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

[Dussicar]

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.

EXACTLY!

 

[tickledgirl]

Ah, tickledgirl....I speak the earnest truth with no sarcasm whatsoever when I say I've really missed you. 🙂

Likewise. Whoda thunk it. 🙂

Nope. No hiding. Just endless bitching, conflict, tension, and aggrivation. Compared to that, hiding looks pretty good to me. Even if he tells her that he's going to continue to socialize platonically with his female co-workers but refrains from mentioning every instance of it, she'd be asking every day, "So, who'd you have lunch with TODAY? Huh?" and life would be miserable.

That does sound really miserable. But...seems like sooner or later he'd find himself in that position anyway. Better to try to address the situation. And, there's really no resolution possible, if the only way he can protect himself from that kind of abuse is by lying, then how much is that relationship really worth?

Unfortunately, that would give one's partner a sort of veto power by disapproval over anything you do. I sure don't want that. Do you?

I don't really have a problem with it. If my husband disapproves, he lets me know and we talk it out. I explain why I want to do it, he explains why he doesn't want to, and we work it out. (Same goes for stuff he's doing.)

I think you and I have different ideas on what constitutes deception. For me, it's SAYING one thing and DOING another, or the outright denial of doing something you did. For you it seems to be anything less than a full accounting, whether or not the information has been requested.

Full accounting? Heck no, life's too short. On the other hand, if there's something I've done (or thought about doing) that I think might make him uncomfortable, we talk about it. We've been together quite a few years, and we've got a pretty good idea of what falls into that category.

And we also know what falls into the category of "Okay if ya gotta, but don't rub it in my face." I know he occasionally goes with his buddies to a strip club. I only rarely know exactly when he goes, and don't ask for the details. I trust that he know what would upset me, so I don't quiz him every time he goes. Which sounds like a more explicitly agreed version of what you're talking about?

I think it's more fair to place the burden of responsibility on the one who has concerns. If you want to know what your significant other has been doing, it's your responsibility to ask them, not their responsibility to volunteer the information.

So if I want to know what he's been up to, I have to subject him to the third degree? Every night?? Or would it be enough to just once give him an idea of the things that'd bother me, and trust him to talk to me about them. Why not trust him and know that he's a competent person who I've communicated with over the years who doesn't need that list.

 

[BellaRisa]

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.

With respect: this isn't always the case.

I would love to say that I believe honesty is always the best policy, but frankly I've seen entirely too many situations in which a bit of deception can keep people who need truly each other together. I know that many will disagree with me, and that's fine, I definitely understand why. I just think that if a relationship is loving and fulfilling for both parties and they really need one another, and one of them needs something that the other would find needlessly upsetting, in some cases it can be best to leave it alone.

I have an older gentleman friend who's kinks run so deep it's ridiculous. When he married his lovely wife in the mid-60's they were very, very young; he thought his kinks were something that being married would make go away. That did NOT happen. His wife was a 'good girl' raised to believe anything other than missionary was wrong, she tried to be what he needed but just couldn't. So he fought it and fought it. Ultimately he sought therapy, and when that didn't work he found other venues to get what he needed and keep his family happy and together.

After realizing there was a market, for decades he ran a kink-oriented mail order story company; and through a personal ad in the late '70's he found a nice lady in a similar marriage, with whom he enjoyed his kinks for an afternoon about once every other month for around 22 yrs (!). His wife never found out; he only saw his kink-partner when his wife was at her ladies club or visiting her friends. He used the extra money from the company to buy her everything she ever wanted, put their kids through college....they had a ridiculously happy life and still do. Since the internet explosion his story by mail business has closed but they still enjoy the income he socked away all those years and take trips all over the world. I know that to this day his wife doesn't ask exactly how they pay for things (she was raised not to question her hubby about the finances as long as things were going well), she just enjoys it.

Was he lying and cheating? Yup. Could this have all blown up? Absolutely.

Do I think he self-centered and uncaring about his wife? I just can't say that he was. I don't measure devotion and love by how much total honesty there is. I go by whether he's there, no matter what, for decades. Does he put her happiness and comfort first, *including* not forcing her to try to be something she's not, or leaving her just because of that one aspect of their lives, and keeping himself content so he can be the best husband and father possible.

I know, I know...there's no real relationship without total honesty, some of you will say he was despicable and wasn't committed to her...

Personally I think a lot of folks here have no idea what commitment really means, because you'd leave a partner who does so much for you over some tickling or other kink. You'd leave a partner who was wonderful to you for decades, was a great parent and never made you feel anything less than loved, because you found out they had such a secret; you could never trust them again, despite everything they ever did that was good to you.

I actually understand that, I do. I just don't agree personally. I care far more about a spouse helping me all night with a baby with a high fever and building a great retirement portfolio with me than some tickling, or even some sex. I know, my priorities are all skewed 🙄

But that's my 3 cents, YMMV 😎

Bella

 

[Capnmad]

Very interesting. I think detractors of that view however, Bella, would be concerned about what dishonesty represents. The allowance of dishonesty on one thing would tend to make most concerned -- and legitimately so, I think -- about the possibility of dishonesty on other issues. Where does it stop? Can you trust someone to stop at one dishonesty if you can't trust them to be completely honest in the first place? Why and how? With relationship security (and physical safety*) so comingled with basic trust, it's hard for many to accept dishonesty especially in terms of sex. It's places like this where I think people get tripped up when faced with what you suggest.

You mention that you care more about "a spouse helping me all night with a baby with a high fever and building a great retirement portfolio with me than some tickling, or even some sex", and then add "I know, my priorities are all skewed 🙄". I actually think most wouldn't disagree with this set of priorities, but would see trust (unnamed in that statement) as an essential part of what assures the security of those things they (and you) value above tickling and sex... Dishonesty tends to undermine trust, and dishonesty in the form of cheating causes legitimate concern in most as to the likelihood of one's spouse returning (and staying faithful in all other senses) to provide and share in those things all parties value.

I think you and the parties you set yourself apart from in this post would find you share a surprising number of the same priorities. Maybe they put a greater premium on trust, however, I hope you don't consider such values as "skewed", either. I see some very sound reasons for them having such priorities -- among them, to assure those things you both value.


*As concerns diseases one might bring home from a poorly-planned and secret extramarital foray.

 

[BellaRisa]

Where does it stop? Can you trust someone to stop at one dishonesty if you can't trust them to be completely honest in the first place?

I see what you're saying, thank you for articulating that. For me, this is where the overall behavior of your partner comes into play. Has he been good and loving enough to you that you have no reason to doubt further, and if there are other secrets...do they really matter? Or is his tickling someone on the side every now and then proof that he's probably an STD-ridden spy for Al Quaida with land in Florida...

I'm not saying that should someone discover such an issue with their SO they should have no problem keeping the same level of trust that they has before, of course not. I'm just saying that for me, if that person has shown themselves to be trustworthy in every other respect, for decade after decade, trust would certainly be shaken but I wouldn't throw away years and years of good love over it. I see a lot of discussion about commitment, but it seems to be commitment as long as that person doesn't truly screw up-if they do they're out the door, period. I can't get next to that. And I freely admit that I put myself in this scenario. I've been with my husband for nearly 16 yrs; I can't imagine ever leaving him over keeping something from me that he truly felt he *had* to, not out of selfishness but to keep me happy and keep us together. Would I be furious? Oh HELL yes . And it would take a lot of work and *major* communication to rebuild the level of trust we have now. But I'd still be here, because I love him. That's all I'm saying.

As for diseases, it's similar to being poly; part of taking care of me, of *us*, would be making damn sure there's no danger of that. If that's not being handled it's a very different story.

Bella

 

[tickledgirl]

I have an older gentleman friend who's kinks run so deep it's ridiculous. When he married his lovely wife in the mid-60's they were very, very young; he thought his kinks were something that being married would make go away. That did NOT happen. His wife was a 'good girl' raised to believe anything other than missionary was wrong, she tried to be what he needed but just couldn't. So he fought it and fought it. Ultimately he sought therapy, and when that didn't work he found other venues to get what he needed and keep his family happy and together.

After realizing there was a market, for decades he ran a kink-oriented mail order story company; and through a personal ad in the late '70's he found a nice lady in a similar marriage, with whom he enjoyed his kinks for an afternoon about once every other month for around 22 yrs (!). His wife never found out; he only saw his kink-partner when his wife was at her ladies club or visiting her friends. He used the extra money from the company to buy her everything she ever wanted, put their kids through college....they had a ridiculously happy life and still do. Since the internet explosion his story by mail business has closed but they still enjoy the income he socked away all those years and take trips all over the world. I know that to this day his wife doesn't ask exactly how they pay for things (she was raised not to question her hubby about the finances as long as things were going well), she just enjoys it.

Was he lying and cheating? Yup. Could this have all blown up? Absolutely.

Do I think he self-centered and uncaring about his wife? I just can't say that he was. I don't measure devotion and love by how much total honesty there is. I go by whether he's there, no matter what, for decades. Does he put her happiness and comfort first, *including* not forcing her to try to be something she's not, or leaving her just because of that one aspect of their lives, and keeping himself content so he can be the best husband and father possible.

That's a really sweet story. It certainly does put another perspective on the idea of "cheating." And I'm glad it's worked out for them. But...would you want to be that woman? Someone who doesn't trouble her pretty lil' head about money, because that's for the menfolk to deal with. That sure wouldn't work for me...

Has he been good and loving enough to you that you have no reason to doubt further, and if there are other secrets...do they really matter? Or is his tickling someone on the side every now and then proof that he's probably an STD-ridden spy for Al Quaida with land in Florida...

I'm not saying that should someone discover such an issue with their SO they should have no problem keeping the same level of trust that they has before, of course not. I'm just saying that for me, if that person has shown themselves to be trustworthy in every other respect, for decade after decade, trust would certainly be shaken but I wouldn't throw away years and years of good love over it. I see a lot of discussion about commitment, but it seems to be commitment as long as that person doesn't truly screw up-if they do they're out the door, period. I can't get next to that. And I freely admit that I put myself in this scenario. I've been with my husband for nearly 16 yrs; I can't imagine ever leaving him over keeping something from me that he truly felt he *had* to, not out of selfishness but to keep me happy and keep us together. Would I be furious? Oh HELL yes . And it would take a lot of work and *major* communication to rebuild the level of trust we have now. But I'd still be here, because I love him. That's all I'm saying.

Ummm...I think there's been a bit of a false choice being put forward on both sides. You're responding to a bunch of posts basically asserting that no one should trust a lying cheating scumbag. And your response to put forth a near-angelic guy with this one leeetle flaw, and say that shouldn't mean he's and "an STD-ridden spy for Al Quaida."

With respect, I'd say both assertions are true, and neither are very useful. No one should trust a lying cheating scumbag. Nor should anyone kick a nearly-perfect angel to the curb as soon as you find his one flaw.

For what it's worth, it sounds like you're agreeing that dishonesty is wrong, but that it shouldn't alone be cause for divorce. Is that a fair characterization? Because I'd agree with that. For me, honesty and transparency are the goals. But you also have to acknowledge that we're talking about relationships betweeen fallible humans...

 

[BellaRisa]

would you want to be that woman? Someone who doesn't trouble her pretty lil' head about money, because that's for the menfolk to deal with...

Absolutely not, lol. The wife I discussed was a sweet lady born in a small town in the early '40's, I'm an entirely different kind of woman; hell, *I* run the adult business in this marriage And for the record I control the finances 'round here 😉

As for my not-very-useful assertion, I believe you got the gist. I'm not talking about a "near perfect angel"; no, I just mean a person who's been a damn good partner for years, and shown love, caring and trustworthiness sufficiently that a lack of honesty for reasons they truly thought necessary to keep both them and their partner happy doesn't automatically make them extremely self-centered with no thought for their partner's feelings. There can be a LOT more to it than that, is all I'm saying.

Bella

 

[drew70]

That does sound really miserable. But...seems like sooner or later he'd find himself in that position anyway. Better to try to address the situation. And, there's really no resolution possible, if the only way he can protect himself from that kind of abuse is by lying, then how much is that relationship really worth?

That's where we once again disagree on definition. I don't equate nondisclosure with "lying." If he denies his socialization verbally, that would definitly be lying. If he simply never mentions it, and she never thinks to ask, I don't see that as a lie. Why create needless ripples?

Full accounting? Heck no, life's too short. On the other hand, if there's something I've done (or thought about doing) that I think might make him uncomfortable, we talk about it. We've been together quite a few years, and we've got a pretty good idea of what falls into that category.

That's something I do from time to time as well. However I don't feel morally or ethically obligated to do so.

And we also know what falls into the category of "Okay if ya gotta, but don't rub it in my face." I know he occasionally goes with his buddies to a strip club. I only rarely know exactly when he goes, and don't ask for the details. I trust that he know what would upset me, so I don't quiz him every time he goes. Which sounds like a more explicitly agreed version of what you're talking about?

It's an interesting relationship you have, and it evidently works well for both of you, so I've no criticism to offer. I can only say that in contrast, my marital relationship is different. Both of us have been in prior relationships in which our significant other tended to be controlling. Hence, we're both a little gunshy about putting expectations on the other. While it's important to trust and respect each other, we feel it's also important to realize that neither one of us has authority over the other, nor are we obliged to behave in a manner dictated by the other.

So if I want to know what he's been up to, I have to subject him to the third degree? Every night??

Is that so unreasonable? You're the one who wants the information, which in itself, begs the question. Why would you care what he's been up to unless you're worried that he's up to no good?

Or would it be enough to just once give him an idea of the things that'd bother me, and trust him to talk to me about them.

I think that's asking a lot. If you want to police his behavior, you can't realistically expect him report his own transgressions.

Why not trust him and know that he's a competent person who I've communicated with over the years who doesn't need that list.

Why not trust his love for you and his commitment to you based on the things you do see and not worry about what is done in your absense?

 

[P[a]pi]

Meka and I own each other. If I tickle another girl without asking her if I can, I cheated. If she tickles another guy without asking me if she can, she cheated.

But, we allow each other to watch clips and look at pics haha.

 

[drew70]

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.

I must respectfully disagree with your terminology, Redmage. There was nothing dishonest about my friend's approach. He didn't lie to his wife. He simply didn't volunteer the information. That's not dishonesty, unless you believe that anything less than full disclosure is dishonesty. Then you open a big can of worms. What if he sees a pretty girl and imagines what it would be like to have sex with her. Is he dishonest for keeping such things to himself? I would agree that if my friend were screwing around with his female co-workers, this would be dishonesty. But going to lunch? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe a man is honor bound to indulge unreasonable paranoia. You say the honest way would be for him to "find some way to work it out with her." He did try that. There was no way to work it out with her. His choices were a) concede to her paranoia and alter his behavior. b) Lie to her and assure her he would never do that, but secretly do it anyway c) Continue going to lunch with the women, and avoiding conflict by avoiding the topic, but remain ever ready to admit the truth and defend himself if asked.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

I must respectfully disagree with your terminology, Redmage. There was nothing dishonest about my friend's approach. He didn't lie to his wife. He simply didn't volunteer the information. That's not dishonesty, unless you believe that anything less than full disclosure is dishonesty. Then you open a big can of worms. What if he sees a pretty girl and imagines what it would be like to have sex with her. Is he dishonest for keeping such things to himself? I would agree that if my friend were screwing around with his female co-workers, this would be dishonesty. But going to lunch? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe a man is honor bound to indulge unreasonable paranoia. You say the honest way would be for him to "find some way to work it out with her." He did try that. There was no way to work it out with her. His choices were a) concede to her paranoia and alter his behavior. b) Lie to her and assure her he would never do that, but secretly do it anyway c) Continue going to lunch with the women, and avoiding conflict by avoiding the topic, but remain ever ready to admit the truth and defend himself if asked.

Wouldn`t it be fun to play Texas hold`em with Drew & Redmage at the same table. That would be some serious tabletalk!!!😀

 

[Redmage]

I have an older gentleman friend who's kinks run so deep it's ridiculous. When he married his lovely wife in the mid-60's they were very, very young; he thought his kinks were something that being married would make go away. That did NOT happen. His wife was a 'good girl' raised to believe anything other than missionary was wrong, she tried to be what he needed but just couldn't. So he fought it and fought it. Ultimately he sought therapy, and when that didn't work he found other venues to get what he needed and keep his family happy and together.

After realizing there was a market, for decades he ran a kink-oriented mail order story company; and through a personal ad in the late '70's he found a nice lady in a similar marriage, with whom he enjoyed his kinks for an afternoon about once every other month for around 22 yrs (!). His wife never found out; he only saw his kink-partner when his wife was at her ladies club or visiting her friends. He used the extra money from the company to buy her everything she ever wanted, put their kids through college....they had a ridiculously happy life and still do. Since the internet explosion his story by mail business has closed but they still enjoy the income he socked away all those years and take trips all over the world. I know that to this day his wife doesn't ask exactly how they pay for things (she was raised not to question her hubby about the finances as long as things were going well), she just enjoys it.

Was he lying and cheating? Yup. Could this have all blown up? Absolutely.

Do I think he self-centered and uncaring about his wife? I just can't say that he was.

*sigh* I've known a number of people like that. It used to be quite common in the BDSM community, in the days before the internet. We see it a lot less in younger kinksters today, because so many of them found kink information on the web before they up and married a vanilla partner.

I think these situations are tragic - someone forced to choose between either cutting off an essential part of themselves or lying about it to someone they love. There's no real "win" there, just the hope that their partner never learns the truth and they can hold it all together.

I can't really condemn someone in that situation, as long as they're honest with themselves about what they're doing and why. The cases that annoy me are the ones that do this while convincing themselves that it's not just the best choice available in a bad situation. I've met people like this who blame their partners for not being kinky, or try to claim that what they do isn't "really" cheating, or find a hundred other ways to justify themselves as righteous.

That bothers me. It's one thing to accept moral responsibility for one's actions and go forward with the lesser of two evils, but it's something else to try to rationalize and duck responsibility for what one is really doing.