldn't take that chance. I hope never to be in a place in my relationship or with myself that I can rationalize it. Due to my personal morals and the marriage I want to maintain, I wouldn't need to be caught for there to be damage to our relationship. So, I would still be a bastard. Even if he never figured out exactly why. I imagine the situation would be about the same if he was the one that stepped out. Frankly, I believe monogamy was simply less important to you and your wife than it is for some couples. You segued into a mutual 'don't ask, don't tell' arrangement. And it worked for you. But that doesn't mean it would be an improvement for everyone. For myself, I'd sooner declare an open marriage or leave than behave in a fashion that required deceiving my spouse or any level of subterfuge. And while our monogamy has so far been maintained, I find that more rewarding than any ego boost, variety, or validation I could get from someone outside of my marriage.

hypothetical hypocrisy is just that. you never know how you would actually respond in the situation until you are in it. you can tell yourself theoretiy that you could never forgive your husband or yourself for straying, but that's all theory until it's real.