the grey areas of cheating

[FreakyLocz14]

I do think that is possible. But if you truly loved someone, you wouldn't put them through the trauma of being cheated on, and you also wouldn't say to someone else you loved "I love you, but you're going to have to be second best whilst I remain with my partner."

People will just have to choose one person. They may well love someone else, but they shouldn't put anyone they love through anything less than a genuine, honest relationship; or just tell them that it won't work out so both people can move on as quickly as possible. If you're willing to lie to someone, or make someone just a bit of meat on the side, then that is far from love.

I agree, but just to play devil's advocate here, I think some people's motivation to cheat is that they truly love both people, their original partner and their new partner they are cheating with, and they want to be with them both. They then take on the mindset that "what he/she doesn't know won't them" and continues the affair.

Also, some people just can't initiate a break-up because it makes them feel like the villain, especially if the reason for the break-up is to move on to another partner you were already establishing a relationship with without having terminated your first relationship first.

I also think that some people do intend to end their first relationship, but they want to solidify their new one before doing so, and they get caught in the meantime.

I never said anything like that. I do believe a person can love more than one person. I mean look at families with children; having a kid is great and you would love it loads, but if you had a second child would love the first one less? No, you would love them both equally, perhaps even more so.

I was referring to a romantic-sexual type of love.

 

[Kura]

People treat sex just like that; sex.. like an animalistic instinct. Only.. human sex isn't animalistic or humans would have a "mating season."
People do it for themselves, like.. a selfish pleasure motivation. People cheat to feel good, basically.

Multiple-partner relationships isn't necessarily cheating, though. Like people generally love their kids equally if they have more than one child.. but all of that is pretty much personal stuff.
I disprove of it, though.. because there's waaayy too much predisposition. (For example.. if you meet a guy and he's rich and friendly.. would you go on more dates with him if he was rich and friendly than an equally friendly guy who lost all his money?) Same goes for Polygamy and wanting it just for sex or the feeling of "I'm the (wo)man! YEAH!"

There's never a valid excuse to cheat. No one can ever change that part of them.
Cheating and having open relationships are two different things. I can't speak for those with open relationships because I cannot personally understand why someone would want one.

I'm a pretty traditional person.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

People treat sex just like that; sex.. like an animalistic instinct. Only.. human sex isn't animalistic or humans would have a "mating season."
People do it for themselves, like.. a selfish pleasure motivation. People cheat to feel good, basically.

Multiple-partner relationships isn't necessarily cheating, though. Like people generally love their kids equally if they have more than one child.. but all of that is pretty much personal stuff.
I disprove of it, though.. because there's waaayy too much predisposition. (For example.. if you meet a guy and he's rich and friendly.. would you go on more dates with him if he was rich and friendly than an equally friendly guy who lost all his money?) Same goes for Polygamy and wanting it just for sex or the feeling of "I'm the (wo)man! YEAH!"

There's never a valid excuse to cheat. No one can ever change that part of them.
Cheating and having open relationships are two different things. I can't speak for those with open relationships because I cannot personally understand why someone would want one.

I'm a pretty traditional person.

When I was in middle school, I had an open relationship. This lasted for almost 5 years. I know mine is a rare case, but I still think it's worth noting.

 

[Kura]

When I was in middle school, I had an open relationship. This lasted for almost 5 years. I know mine is a rare case, but I still think it's worth noting.

My cousin has an open relationship with her fiancee but I still don't understand why someone would want one and I totally can't relate to it.

 

[o0PinkSquid0o]

Cheating is selfish... if you're sick of your partner or you have found a new person... dump the old one.. why hurt them? Is it because you feel excited about sneaking around? Probably... I've helped someone cheat before (being the other woman) and let me tell you, not only does it hurt the other person, it made me feel like a used pile of crap.
Either way it sucks!

 

[Rogue planet]

I agree, but just to play devil's advocate here, I think some people's motivation to cheat is that they truly love both people, their original partner and their new partner they are cheating with, and they want to be with them both. They then take on the mindset that "what he/she doesn't know won't them" and continues the affair.

Also, some people just can't initiate a break-up because it makes them feel like the villain, especially if the reason for the break-up is to move on to another partner you were already establishing a relationship with without having terminated your first relationship first.

I also think that some people do intend to end their first relationship, but they want to solidify their new one before doing so, and they get caught in the meantime.

I agree. It just sames that it's human nature to give in to selfishness and desire, there are a lot of instances where people can get caught up. Although I don't think any situation makes it justifiable to cheat, but there are a lot of situations and thought patterns where people do end up thinking it's okay for some reason.

I think I seemed a little harsh in my first post. I don't think cheating is ever justifiable and I came across a little strongly because of that, but there are instances where it's not due to pure malicious intent, although it is always selfish. A flaw that many people have. I think someone can still love their partner, even if they cheat on them. It's just that animalistic instinct that takes over. Although arguably "true love" means they would never give in to desire or commit any sort of selfish act; a lot of people don't have that level of self control, which might not always be their fault, but it sure as hell doesn't make cheating any better. People could change their ways, who knows? I can't put myself in that situation because I know that I could never cheat.

 

[Dawn]

Define Cheating

adulterous: not faithful to a mate or lover;

Defined as a synonym to committing adultery. This means that whether the mate knows about it or not it's still cheating by definition. In marriage, a few rules are set in stone and the couple have no voice in the matter. I don't necessarily support that, I'm just throwing it out there that that's how it currently is.

violating accepted standards or rules;

Less focused on relationships. See, when people are boyfriend and girlfriend, basically fake marriage, they make the rules. It's a completely open ballpark when you're doing pseudo marriage. You have to state your own rules, and yada yada yada. Basically, the circumstances are somewhat different. See, in a boyfriend girlfriend relationship (as opposed to marriage) it would not be cheating if the other person(s) was okay with it because they get to set those rules.

I tend to believe that polygamy devalues the relationships between all involved, and cheapens it to a pleasurable activity, rather than an actual bond.

Something to think about, there are two sides to that book.

You say it devalues the relationships between all involved, and cheapens it to a pleasurable activity, rather than an actual bond.

They may say that our way of doing it is "putting all your eggs in one basket" so to speak, creating a fragile and weak bond system that can potentially break at the slightest wind, making it look frail and weak compared to theirs. They may also say that one person cannot possibly bring true fulfillment. When you think about it, it's true. No one person can be perfect. No one person can cover all corners. They may also suggest that by having multiple relationships they can effectively hope to cover all corners.

In addition to the controversy, I have my own thoughts to add. Why does it devalue the relationship, cheapen it? Why can't there be a bond? Could it not function similar to a family that you choose? Does it necessarily have to be focused on sex? I think it could and it doesn't necessarily have to.

This is all my opinion.

As a bisexual male I can personally say that I've had a relationship wherein my partner was fine if I was involved with a girl, so long as he knew. Now, the situation never arose, nor did he and i ever get physical,but that isn't the point. As long as doing that with someone who isn't your significant other is fine, if they are okay with it, and the relationship with the third person is purely physical. There's 2 types of cheating. physical and emotional. In my opinion, you can 'cheat' without actually doing anything physical if you have an emotional connection that resembles a relationship while you're in one already, and that's just as wrong if not worse than physical cheating, at least in my opinion.

Define emotional cheating. It's not defined in marriage, that's for sure. If you don't tell your partner not to do it specifically, it's not cheating. I'm just saying, that they can feel however they want about other people, to other people, and it's not cheating unless they agree not to. There are also very few things they can say that automatically makes them cheaters, given words are rather rocky ground.

Cheating is a violation of an agreement, and the agreement cannot be neither spoken nor written. Think about it. You simply can't assume people know an agreement you haven't even spoken to them about. If you ask someone if they cheat, and they say no, you should be very concerned. They should be asking you "Define cheating" if they are at all responsible.

Cheating as marriage defines it is more of an action. You can think whatever you want, and to a degree you can even say and do whatever you want (Given, that's very rocky ground. You have to be careful that you make your intent and actions clear and appropriate. For instance, you should always have a solid idea of what your mate would think beforehand.)

This is all given that it's not technically wrong for someone to break up with you (Less they're married, in which case that's auto-agreed upon sort of like multiple affairs.) over something unsaid.





Now what are my thoughts on this? I actually find myself fine with the idea, though I find polygamy (as was mentioned in other posts, is men with multiple wives but not vice versa) a rather misogynist concept. Why not polyandry? (One woman with multiple men.)

Obviously, that was rhetorical. Polyandry is no better. I think the term we want is polyamory. (Multiple relationships regardless of genders involved.)

Allow me to quote a small section of the wiki article on polyamory. I will underline parts I find important.

In practice, polyamorous relationships are highly varied and individualized. Ideally they are built upon values of trust, loyalty, negotiation, and compersion, as well as rejection of jealousy, possessiveness, and restrictive cultural standards.[5] Such relationships are often more fluid than the traditional "dating-and-marriage" model of long-term relationships, and the participants in a polyamorous relationship may not have preconceptions as to its duration. However, there are polyamorous relationships that last many years and some decades.
Sex is not necessarily a primary focus in polyamorous relationships. Polyamorous relationships commonly consist of groups of more than two people seeking to build a long-term future together on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only one aspect of their relationship.

I find the part where they mention the rejection of jealousy, possessiveness, and restrictive cultural standards particularly fitting.

I think it compliments how I was mentioning earlier that they see benefits to their way of doing it that we sometimes don't take notice of.

 

[Endless Autumn]

If people want to have open relationships, they can go right ahead. It's not cheating in my eyes at all, because they're following the rules that they have set for their own relationship as individuals, that they believe to be ideal. I know some people can't look outside of their own little world where monogamy is The Way Things Are To Be Done, though.

 

[Jolene]

I don't think any situation makes it justifiable to cheat

Hmm what if say your boyfriend moves really far away and you can't be with him any more except over the phone and internet then I think you would slowly drift apart and after awhile someone else will ask you out and you just will go out with him it is natural I think.

 

[Livewire]

Cheating is bad in a monogamous relationship, but it's in human nature to cheat. Our viewpoints on relationships are generated from our culture(s), not based on physical biology. We weren't biologically meant to go through life having one partner. Notice how no other vertebrate land animal lives a totally monogamous life.

Bad by our current cultural standards, Yes. But it's a part of our being. Notice how cheating has always existed in human civilization, since the beginning.

 

[Dawn]

Notice how no other vertebrate land animal lives a totally monogamous life.

Well, actually, there are plenty of other vertebrate land animals that live monogamous lives.

For instance, the beaver, or perhaps the vole.

Given, it's still a rarity.

 

[Rogue planet]

Hmm what if say your boyfriend moves really far away and you can't be with him any more except over the phone and internet then I think you would slowly drift apart and after awhile someone else will ask you out and you just will go out with him it is natural I think.

I doubt anyone would choose to continue with a relationship over long distance unless they really love their partner and don't want to end things. If after a while the love just dies out and they want to pursue a new partner, then they should make sure their partner knows the relationship is over before starting a new one.

Notice how no other vertebrate land animal lives a totally monogamous life

Notice how no other vertebrate land animal goes through marriage, shows jealousy, develops an emotional bond with their partner that goes deeper than physical attraction or shows the same sort of complex emotions as human beings.

 

[Dawn]

Voles are actually known to copulate with and stay with only the first vole that takes their virginity. In fact, they are so passionate about this that they have a tendency to attack other voles of the opposite gender.

Monogamous love evolved in humans for good reasons, reasons we better be prepared to keep in mind when we consider starting a polyamory relationship. I think that we as human beings are intelligent enough to pull it off. For most animals however, the ones that do monogamy usually have very logical reasons for doing it. Humans are one of these types. We probably originally evolved into monogamy because our offspring have such long childhoods and need extended periods of care. Having two parents helps with this, rather than the male and or female running off afterwards.

I doubt anyone would choose to continue with a relationship over long distance unless they really love their partner and don't want to end things.

I think you'd be surprised. Long distance relationships happen, even if they aren't the norm.

 

[dragoniteuser]

From my point of view, it's never OK to cheat!
I speak from both sides, as I've cheated(and I'm ashamed for that) and I've been cheated! Both options hurt the same... to both persons!

 

[Livewire]

Well, actually, there are plenty of other vertebrate land animals that live monogamous lives.

For instance, the beaver, or perhaps the vole.

Given, it's still a rarity.

But not totally monogamous, like we're expected to be. It's still conflicting with human biology.

 

[Project.]

Lions mount a female about every 20 minutes with whatever female he can get his hands on. If lions had intelligence and had some sort of culture, it'd be more exclusive.

It is in animal nature that people will cheat.

Men take the chance they can get, and use it. But its not necessarily for mating purposes, more of a pleasure thing.

I do agree it is morally wrong, but in some relationships it is inevitable, as we all know.

We're another animal on the face of the planet, one that has evolved, taken over the world, and created technology.

And the only way we could of done that is with an abundance of humans. If homo habilis were exclusive years ago (I believe in evolution), then I can assure you our population would be extremely low. We might even be extinct.

It is just absolute human nature that men will mate with whatever chance. Its just that modern culture has twisted the idea of why they want to; they call it cheating.

I do not like cheating, I am not trying to support it. It's wrong to break a heart. Especially with sneaky behavior. Its like stealing money from your favorite restaurant and giving it to your other favorite restaurant, telling them its just something they picked up.

Liar.

 

[Captain Fabio]

My understanding is, a relationship is about trust that you won't cheat on your partner with someone else. Unless discussed and agreed, if someone cheats on me, I end if there and then. The reason is I can't trust them after that; if they can't not be a slag, then I don't want to be with them, and being drunk isn't an excuse.

 

[Dawn]

But not totally monogamous, like we're expected to be. It's still conflicting with human biology.

It really doesn't. Our inability sometimes to be totally monogamous is a result of society developing causing nature's intentions for us to be skewed. What we do is completely natural. Cheating is the oddity in that generally when someone cheats, the theoretical parents split up. That's a joke of a battle plan for the wild. I severely doubt nature intended us to do something so stupid.

Truth be told, humans may HAVE done polyamory. However, it was probably done in groups where the parents stayed together as one big group. Modern cheating is not realistic at all.

If we were in nature, and we were like other animals, we would probably dang well be at least socially completely monogamous for the sake of the human race. The way we have babies, the sheer amount of time and work required to raise one. It would be most efficient if both parents put work into it. It just makes sense. Not all male animals are constantly searching for any female they can get their hands on. That is just one popular method of reproducing.

Some animals, like the vole, are very often completely monogamous. Monogamy is as natural as polyamory. They both have strengths and weaknesses in the animal kingdom and are better suited for different species. We as an incredible intelligent species, are quite capable of realizing and using our knowledge and ability to choose to our advantage. Just as different ones will work for different species, our diversity means different ones will work for different people.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

Define Cheating
Now what are my thoughts on this? I actually find myself fine with the idea, though I find polygamy (as was mentioned in other posts, is men with multiple wives but not vice versa) a rather misogynist concept. Why not polyandry? (One woman with multiple men.)

Obviously, that was rhetorical. Polyandry is no better. I think the term we want is polyamory. (Multiple relationships regardless of genders involved.)

Just thought I'd point out that Polygamy is also gender unspecific as is Polyamory. According to the wikipedia article on Polygamy, the word you were looking for (a man with many wives) is Polygyny.
Polyamory: A person with multiple sexual partners.
Polygamy: A person with multiple spouses.

 

[Livewire]

It really doesn't. Our inability sometimes to be totally monogamous is a result of society developing causing nature's intentions for us to be skewed. What we do is completely natural. Cheating is the oddity in that generally when someone cheats, the theoretical parents split up. That's a joke of a battle plan for the wild. I severely doubt nature intended us to do something so stupid.

Truth be told, humans may HAVE done polyamory. However, it was probably done in groups where the parents stayed together as one big group. Modern cheating is not realistic at all.

If we were in nature, and we were like other animals, we would probably dang well be at least socially completely monogamous for the sake of the human race. The way we have babies, the sheer amount of time and work required to raise one. It would be most efficient if both parents put work into it. It just makes sense. Not all male animals are constantly searching for any female they can get their hands on. That is just one popular method of reproducing.

Some animals, like the vole, are very often completely monogamous. Monogamy is as natural as polyamory. They both have strengths and weaknesses in the animal kingdom and are better suited for different species. We as an incredible intelligent species, are quite capable of realizing and using our knowledge and ability to choose to our advantage. Just as different ones will work for different species, our diversity means different ones will work for different people.

Notice how you said the inability to be monogamous is a result of society. Nature isn't intending for us to do something stupid, it's our societal/cultural norms that cause that problem. You're trying to reconcile societal/cultural responsibilities with our biological tendencies, and they don't mesh very well. Remember, marriage as we see it is a relatively modern concept. Our ancestors in Neolithic times didn't have such concepts.

Why does cheating continue to happen then, even in our modern culture? Seeing as Polyamory has existed far longer than any cultural concepts of marriage, it would hint at a biological factor.