When is the line crossed to ''cheating'' if a person is married or in commited ...

[ViperGTS]

When Bella posts, I feel so much less intelligent. I forget sometimes how wonderfully wise she is. 🙂

 

[kis123]

I'm completely serious. Forgive me for reading what you actually wrote rather than attempting to decipher your true meaning based on your past posts. When you wrote "A real woman has a set of expectations that include exclusive sexual rights. That means that if we're sexually invoived, we expect fidelity! Now that might be a novel concept for you, but in NORMAL relationships, it's expected"

I assumed you wrote such things because you meant them. My apologies if you didn't mean what you said.

Of course there are boundaries and parameters in my relationships. All I'm saying is that the fact that they don't include monogamy in no way lessens my womanhood. Or the commitment between my life-partners and myself. And I took valid offense at the use of the word 'normal', because no one here gets to decide what's normal; I dislike the term because it allows those who follow a given pattern to see their way as more acceptable/morally rich, and there are too many kinds of equally valid relationships for that to fly.

(And frankly my situation isn't remotely unique; I'm just one of a few willing to discuss it openly, as insecure scoffing and nay-saying don't really phase me ).

Again, not to take away from the point of this thread. I simply preferred not to allow a broad insult to non-monogamous folk, women in particular, to remain unchallenged when it was so false and so very unecessary for the current conversation.

Bella

Yeah, you did misunderstand me!

And I'm sorry you don't like the term "normal" it doesn't take away from the fact that in relationships there are expecations, boundaries, and parameters that include FIDELITY! Is that a better word than monogamy? Whatever word fits you is fine with me. I didn't insult the non-mongoamous; I stated that real women have expectations and boundaries in their relationships. I will stand on my statement about that until my dying day and nothing or no one will make me waiver on that at all.

Have whatever kind of relationship you want; if you're trying to tell me that you don't have boundaries, parameters, and expectations I will pretty much tell you (you's hypothetical) that you don't have a relationship.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Wow , this has turned into a conversation about contrasts in lifestyles as much as anything.

anyway, continue to validate your particular lifestyle choices; we live in a great country which allows you to do so.

 

[BellaRisa]

Yeah, you did misunderstand me!

And I'm sorry you don't like the term "normal" it doesn't take away from the fact that in relationships there are expecations, boundaries, and parameters that include FIDELITY! Is that a better word than monogamy? Whatever word fits you is fine with me. I didn't insult the non-mongoamous; I stated that real women have expectations and boundaries in their relationships. I will stand on my statement about that until my dying day and nothing or no one will make me waiver on that at all.

Have whatever kind of relationship you want; if you're trying to tell me that you don't have boundaries, parameters, and expectations I will pretty much tell you (you's hypothetical) that you don't have a relationship.

Hmm...

Very well then, since we've established that I have to go by what I think/hope you mean instead of what you actually write:

When you say

in relationships there are expecations, boundaries, and parameters that include FIDELITY,

you actually mean *some* or *many* relationships, not all, since so many of us have good solid relationships that don't happen to include fidelity/monogamy. And as you've said, you have no problem with our ways of loving. And I *think* you meant that when you said it...

And when you say

if you're trying to tell me that you don't have boundaries, parameters, and expectations I will pretty much tell you (you's hypothetical) that you don't have a relationship,

I can assume that you missed the part of my earlier post when I clearly stated

Of course there are boundaries and parameters in my relationships.

Because surely you wouldn't choose to just ignore what I said. Since I actually mean what I say.

And again, when you stated:

A real woman has a set of expectations that include exclusive sexual rights. That means that if we're sexually invoived, we expect fidelity!

by "we" you meant women who live and love as you do. You didn't mean to imply that we ladies who don't share your views on love and don't require fidelity to be satisfied in our relationships are less than real women. You definitely implied that, no two ways about it, but apparently you didn't mean to. Fair enough .

I'm going to assume that all you actually meant was

real women have expectations and boundaries in their relationships

and the rest can be discarded as misunderstanding. Again, fair enough, especially since I firmly agree with that statement.

Party on Garth

Bella

 

[drew70]

Wow , this has turned into a conversation about contrasts in lifestyles as much as anything.

anyway, continue to validate your particular lifestyle choices; we live in a great country which allows you to do so.

Well, isn't cheating the result of a clash of contrasting lifestyles? Whenever you're talking about something that people do, a discussion of lifestyles is nearly always relevant.

 

[Redmage]

The definition of cheating obviously varies from couple to couple. What he did seems pretty reasonable to me. Still, if I were in that situation (on either side actually) it seems to me that it'd be better if the "cheater" openly said "Honey, I'm going keep going out to lunches with co-workers." At that point, there's no hiding going on.

There are two ways to "refuse to be browbeaten by his wife's rampant paranoia." There's the honest way, and the dishonest way. Drew's buddy chose the dishonest way. The honest way would be to do as you suggest, or find some way to work it out with her. That would be "refusing to be browbeaten" at least as much as going behind her back, and could have other long-term benefits, such as lessening her paranoia in general.

The dishonest way is not only a violation of his wife's trust, it's setting him up for trouble later if she somehow learns what he's been doing. Then she'll feel that her paranoia was justified, and will look at the deception as evidence that there was more going on than there was.

Ultimately, this situation offers no really good reason for dishonesty, and several good reasons for honesty. It reaffirms the principle that if you're trying to conceal your behavior because you know your partner would be upset by what you're doing, then you shouldn't be doing it. Extraordinary circumstances such as domestic abuse don't invalidate the principle, but Drew's example is not an extraordinary case.

 

[Redmage]

I didn't insult the non-mongoamous; I stated that real women have expectations and boundaries in their relationships.

If you had stopped there then you would not have insulted the non-monogamous, but you didn't stop. You went on to say that a "real woman's" expectations include "exclusive sexual rights." The obvious meaning there is that any woman who does not expect "exclusive sexual rights" is not a "real woman."

I will stand on my statement about that until my dying day and nothing or no one will make me waiver on that at all.

Great. But as long as you're taking such a firm and upright stand you ought to stand by your whole statement.

 

[kis123]

If you had stopped there then you would not have insulted the non-monogamous, but you didn't stop. You went on to say that a "real woman's" expectations include "exclusive sexual rights." The obvious meaning there is that any woman who does not expect "exclusive sexual rights" is not a "real woman."

Great. But as long as you're taking such a firm and upright stand you ought to stand by your whole statement.

I can stand by whatever I want to, thank you very much!

I could care less about anyone's "lifestyle choices"; I only care about what is considered cheating in relationships. I answered that and I see the ones I pissed off are the ones in non-monogamous relationships. Oh well, sorry about that but we're all entitled to our opinions aren't we? What, only the non-monogamous get opinions these days?

It's called a discussion forum; you discuss opinions right?

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Well, isn't cheating the result of a clash of contrasting lifestyles? Whenever you're talking about something that people do, a discussion of lifestyles is nearly always relevant.

Going to have to disagree with that statement Drew.Many of those who cheat on husband or wife enter marriage with idea of always being faithful to spouse but for whatever reason they cheat anyway.

 

[BellaRisa]

I can stand by whatever I want to, thank you very much!

I could care less about anyone's "lifestyle choices"; I only care about what is considered cheating in relationships. I answered that and I see the ones I pissed off are the ones in non-monogamous relationships. Oh well, sorry about that but we're all entitled to our opinions aren't we? What, only the non-monogamous get opinions these days?

It's called a discussion forum; you discuss opinions right?

You're very welcome to your opinion. We'd just like it if you actually meant what you claimed as your opinion. You "pissed" us off because we're the ones you insulted. Insult Beatles fans and I'll be mad about that too

All we're asking is that you qualify a few of your statements so they respect our ways. A real woman wouldn't find that terribly difficult 😉

Bella, ducking the shoe being thrown from Cleveland...

 

[kis123]

Hmm...

Very well then, since we've established that I have to go by what I think/hope you mean instead of what you actually write:

When you say you actually mean *some* or *many* relationships, not all, since so many of us have good solid relationships that don't happen to include fidelity/monogamy. And as you've said, you have no problem with our ways of loving. And I *think* you meant that when you said it...

And when you say I can assume that you missed the part of my earlier post when I clearly stated Because surely you wouldn't choose to just ignore what I said. Since I actually mean what I say.

And again, when you stated: by "we" you meant women who live and love as you do. You didn't mean to imply that we ladies who don't share your views on love and don't require fidelity to be satisfied in our relationships are less than real women. You definitely implied that, no two ways about it, but apparently you didn't mean to. Fair enough .

I'm going to assume that all you actually meant was and the rest can be discarded as misunderstanding. Again, fair enough, especially since I firmly agree with that statement.

Party on Garth

Bella

It's like tv; if you don't like what I have to say you can always choose to change the channel. Or you can continue to pick me apart in offense to my statements. That's fine with me too but I have yet to see what I said wrong. Not everyone lives your lifestyle or mine; it could've gone either way.

You took offense and for that I apologize; I didn't intentionally mean to offend you or anyone else's lifestyle. Instead of asking for clarification, you went in attack mode and I attacked back. Wasn't the most mature way for me to handle it but I'm human and such is life sometimes.

Now I hope we can move on from here.

 

[Redmage]

I can stand by whatever I want to, thank you very much!

You absolutely can. But when you choose to "stand by" one part of what you wrote and neither acknowledge nor retract the rest, you sacrifice some of that moral high ground.

I only care about what is considered cheating in relationships. I answered that and I see the ones I pissed off are the ones in non-monogamous relationships. Oh well, sorry about that but we're all entitled to our opinions aren't we? What, only the non-monogamous get opinions these days?

Well, you know what they say about opinions - everyone has one, even the non-monogamous. Of course, an "opinion" that directly insults several people might be met by unfavorable "opinions" from those people. It's all part of discussing opinions, you see.

As for me, I merely noted that you weren't "standing by" all of your stated opinion. Oh well, sorry about that.

 

[BellaRisa]

It's like tv; if you don't like what I have to say you can always choose to change the channel. Or you can continue to pick me apart in offense to my statements. That's fine with me too but I have yet to see what I said wrong. Not everyone lives your lifestyle or mine; it could've gone either way.

You took offense and for that I apologize; I didn't intentionally mean to offend you or anyone else's lifestyle. Instead of asking for clarification, you went in attack mode and I attacked back. Wasn't the most mature way for me to handle it but I'm human and such is life sometimes.

Now I hope we can move on from here.

I didn't attack you, luv. You'll know when I've attacked

I wasn't aware that actually reading what you write and thinking that you mean what you say, and calling you on parts of your comments with which I disagree, qualifies as "picking you apart". I expect people who take the time to type out a statement in a discussion forum to be willing to discuss their statements. My bad.

And if you still don't see what you said that was wrong, I'd be glad to tell you (again): It was the part where you stated what real women expect in a relationship. That insulted those of us who don't personally expect those same things but are still very much real women. I can't be any clearer than that.

But apparently you didn't mean to be insulting or exclusionary with that statement. I understand that. Apology accepted.

Bella

 

[Redmage]

Well, isn't cheating the result of a clash of contrasting lifestyles? Whenever you're talking about something that people do, a discussion of lifestyles is nearly always relevant.

Cheating is definitely a result of clashing lifestyles. But it's not the only way or even the best way to resolve that sort of conflict.

The clash in this case doesn't come from the lifestyles directly. It comes when two people agree to live in one lifestyle and then one or both of them violates that agreement. A better solution would be to agree on a different lifestyle that both can live with honestly, or for each to find a partner whose lifestyle is more compatible.

 

[kis123]

I didn't attack you, luv. You'll know when I've attacked

I wasn't aware that actually reading what you write and thinking that you mean what you say, and calling you on parts of your comments with which I disagree, qualifies as "picking you apart". I expect people who take the time to type out a statement in a discussion forum to be willing to discuss their statements. My bad.

And if you still don't see what you said that was wrong, I'd be glad to tell you (again): It was the part where you stated what real women expect in a relationship. That insulted those of us who don't personally expect those same things but are still very much real women. I can't be any clearer than that.

But apparently you didn't mean to be insulting or exclusionary with that statement. I understand that. Apology accepted.

Bella

Maybe next time (and there WILL be a next time) if you'd ask for clarification first, we could've straightened this out a lot sooner. Sometimes, I don't always know that I've offended but if shown to me, I'll usually apologize for it. Some people don't get that luxury with me, but you're not on that list!😀

Hope this gets everything back on track

 

[BellaRisa]

Maybe next time (and there WILL be a next time) if you'd ask for clarification first, we could've straightened this out a lot sooner. Sometimes, I don't always know that I've offended but if shown to me, I'll usually apologize for it. Some people don't get that luxury with me, but you're not on that list!😀

Hope this gets everything back on track

Are you really saying that we aren't real women because our relationship expectations don't completely match yours?

I know you better than that, you're not implying that I'm less than a woman. Are you?

That was when I asked for clarification

Glad I'm on that list

Bella

 

[kis123]

That was when I asked for clarification

Glad I'm on that list

Bella

I didn't see that; all I saw was fire coming from your keyboard. I did what I could do to defend myself; that's just human nature at work. Not the most mature thing on the planet to do, but it's a character flaw I must work on getting better.

When I ask someone for clarification, I simply ask them for clarification before anything else is said. That didn't happen in this case-I obviously missed your cue. Sorry about that too.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

We have mentioned sex as the main ''offender'' as far as cheating goes.Let me pose a question about cheating that is more in line with this the tickling topic.

If a married man has a ticklng session with a women that is not his wife, and his wife has no idea that this occured, does this fall under the cheating criteria?

 

[ViperGTS]

We have mentioned sex as the main ''offender'' as far as cheating goes.Let me pose a question about cheating that is more in line with this the tickling topic.

If a married man has a ticklng session with a women that is not his wife, and his wife has no idea that this occured, does this fall under the cheating criteria?

Is he tickling another woman because his wife is not into tickling? Is his wife not ticklish at all? Is the man having a relationship with this other woman outside of tickling and bondage? Does he have feelings for her?

Please clarify this a little bit. There's really no way to answer that without the variables in place.

 

[Redmage]

If a married man has a ticklng session with a women that is not his wife, and his wife has no idea that this occured, does this fall under the cheating criteria?

That depends: why doesn't his wife know? Would she be unhappy if she did?

 

[drew70]

The clash in this case doesn't come from the lifestyles directly. It comes when two people agree to live in one lifestyle and then one or both of them violates that agreement. A better solution would be to agree on a different lifestyle that both can live with honestly, or for each to find a partner whose lifestyle is more compatible.

This I agree with, Redmage. The cheating is a clear-cut violation of an agreement. But I can't say I agree with this...

Right on. This is why the "would you tell your partner" test is important. It's a test of your own conscience, because if you're doing something with another person that you know would upset your partner, then you know, really, that you shouldn't be doing that.

...which seems to suggest that anything you decide to do to which you know your significant other would object qualifies as cheating, in which case any agreement would seem moot.

We have mentioned sex as the main ''offender'' as far as cheating goes.Let me pose a question about cheating that is more in line with this the tickling topic.

If a married man has a ticklng session with a women that is not his wife, and his wife has no idea that this occured, does this fall under the cheating criteria?

If a man agrees not to have sex or romantic relationships with anyone but his significant other, that does not by any realistic definition include tickling. Tickling can and sometimes does lead to sex, in which case the sex is the offending action, not the tickling, since tickling in and of it self is not a sexual act.

 

[aun_existe_amor]

its cheating if you have to question yourself or feel guilty

 

[aun_existe_amor]

either they dont think theyre cheating or they have no respect for their partner

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

either they dont think theyre cheating or they have no respect for their partner

They KNOW exactly what they are doing. It comes down to the fact that the person in question is extremely self- centered and could care less who they hurt as long as they get the self-gratifiction they desire.

 

[drew70]

I have a true story to tell, that directly relates. About 25 years ago, I had a supervisor at my job who was also a friend of mine named Fred. Fred married Ginny, the receptionist. Ginny was quite beautiful, shapely, and a really cool person. In my opinion, Ginny was everything a man could want.

Fred asked me one day to give him a ride to the dealership where his car had been worked on that day. As we drove over there, he was telling me about this chick he'd banged the other night. During this period of the early 1980s, marital infidelity seemed quite rampant, and was conducted openly, at least at this company. As a rule, I generally didn't question or interfere, as it was none of my business, but as Fred and I were riding in the car, I posed a question after he finished recounting his adulterous escapades.

"Say Fred. I'm curious. If you...hypothetically speaking...found out that Ginny was screwing another guy, would that bother you?"

"I'd kick her ass!"

"You would? Even though you're doing the same thing?"

"It's not the same thing. I know it LOOKS like the same thing, but it isn't. You see, I KNOW I can satisfy Ginny. Everything she needs sexually and emotionally, I know I can provide. Now me? I can't ever be satisfied with just one woman, no matter how fine she is or how much I love her. I can only be satisfied by variety."

I just nodded as though I understood the explanation, but I was incredulous that anybody could actually offer such a rationalization with a straight face. And Fred wasn't alone in this kind of thinking. It was a common mindset among the married guys at the time that yeah, I'd bang that chick, given half a chance.

So, you have people who can rationalize their adultery to the point in which they feel no guilt or shame. Are they cheating? I'd say yes. On the other extreme, you have guys who feel guilty after having looked at another woman and indulging a harmless imaginary fantasy. Is THAT cheating. I'd say no, it isn't.

In summary, I'd say that guilt and conscience aren't reliable measuring sticks to guage cheating. I think it's more a matter of breaking vows and agreements.