Tickle Cheating????

[Icycle]

I agree to a point. However, some tickling encounters don't involve sex or are not sexual in any way! But according to what I'm hearing I should tell my g/f or b/f because it's good for the relationship. so here goes: "Honey, I tickled a co-worker today and because we love each other I don't want to keep any secrets!" That's overkill in my book. The boundries of comunacation are different for each couple.

I definitely agree that everyone is different, and it is between you and your partner to determine what constitutes a violation of trust in your relationship. I would suspect that for many people, playful, public flirting with a coworker, including non-sexual tickling might be perfectly fine, and not worthy of mention.

But if tickling someone is a turn-on for you, and you have a private meeting to tickle someone, without letting your partner know about it, your partner might reasonably consider that a violation of trust if he or she were to find out.

I'm not forcing anyone to admit anything to anyone. I'm merely suggesting that some tickling situations might be considered cheating by some partners, even if no sex is involved.

 

[Icycle]

I think the same thing can apply in the Tickling community. Where there is mistrust and insecurity, the tickling is thought of as cheating. Where there is trust and security, the tickling is no big deal.

Whether or not this would be considered cheating or not is really between one and one's partner. But if one's partner doesn't know what is going on, it is very difficult to have open and honest communication to determine if the act is cheating or not. Extra-marital tickling encounters run the gamut from a innocent poke in the ribs public, to clothed bondage scenes where one or both partners get very aroused, to naked, orgasmic tickle-fests. Are you saying that as long as there is trust and security in your relationship, any tickling activity is fine, and your partner doesn't need to know about it?

Neither my wife nor I buy into this notion that if we don't tell each other every single thing we do in our lives that we're being "dishonest." Withholding information is not lying unless one says, "I don't have any further information."

Yes, Drew, withholding information is lying. This type of lie is known as a lie of omission. I found a very good defintion:

A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person's capacity to make an informed decision.

As this source goes on to rightfully point out, one of the biggest lies about lies, is that a lie of omission is not a lie! Clearly, a lie of ommision is just as deceptive and misleading as a lie of commission.

 

[OnnaOtaku]

I was one of those people who didn't know about myself until years after I married. When the marriage fell apart, I met someone who was definitely a ler. He doesn't know about our world, but he's definitely into tickling. We explored and went places neither of us went before. Unfortunately, someone did get hurt and I do regret that. But it began a journey that brought me here, so it was worth going through the bad stuff if it meant that I'm amongst many who are like me. Think of it this way-he's gone but all of you are still here........ 😀

Agreed! Sometimes it's worth it.

 

[LindyHopper]

Seems to me that to avoid this all together would be to with someone you want to share your passion with, or suck it up and be faithfull to the one your with

I suppose, but I think finding someone who is openminded and supportive is even better.

Would any of you say that equating extra-marital tickling with cheating is like equating marital polyamory with adultery?

The polyamorists on this thread are operating by a very simple rule. If your spouse knows and approves, that makes it okay, no matter what the activity is. If you deliberately hide it from your spouse, then that's not okay, no matter what the activity is.

A rule espoused by others on this thread is, "If no one gets naked or has an orgasm [or fill in your own personal line of what should be acceptable], then it's not cheating." This rule is equally simple. I just feel that it misses many shades of meaning, and dodges the question of what is really okay with one's spouse.

If you are so insecure that you can't stand the thought of your significant other tickling or being tickled by someone else, then go ahead and ASK them point blank if they've ever done it. It's the responsibility of the partner wanting to impose restrictions on tickling activity to seek out this information from the spouse. It's not the responsibility of the ticklish spouse to volunteer such information.

Ever? To the point where the partner has no idea that her spouse is into tickling? That such a fetish even exists? How would they even know to ask?

If that's the case, then by your logic, it's my responsibility to ask my husband, "Have you peed on, or been peed on, anyone lately? I know that's a fetish for some people, and it would make me uncomfortable, so I have to ask. Okay... have you fondled any farm animals in what could be construed as a sexual manner? Okay next... have you ever gotten dressed in a full-body animal costume and engaged in what those in the Furry community call "yiffing?" It's not that I don't trust you honey, I'm just trying to be thorough..."

Look, if you [by which I mean "you" in the general sense] have kept a fetish for tickling a complete secret from your partner, then it's completely unreasonable to say, "If she asked, I would tell her, but since she didn't, I don't have to." The responsible thing to do would be to tell her what tickling means to you, so she has all the information relevant for deciding how she feels about it.

 

[kis123]

Neither my wife nor I buy into this notion that if we don't tell each other every single thing we do in our lives that we're being "dishonest." Withholding information is not lying unless one says, "I don't have any further information."

If you are so insecure that you can't stand the thought of your significant other tickling or being tickled by someone else, then go ahead and ASK them point blank if they've ever done it. It's the responsibility of the partner wanting to impose restrictions on tickling activity to seek out this information from the spouse. It's not the responsibility of the ticklish spouse to volunteer such information.

I believe that 100% complete and total honesty in relationships is a great theory, but rarely practiced. Everyone has their little secrets and skeletons in the closet. I have things that only God knows and will take to my grave and don't feel the least bit of guilt about it. You guys know more about me than the man I was married to for 10 years-I'll never open my world to another man again!

I simply don't buy into telling my man everything, especially if he's the type that will use it against me in an argument (like my ex). That type of individual gets no intimate info about me at all. If I was still with him, I'd NEVER tell him about tickling at all; everyone in the State of Ohio would know about it as soon as he got angry. Do you know that this clown told my kids all my personal business when we broke up? Do you think I've trusted another man like that again? You guys are intelligent folks so you know the answers to those questions.

I am loyal and monogamous in relationships so I don't worry about if I cheat on him. I'm a free woman and will pretty much do as I please anyway. I don't need a man's permission to do it either. But since I love and respect my man, I wouldn't step outside the relationship to do anything anyway, but it's my call and not because I have to obtain permission or divulge my personal intimate business to him.

 

[Eriksmasque]

i didn't say not feeling guilty makes it all right..i said, it all depends on if you will feel guilty about it or not..guilt can eat you alive..

" guilt can eat you alive" that is sooo true its not even funny.

 

[tklcouple]

guilt

Guilt is a funny thing. It's usually there for a reason. It usually means that there is a good person inside you who wants out of a bad situation (no conscience, no guilt; that is a sad and dangerous thing). Sometimes we should be thankful for guilt and learn what lessons we can from it. That said we should allo it to do no more than serve its purpose and then be gone otherwise it can go too far and go from an opportunity to heal and grow to become a wound in and of itself. This "overreacting" is not good for ya either (It's okay to make lemonade out of lemons but don't choke on the damn lemon!)

Just my $0.02,

Professor Tkl​

 

[tickledgirl]

Neither my wife nor I buy into this notion that if we don't tell each other every single thing we do in our lives that we're being "dishonest."

I think that's a key point here. You and your wife have come to an agreement. I'm going to assume it's pretty much an explicit agreement, or at least that if your wife read that, she'd nod and say it was true. So good for you. But you did communicate about it. If (earlier in your relationship) you'd gone ahead without such an agreement, with the rationale that "If she can't deal with it, then she's so insecure and that's her problem, then...well then I'd guess you wouldn't be married now. But you're wiser than that.

You've built a strong sturdy marriage. It's pretty easy to relax in that security and forget what it's like as you cautiously feel your way through the beginnings of a relationship.

 

[Redmage]

I'm going to put this out one more time, because it seems to need saying:

If your partner trusts you to stay within certain lines of behavior, and you cross those lines, then you have violated your partner's trust.

This seems indisputable, and it voids all technicalities and weasel-words. It doesn't matter whether your partner thinks to ask you about it. It doesn't matter whether he or she ever finds out about it. It doesn't even matter if your partner hasn't considered the exact activity in which you're engaging. If what you're doing falls under the general umbrella of Things That You Know Your Partner Would Not Want You to Do, then you are breaking that bond of trust. Period.

Why is this hard to understand? Or is it easy to understand, but just a nuisance to live by?

 

[Redmage]

I think that's a key point here. You and your wife have come to an agreement. I'm going to assume it's pretty much an explicit agreement, or at least that if your wife read that, she'd nod and say it was true.

Interesting notion. If someone wants to sit down with their partner and say "Look, I have these needs. If I indulge them, as long as I don't have what Bill Clinton would call sex, do you still want to know about it?" and if the partner says "no," then hey, I'd be just fine with that. The partner has been given the opportunity to consent to the arrangement.

I'd be a bit surprised to find that was so in most cases, however.

 

[Icycle]

I'm going to put this out one more time, because it seems to need saying:

If your partner trusts you to stay within certain lines of behavior, and you cross those lines, then you have violated your partner's trust.

This seems indisputable, and it voids all technicalities and weasel-words. It doesn't matter whether your partner thinks to ask you about it. It doesn't matter whether he or she ever finds out about it. It doesn't even matter if your partner hasn't considered the exact activity in which you're engaging. If what you're doing falls under the general umbrella of Things That You Know Your Partner Would Not Want You to Do, then you are breaking that bond of trust. Period.

Why is this hard to understand? Or is it easy to understand, but just a nuisance to live by?

I have a theory about this. I think these people see the world in absolute moral terms. I think for them, extra-marital sex violates this absolute moral standard, and is therefore wrong. Tickling does not violate this absolute moral standard, and therefore is not wrong, and since it isn't wrong, it doesn't need to be mentioned to one's partner.

By contrast, I think to them, our suggestion of negotiating with one's partner sounds like moral relativism. To them it sounds like we have no moral foundation, since in some situations, tickling might be wrong, and in other situations, sex might be OK. Of course to us, empathy is the highest moral concern, and in nogotiating with our partners, we are following the strong Golden Rule: do unto others as they would have you do unto them. And even for us, regardless of the feelings of one's partner, some things are just wrong, such as rape, child molestation, or robbing a bank. We are willing to see and discuss the shades of grey that actually exist in the various flavors of extra-marital tickling.

 

[Redmage]

I have a theory about this. I think these people see the world in absolute moral terms. I think for them, extra-marital sex violates this absolute moral standard, and is therefore wrong. Tickling does not violate this absolute moral standard, and therefore is not wrong, and since it isn't wrong, it doesn't need to be mentioned to one's partner.

Is it wrong, in absolute moral terms, to do something behind your partner's back that you know he or she wouldn't want you to do?

I'd say no, but only if your partner's expectations are dangerous for you (as in "I expect you not to call the police about the beating I gave you.") or otherwise completely unreasonable. Barring cases like that, I would think that a true moral absolutist would be the last person to sign up for that. But it is true that absolutism breeds casuistry.

 

[Iggy pop]

I say it all depends on you and your partner. I think there is a big difference between a quick poke in the ribs of a coworker and meeting someone in a motel behind your partner's back for a tickle session.

 

[drew70]

Here's the paradox I see: If a tickling session is completely innocent, without a shred of sexual content, then why do you think it would make your partner unhappy to hear about it? If you DON'T think it would upset him or her, then why is it so necessary to keep it a secret?

Sometimes we don't know whether or not it would make the partner upset to hear about it, even though WE know that it IS innocent. Knowing that the tickling is innocent is not a guarantee that the partner won't misinterpret the innocent action as something else. So rather than create potential problems, sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie.

It's like I wrote earlier: if your partner trusts you not to do something, and you do it anyway, then you have violated your partner's trust. I just don't see any way around this.

I agree to a point. But unless you KNOW the partner is trusting you not to do this something, all it means is you've violated your partner's expectations, which you've never agreed to meet in the first place. Violating expectations can and does occur for various reasons, not the least of which being we don't always know what those expectations are. If one has never discussed tickling with one's partner, how is one to know what the partner's expectations are? In my opinion, it's only a violation of trust if you've agreed not to do the something in question, but do it anyway.

Extra-marital tickling encounters run the gamut from a innocent poke in the ribs public, to clothed bondage scenes where one or both partners get very aroused, to naked, orgasmic tickle-fests. Are you saying that as long as there is trust and security in your relationship, any tickling activity is fine, and your partner doesn't need to know about it?

No, of course not. When I speak of extra-marital tickling, I'm talking strictly about tickling with no sexual contact. Any extra-marital sexual activity is wrong, in my opinion. Straight up tickling is not a sexual activity. If it were, nobody would be tickling kids, nor would there be any public tickling. The fact that some of us are excited by the act of tickling doesn't make the act a sexual one. Having been to five consecutive NEST gatherings, plus a few in the DC area, I can assure you that all of the tickling I witnessed and experienced was all non-sexual.

Yes, Drew, withholding information is lying. This type of lie is known as a lie of omission.

That phrase is a misnomer. I looked up the word lie at dictionary.com. It had fourteen definitions, none of which mentioned a "lie of omission." To lie to somebody involves an act of deception, deliberately passing false information as true. Withholding information simply just doesn not qualify as a lie, by definition. If it did, we'd all be liars, because who among us has told anybody everything there is to tell?

It's the responsibility of the partner wanting to impose restrictions on tickling activity to seek out this information from the spouse. It's not the responsibility of the ticklish spouse to volunteer such information.

Ever? To the point where the partner has no idea that her spouse is into tickling? That such a fetish even exists? How would they even know to ask?

Beats me. Not my problem. I'm not the one who wants to make a big deal out of it. But if I WERE the one, you'd better believe I'd be asking the questions, rather than just making blanket assumptions. And if I did care, but didn't ask, and ultimately found out, I certainly wouldn't say, "You should have known I wouldn't approve of this!" I still maintain that it's not the mission of marriage to seek 100% approval and validation from one's partner. There are going to be things we do of which the other doesn't approve. I just prefer not to spend my life or my marriage quibbling over such things. Thankfully, neither does my wife. Or....at least I'm pretty sure she doesn't. 😛

If that's the case, then by your logic, it's my responsibility to ask my husband, "Have you peed on, or been peed on, anyone lately? I know that's a fetish for some people, and it would make me uncomfortable, so I have to ask. Okay... have you fondled any farm animals in what could be construed as a sexual manner? Okay next... have you ever gotten dressed in a full-body animal costume and engaged in what those in the Furry community call "yiffing?" It's not that I don't trust you honey, I'm just trying to be thorough..."

Yes, that's quite correct. I think you've finally got it. Of course, you might consider a more ergonomic approach and simply ask, "Is there anything that seriously turns you on that we've not talked about previously?" 😱

Seriously, I find it difficult to imagine having a tickling fetish without your spouse knowing about it. Every woman I've ever dated knew that I loved being tickled. I rarely referred to it as a fetish, but they all knew I loved it. Think of how difficult it would be to hide such a thing. We'd have to hide the magazines, the videos, the computer files, the TMF, The 7-foot X-shaped crosses, etc.

Look, if you [by which I mean "you" in the general sense] have kept a fetish for tickling a complete secret from your partner, then it's completely unreasonable to say, "If she asked, I would tell her, but since she didn't, I don't have to."

I disagree and personally see nothing unreasonable about it. If she really wanted to know, she could have asked the right questions.

The responsible thing to do would be to tell her what tickling means to you, so she has all the information relevant for deciding how she feels about it.

That's certainly an option, but hardly a requirement. Some simply prefer not to make waves in an otherwise calm sea.

At any rate, I'd certainly not be comfortable telling anybody what's right or wrong in their marriage. Wouldn't want to be labeled a "moralist."

 

[Redmage]

I say it all depends on you and your partner. I think there is a big difference between a quick poke in the ribs of a coworker and meeting someone in a motel behind your partner's back for a tickle session.

Very true. But I don't think that a quick poke in the ribs was ever the focus of this thread.

 

[Redmage]

Sometimes we don't know whether or not it would make the partner upset to hear about it, even though WE know that it IS innocent. Knowing that the tickling is innocent is not a guarantee that the partner won't misinterpret the innocent action as something else. So rather than create potential problems, sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Please, don't blame the dog. It's not the one lying.

If you don't know whether or not something will upset your partner, then the ethical thing would be to ask BEFORE you do it, not cover it up afterward.

But unless you KNOW the partner is trusting you not to do this something, all it means is you've violated your partner's expectations, which you've never agreed to meet in the first place....In my opinion, it's only a violation of trust if you've agreed not to do the something in question, but do it anyway.

Remarkable. So if your partner trusts you to such a degree that she never even thought to ask you not to, say, bet the rent money on the horses, it's not a betrayal if you do that and fail to mention it to her.

It seems that the more your partner trusts you, the less it's possible for you to betray that trust. It's only the suspicious ones who think to lay out every possible option for discussion that might find themselves betrayed.

This logic is getting more convoluted the further we take it.

Straight up tickling is not a sexual activity. If it were, nobody would be tickling kids, nor would there be any public tickling.

Kissing isn't sexual either then. After all we do it to children, and we do it in public. Or perhaps the difference is in how and why we do it.

I looked up the word lie at dictionary.com. It had fourteen definitions, none of which mentioned a "lie of omission."

How about this: "something intended or serving to convey a false impression?" Omission/commission isn't specified there.

Here's a nice non-sexual illustration: A little boy throws a ball for his dog, then chases the dog through the house when the dog takes the ball and runs off. In the course of this play, the dog runs into a table and knocks over a lamp, breaking it. Mom comes in and asks angrily, "Who broke my lamp?" The child can see that no good will come to the responsible party, and replies, "Fido did it, when he ran through the room."

The statement is technically true. Is it deceptive? Or is little Timmy's conscience clear as long as Mom kicks Fido to the doghouse and doesn't inquire further?

Mark Twain had a particularly cogent comment on this: "Among other common lies, we have the silent lie -- the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all."

"Keeping still and concealing the truth." It's like he read this thread.

But if you prefer, look up "deceive," "prevaricate," or perhaps "mislead." Do any of those look like good things to do to someone who trusts you?

Withholding information simply just doesn not qualify as a lie, by definition. If it did, we'd all be liars, because who among us has told anybody everything there is to tell?

If you "withold" information that your audience would not wish to know and that does not materially affect the impression that you're trying to convey, then you have not deceived anyone and there is no lie. If the hidden information is important to correctly understanding the facts of the matter, then there is deception, and there is a lie.

Really, even children learn this. It's not hard to grasp.

At any rate, I'd certainly not be comfortable telling anybody what's right or wrong in their marriage.

Nor would I. In fact, sometimes lying can be the RIGHT thing to do. For example, if Joe Wifebeater asks his wife "Where are you going?" I wouldn't fault her for not telling him "To the police station and then the battered women's shelter."

However I wouldn't tell her that she hadn't lied to him. She did. Whether or not it's right or wrong depends on circumstances, but generally speaking a partner who has not betrayed trust does not deserve to have trust betrayed.

 

[Banshee]

Vows..

Didn't y'all take a vow to forsake all others? Situational ethics amaze me. Morality is not a situation concept. Everything I read in here that supports the view you are not cheating is just pre pubesent rationalization. By the definition of your vows you are cheating.

 

[tickledgirl]

Didn't y'all take a vow to forsake all others? Situational ethics amaze me. Morality is not a situation concept. Everything I read in here that supports the view you are not cheating is just pre pubesent rationalization. By the definition of your vows you are cheating.

Wow, so you attended our wedding ceremonies and heard all our vows? Funny, I didn't notice you at mine. Since my husband and I wrote our vows, you'd have to have been there to know what they were. Otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't be holding forth so confidently about something you're totally ignorant about...

Would you?

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

Im not here to make judgements about whether or not it's moral or not. IF a couple tells eachother everything they do or choose to act as if nothing is wrong even though their significant other is touching the body of someone else or vice versa. That is their business.

I just think it should be stated that if lying, decieving, manipulation etc. falls into meeting someone for even something as a lunch date. At least own up to it to yourself and admitting..I am here because I lied and decieved to be here and quit pretending that you didn't. But even that is irrelevant. It's your conscience not mine. Do with it what you will.

 

[drew70]

Redmage, this has been a fascinating discussion, and I want to thank you for the considerable patience you've shown while debating this issue with me. I concede yours is clearly the greater intellect and quite frankly I feel privileged that you'd even consider me worthy of debate, given my less than amicable treatment of you in the past. Again, thanks for giving me a second chance. Okay then...on with the debate!....

Please, don't blame the dog. It's not the one lying.

No? He didn't tell me that he peed in the basement or that he chewed up my Ipod. That would certainly seem to qualify as "lying" according to some definitions floating around this thread.

If you don't know whether or not something will upset your partner, then the ethical thing would be to ask BEFORE you do it, not cover it up afterward.

I suppose that would be true in relationships in which everything one does is subject to the approval of the partner. There's a rather crude phrase that applies to guys who submit to such policies: "Pussy whipped." Fortunately, most couples I know don't operate this way. Sometimes it's a case of knowing it SHOULDN'T upset the partner, but through some sort of misinterpretation, or a possible exaggerated sense of authority on the part of the partner, might upset him/her regardless.

Remarkable. So if your partner trusts you to such a degree that she never even thought to ask you not to, say, bet the rent money on the horses, it's not a betrayal if you do that and fail to mention it to her.

That's a completely different and unrelated situation, in which you're doing something that directly and negatively impacts her, as well as jeopardizing her home. A sex free tickling session does neither of those things.

It seems that the more your partner trusts you, the less it's possible for you to betray that trust. It's only the suspicious ones who think to lay out every possible option for discussion that might find themselves betrayed.

You've a unique interpretation of the concept of "trust." One that seems to suggest that anything one does that doesn't meet up with the expectations of the partner constitutes a violation of that partner's trust. Is it a violation of trust if I oversleep and don't have time to make the bed? After all she's "trusting" me to make the bed. No offense, but it just doesn't wash. Trust is based more on either a mutual agreement, or the willing surrender of something precious to the care of another. I don't see trust as an obligation to adhere to unnegotiated standards of acceptable recreation, as you seem to.

This logic is getting more convoluted the further we take it.

I agree. Perhaps then we should stop taking it outside the context of the topic of this thread and stick to debating whether or not tickling outside of an established relationship constitutes "cheating" or "infidelity."

I looked up the word lie at dictionary.com. It had fourteen definitions, none of which mentioned a "lie of omission."

How about this: "something intended or serving to convey a false impression?" Omission/commission isn't specified there.{no emphasis in the original}

No, but something is specified, right? So what qualifies as something? Well, basically anything other than nothing. So if one says nothing about his or her ticklish encounter, there's no "something intended or serving to convey a false impression."

Here's a nice non-sexual illustration: A little boy throws a ball for his dog, then chases the dog through the house when the dog takes the ball and runs off. In the course of this play, the dog runs into a table and knocks over a lamp, breaking it. Mom comes in and asks angrily, "Who broke my lamp?" The child can see that no good will come to the responsible party, and replies, "Fido did it, when he ran through the room."

The statement is technically true. Is it deceptive? Or is little Timmy's conscience clear as long as Mom kicks Fido to the doghouse and doesn't inquire further?

Well, Red, you said it yourself. Timmy's statement is true. There's no deception that I can see. However if Mom, who happens to know it's not like Fido to run through the house unprovoked, decides to ask Timmy if he knows why Fido was bahaving so rambunctiously, Timmy must either fess up or lie. That's all it takes. A simple question.

Mark Twain had a particularly cogent comment on this: "Among other common lies, we have the silent lie -- the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all."

"Keeping still and concealing the truth." It's like he read this thread.

A wonderful writer of fiction and fantasy, was old Samuel Clemens. As impressive as his works are, it doesn't make him an authority on ethics. When it comes to definitions, I prefer Nathaniel Webster over Mark Twain.

But if you prefer, look up "deceive," "prevaricate," or perhaps "mislead." Do any of those look like good things to do to someone who trusts you?

Respectfully, I might recommend you look them up yourself, Red. Perhaps then you might better show me how failing to mention to one's partner that one spent an afternoon in ticklish recreation qualifies as misleading, deception, or prevarication. As with "lying," those terms infer some sort of effort on the part of the one in question. Remaining silent takes no effort.

If you "withold" information that your audience would not wish to know and that does not materially affect the impression that you're trying to convey, then you have not deceived anyone and there is no lie. If the hidden information is important to correctly understanding the facts of the matter, then there is deception, and there is a lie.

I think the heart of our disagreement seems to revolve around what constitutes a lie or a deception. For deception or lying to take place, some effort is required. An action taken with the purpose of misleading the partner. With lying, this action is in the form of a verbal mistruth. For example, if you tell the partner you were working at the office, when in reality, you were in a tickle session at a gathering or somebody's house, that's misinformation, and consequently qualifies as a lie and a deception. If the partner never asks where you were, and the subject never comes up, than nothing was deliberately hidden or covered up. Consequently no effort or action. No deception.

Really, even children learn this. It's not hard to grasp.

Children like Timmy, perhaps? 😉 I see you're now falling back on your trademark tactic of equating your debating opponent's disagreement with your position as a lack of comprehension. While I no doubt deserve this, I know that you're a better debater than that, Red. I understand what you're saying, man. I comprehend it. You've expounded on it very thoroughly. I just think you are dead wrong. 🙂

 

[simulated]

So wait...

If you ask your significant other if you can go off, tie up a woman, and play with her body for an afternoon, she says no, and you go and do it anyway, that's cheating/betrayal of trust/lying/whatever you want to call it.

But if you don't ask her and go and do it anyways, that isn't any of the above?

*confused*

If you're in a serious relationship with someone, you're going to know what their answer will be when you ask the above question. So how does not asking that question change the morality of the situation?

 

[drew70]

So wait...

If you ask your significant other if you can go off, tie up a woman, and play with her body for an afternoon, she says no, and you go and do it anyway, that's cheating/betrayal of trust/lying/whatever you want to call it.

But if you don't ask her and go and do it anyways, that isn't any of the above?

*confused*

Dude, I never said dick about "asking" anything. I feel sorry for any whipped milktoast who has to ask permission for what he or she does. I don't know how the rest of you operate, but my significant other and I don't need to ask permission from each other. She's not my mother and I'm not her father. I don't need her permission and she doesn't need mine. We're adults. If she told me she was going out somewhere and I said, "No, I forbid it," she'd just laugh and rightfully tell me to go pound sand.

Are you in this kind of relationship, Simulated?

If you're in a serious relationship with someone, you're going to know what their answer will be when you ask the above question. So how does not asking that question change the morality of the situation?

I'd say that the slave relationship in your analogy is already so morally convoluted, the question you ask here becomes moot. I seriously don't know how to advise anybody in that type of relationship (where asking permission is required) except to grow a freakin backbone and get the hell out of it ASAP.

 

[Eroticklee]

I think that a relationship is built upon more than needing, or giving permission. I think it's more about volunteering to behave in a manner that involves both of you. I would not do something that made my husband feel uncomfortable and he wouldn't do that to me. there are things that we both want to do, and we've been talking about it together as a couple. If there is no communication about intimacy, then what is the point in being a "couple" after all?