Seriously thoughtful What exactly IS cheating? [Warning: Possible Adult Language]

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A question for those people who are married:

It's a well-known fact that some people have a high sex-drive, and others don't. If you just weren't interested in sex, but your partner had a strong need for it, would you object to your partner going to see an escort for a purely "physical" experience with no emotional strings attacked?

Speaking as a single person, I can see nothing at all "wrong" with this, personally. It's simply providing a service, like any other service.

Conversely, would the same be true if you replaced the word physical (or sexual) with emotional? It's also common for one partner to have strong emotional needs while the other does not. If for whatever reason (overwork, stress, illness, etc.) one partner is not providing the emotional needs of the other, would it be objectionable for this partner to go outside the relationship to fulfill their purely emotional needs (even without the sex?)

Just asking . . .

[Elsi]

I started to reply to this topic immediately after Dr. Drib posted it ... then decided to sit back a bit to see what others had to say. (Yes, it was a bit cowardly of me.)

Here's what I originally wrote -- and which I still think is pertinent, even after reading everyone else's posts:

I'll give you this woman's perspective. Given that most marriages have a presumption of sexual exclusivity, it's cheating if you turn to someone other than your committed partner for pleasure/pleasuring. This would include actual intercourse, any form of oral/manual sex, including mutual masturbation, and even phone sex.

I think it's dangerous -- but not necessarily cheating -- to turn to another person for emotional intimacy even if sex is not a part of the relationship.

I like much that I've read in the discussion so far. Slayda brings up the " 'til death do you part" phrase from the Christian marriage ceremonies. I'd point out that they also tend to include "forsaking all others" or similar words.

For those couples who haven't actually talked about their expectations, I would bet that there is an assumption that both hold the same values -- and this assumption can lead to problems. When husband and wife do not come from similar cultural or religious roots, then each may have a different perspective and set of expectations. When these aren't discussed -- preferably before marriage -- they can set traps for the relationship. This is why, in many Christian churches, a couple must attend counseling or an engagement workshop before they can schedule the wedding ceremony. And, I think that this is one reason why the majority of religions/faiths strongly encourage young people to look within the community instead of outside for a life partner.

Several people have pointed out that "cheating" is best defined from the partner's expectation. I find this a very good point. I have tried to help my children understand that there's a very big difference between "having a wife" and "being a husband". In a truly successful marriage, each partner assumes the responsibility of caring for the other. If either one diverts too much of that energy into taking care of her-or himself, then the dynamic is off balance and problems are likely to develop. A wife (since I'm female, I'll speak from this point) must take care of her husband (emotionally, physically, sexually, etc.) and must TRUST that he's taking care of her. If she doesn't trust him to and holds back to protect herself, then the relationship suffers. Cheating can be a demonstration that the partner is not trustworthy. And, in this context, cheating can occur when the spouse is taking care of someone else to the detriment of the partner -- or turning to someone else for care that should come from the partner.

[HarryT]

Would you not say that forming a strong emotional attachment to someone outside your relationship is the very "definition" of what "cheating" is (if you do it without your partner's knowledge, that is)?

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you not say that forming a strong emotional attachment to someone outside your relationship is the very "definition" of what "cheating" is (if you do it without your partner's knowledge, that is)?

Certainly. Just as forming a sexual relationship (even a casual one) outside your relationship is the very "definition" of "cheating" in my view. Same thing.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

The confusing thing about "cheating" is the fact that the parameters change from person to person... yet, since few people discuss the matter beforehand, it is often not clear what constitutes cheating until it is too late. (That's not to say all cheaters get to say "I didn't know," but that there can be times when a behavior might be considered cheating by your partner, unbeknownst to you).

Personally, I don't consider simply looking at someone to be "cheating" in any fashion. After all, you're out in public, and if a girl dresses in such a manner that attracts notice, I don't have a problem noticing. But again, your partner might consider even this to be "cheating," or at the least, "insulting to them," so it might be worthwhile to know what your partner considers cheating (and insulting) and avoid getting in trouble.

In older countries and societies, people are from similar cultures, and so the rules are fairly well known by all. In the U.S. and other multi-cultural countries, pressure is often mounted to marry within your church, or your race/nationality, to limit the differences in culture and rules. Otherwise, the rules vary so much that it often pays to have longer courtships/engagements, in order to find out as much as possible about your partner, and their rules, before committing to them. Those who don't do this are rolling the dice, but that's their prerogative.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you not say that forming a strong emotional attachment to someone outside your relationship is the very "definition" of what "cheating" is (if you do it without your partner's knowledge, that is)?

In some societies and periods of history, couples granted much more leeway to extra-marital emotional and sexual relationships, even if the partner did not know who the extra-marital partners were. If that is implicitly understood to be the arrangement, then extra-marital relationships wouldn't be considered "cheating." That arrangement may be (more) rare today, but it is still practiced by some, and just as valid.

[Over]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A question for those people who are married:

It's a well-known fact that some people have a high sex-drive, and others don't. If you just weren't interested in sex, but your partner had a strong need for it, would you object to your partner going to see an escort for a purely "physical" experience with no emotional strings attacked?

Speaking as a single person, I can see nothing at all "wrong" with this, personally. It's simply providing a service, like any other service.

If for you sexual intimacy is just two or more bodies pleasuring eachother, I guess anything can be viewed the way you want. There's no moral or ethical compass, as you make the rules.

The religious view is well known. The more scientific view is also known: men are "wired" to spread their "seeds", so there's higher chance of offsprings and therefore survival. Women are more "attached" to a certain man, because they need protection and nurture, someone to help to raise a healthy son. They're the ones who will be pregnant 9 months and vulnerable for even longer time.

Bringing that notion to our days, I guess women feel cheated when the "cheat" means a threat to their own relationship: the husband might leave her or might not be as available a$ before, etc. The husband might feel cheated, because they might loose a "seed". Their partner might become pregnant of another male, etc. All this in an unconscious level, of course.

We can rationalize this but even then feel cheated, even if we try to tell ourselves it's not. I think as long as a person has feelings/emotions, he won't feel confortable with an escort satisfying physical needs of their partners. You can acept, you can endure... But I doubt there won't be any inner entropy about it.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

This should be stamped on your foreheads when you apply for a marriage license: Cheaters will be castrated and the "other woman" will be forced to live with you for the rest of your lives.

Wait... the man gets disfigured yet the woman just has to live with the guy. She gets to keep her sex organs so she can go out and find another guy. This can only be right in a woman's mind.

BOb

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you not say that forming a strong emotional attachment to someone outside your relationship is the very "definition" of what "cheating" is (if you do it without your partner's knowledge, that is)?

What if it is not someone of the opposite sex. What if that close relationship is with another man that you have a "emotional" relationship with? I mean "strong emotional relationship" could be many things. Also there are many forms of love.

For example, I love my wife... but I also love a much younger blond girl also. My wife has no problem with this, she actually encourages it.

BOb

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A question for those people who are married:

It's a well-known fact that some people have a high sex-drive, and others don't. If you just weren't interested in sex, but your partner had a strong need for it, would you object to your partner going to see an escort for a purely "physical" experience with no emotional strings attacked?

Speaking as a single person, I can see nothing at all "wrong" with this, personally. It's simply providing a service, like any other service.

I think this would depend on the situation. Does (s)he do it without the partner knowing about it?

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Conversely, would the same be true if you replaced the word physical (or sexual) with emotional? It's also common for one partner to have strong emotional needs while the other does not. If for whatever reason (overwork, stress, illness, etc.) one partner is not providing the emotional needs of the other, would it be objectionable for this partner to go outside the relationship to fulfill their purely emotional needs (even without the sex?)

Just asking . . .

I'd say yes. Personally, I think emotional needs are the most important part of the emotional relation between two people. Love is pure emotion. Sex has nothing to do with love. It may be a response, a way to show it, but not the reason for love. You feel an emotional attachment for the other. Once that emotional attachment is gone, I don't see a reason to stay together (unless it's for financial reasons, and I doubt cheating is a problem in that situation...)

For me, the most important part of cheating is the secrecy. You are too cowardly to tell your partner you're no longer faithful. Whatever the reason of you cheating (the sexual need or emotional need), you should always tell your partner what is bothering you. Then, together, as adults, you should come to an understanding (to stay together and solve the underlying problem, or just each go your own way...)

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not sure anyone's claiming that this is an "excuse", DG, but, from my friend's experience (and she's in a position to know, after all), it's a simple fact.

Several positions if she's any good I would hope!