Cheating or not cheating?

[rose A]

I didn't miss a thing. There isn't any alternate perspective. It is what it is and your husband had sex with someone else and cheated on you and its not sitting right with you. Call it what ever you want to call it and dance around the words how ever you want to so that it does sit well in your reality however you choose. But cheating is cheating.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by rose A

I didn't miss a thing. There isn't any alternate perspective. It is what it is and your husband had sex with someone else and cheated on you and its not sitting right with you. .

What are you talking about, rose A? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. (I don't have a husband, for one thing. )

It IS an alternate perspective, it IS it IS!!! (where's the little jumping up and down smilie? ) Just teasin' - honestly I don't understand what you're trying to say in this little post - it looks like you are personalizing it, but why? I'm baffled.

[rose A]

So what does changing the perspective do, lessen the blow? Its like the person telling the judge. Gee It wasn't murder, I was just helping the guy cross over.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by rose A

So what does changing the perspective do, lessen the blow? Its like the person telling the judge. Gee It wasn't murder, I was just helping the guy cross over.

Shifting your perspective can make problems disappear.

In romance, especially, being flexible in your perspective can mean the difference between a joyful, fulfilling, fun relationship, and a joyless, bitter, resentment-filled state of bondage.

So, no, it's not about softening a blow or getting away with murder; it's about taking on a way of being that has you and your partner feeling safe, free, joyful, and really, really good.

If you're into that sort of thing.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Angela

Shifting your perspective can make problems disappear.

In romance, especially, being flexible in your perspective can mean the difference between a joyful, fulfilling, fun relationship, and a joyless, bitter, resentment-filled state of bondage.

So, no, it's not about softening a blow or getting away with murder; it's about taking on a way of being that has you and your partner feeling safe, free, joyful, and really, really good.

If you're into that sort of thing.

Yeah, but not everything needs to be happy happy joy joy. It's ok to perceive something as wrong, bad, or negative.

In fact, I think it's a little healthier mentally to acknowledge a situation for what it is instead of lying to yourself.

Negativity is only bad if it becomes CHRONIC. And chronic positivity can be just as damagin in different ways.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

Yeah, but not everything needs to be happy happy joy joy. It's ok to perceive something as wrong, bad, or negative....And chronic positivity can be just as damagin in different ways.

Yes, it's "ok" to judge. It's "normal," in fact.

Not everything *needs* to be happy happy joy joy; I would agree with you there. In fact, I don't think anything *needs* that. And being joy -- as well as consistently looking for things to feel good about -- is a great choice, in my experience, because it feels really good -- for the feeler and for everyone around the feeler, especially her mate! One thought you can always reach for in a romantic relationship is a thought about how your mate is a magnificent human being, even when she makes choices that don't work so well for you. That thought, and the thought that a mate is a *cheater,* just don't make good roommates. (except for the scrabble thing, of course.)


But for those of you who just can't stand to see sexual relations with anyone but your partner as anything but *cheating," and a *cheating* spouse as a low-down, dirty rotten scoundrel, I certainly don't begrudge you that choice. It's not the sort of relationship I would want -- in which you are bad, wrong, and evil if you make a choice that doesn't work for your partner -- but it certainly is "normal" and "ok"!

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by James81

...
In fact, I think it's a little healthier mentally to acknowledge a situation for what it is instead of lying to yourself.
...

Agreed. But how do you know that when you tell yourself 'cheating is bad' that that is not a lie?

The discussion here revolves about the 'cheating is very very bad; don't get involved with a cheating man/woman' and the 'well, there are also other perspectives to consider' parties.

The latter acknowledges the point of view of the former. Alas, not the other way around. That party seems more fanatical IMO. So much for any meaningful discussion then.

[Apollo]

Sleeping with someone elses partner isn't cheating to me, if I am single and someone wants to come on to me, If I like them then its gonna happen I mean there are situations where I wouldn't such as a friends partner etc... but if I have ZERO connection to their partner why would I care?, they clearly have issues in their relationship that THEY need to address...nothing to do with me, and besides if someone is going to cheat they are going to cheat...me refusing them will just mean some other guy gets the good stuff!

I wouldn't want to be cheated on of course but I wouldn't be mad at the guy who did it unless he KNEW me personally and chose to do it, if I was just some random to him its not his fault and I should not have kept a cheater in my life, should have noticed the signs and got rid, if I didn't then its my own problem.

I mean how many people here claiming this is cheating HONESTLY have "screened" every partner they have ever had, every one night stand, every fumble? your in the nightclub with some absolute honey all over you are you REALLY going to stop and say "hey have you got a boyfriend?, I really don't want to enable you as a cheater if you have so please tell me now if you do"..NOT LIKELY!

Thats how I see it anyways!

[rose A]

by Plato
there are situations where I wouldn't such as a friends partner

So then you are still finding some wrong in the act if you state this.

and this

I wouldn't want to be cheated on of course

Its primal. The females in the pack don't mate with any other pack member except the alpha.

[rose A]

by Angela
Shifting your perspective can make problems disappear.

I personally would rather deal with the problem, have morals to guide me and to teach my children then to sweep a problem under a rug or call it by a different name in the name of having a so called joyful, fullfilling fun relationship. That is just widening the bounderies for the sake of happiness. That rubberband that is holding those bounderies will snap from being stretched too far sooner or later.

by Angela
joyless, bitter, resentment-filled state of bondage.

That is not how I perceive a committed relationship.

[Apollo]

Originally Posted by rose A

So then you are still finding some wrong in the act if you state this.

Not in the way you suggest, If I have a connection to the person involved and I care for them I would not do something to cause them pain, as I know them the pain I would have contributed would be real to me, if its someone i've never met / known how can I feel bad?, much the same way that if a loved one falls ill I will feel pain, if I hear a stranger feels ill I might show some general human sympathy but ultimatlely I have no emotional connection and I feel fine.

and this



Its primal. The females in the pack don't mate with any other pack member except the alpha.

I think I missed your point here?, I agree though this is what females do or at least females without self esteem issues etc..., and so they should, If I got cheated on maybe it was extreme circumstances, I don't believe anyone would NEVER cheat in their whole lifetime if certain situations occured, or maybe it happened because I wasn't alpha enough...in which case then thats my fault!

[rose A]

because you should have empathy. You already know that that would hurt your friend. Then if you know that, you will know that that act will somewhere down the line hurt someone else. It has nothing to do with low self esteem.

Then explain to us why you wouldn't want to be cheated on,

[rose A]

To Ssandra

I am curious. So you're cool with the idea that you're living with your boyfriend and he is bored and he goes off and has a couple of drinks at some bar, gets to talking with some other woman. They strike it up pretty good, go have sex. He comes home to you. You go to work, he goes and has sex again with her while your off at work. Leaves that night, goes has sex with her, comes home to you. During his lunch break, he goes and has sex with her, he comes home to you?

[Plato]

Originally Posted by rose A

So then you are still finding some wrong in the act if you state this.

and this



Its primal. The females in the pack don't mate with any other pack member except the alpha.

Fortunately, I didn't state those things!

You're getting your quotes in a twist.

[rose A]

You're correct, my bad. My apologies. That was to Apollo

[Apollo]

Originally Posted by rose A

because you should have empathy. You already know that that would hurt your friend. Then if you know that, you will know that that act will somewhere down the line hurt someone else. It has nothing to do with low self esteem.

Then explain to us why you wouldn't want to be cheated on,

Because I have NO connection to this person, how can I possibly feel bad for someone I have never known?...if it was a one night stand how can I know they will get found out and cause pain? I don't know that!, I do not actively pursue women with partners, my point is that people should take responsibility for their own actions, if someone decided to cheat with me for a night for example thats their choice why should I feel guilty about it.

See the problem is this topic has so many variables, do you know the person, do you know the partner, was it a long running affair, one night stand...all different in my eyes but i'm going with the one night stand because thats what i've had experience of.

And who wants to be cheated on?...no one thats why I said that, if it happened to me though like i've already said I wouldn't blame some random guy who doesn't know me.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I don´t think it is wrong to sleep with / date people who are involved in a relationship. You are not cheating, they are.

It's all about the Golden Rule. Treating others how you want to be cheated.

Is it okay if your partner deceives you and secretly sleeps around? If your answer is no, then why is it okay for someone to help your partner do that (assuming they know your partner is in a relationship)? In a bank robbery, the driver and the gunmen are both committing a crime.

The bottom line, for me, is that I don't sleep with someone who is in a committed sexual relationship with someone else. Not just for the sake of their partner (who might not even care), but truly for the sake of myself. I'm not attracted to those people. I'm not interested in someone who Lies. I'm interested in someone focused on the Truth.

If it's not wrong, then tell the partner who is being "cheated" on too. If you or the person you're sleeping with can't do that, then hmmmm... maybe Truth isn't your thing, eh?

Originally Posted by Angela

2) There are no cheaters in my reality, except in Scrabble, but I never said anything about "no breaking of promises." That happens -- and it's a fairly straight linguistic description, rather than a story.

Oh Angela, you and your endless semantics.

Many people define "cheater" as "someone who broke the sexual exclusiveness promise." But you knew that. It doesn't have to be a story. By the way, if you only see cheaters in Scrabble, then I think we need to play some Monopoly one day...

One thing I've noticed on this forum is that many people like to throw out different perspectives, just for the sake of doing so, just for the sake of encouraging new beliefs to be considered. Not always because that's what they personally believe and live. I don't often do this because I just assume others can use their imagination on their own. Others, like James and myself, usually just share our perspectives on the situation (which is often called "practical"). There's no desire for us to say "well it's only rape if you and the four year old child call it rape! Have you considered that?" I mean, are statements like that supposed to be profound or deep in some way? Whatever.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by rose A

I personally would rather deal with the problem...

Yes, I totally get that about you. Many people would agree with you -- they'd rather deal with problems, and they think that when I say, "It's a problem from your perspective, and from my perspective, it's not even a problem at all" -- that I'm in denial, or being Rebecca from Sunnybrook Farm, or maybe even evil. It happens a lot! I think that happens because when you're stuck in the perspective of "it's a problem" it's really difficult to even entertain the idea that from another perspective, the problem totally disappears.

I can understand why my point of view might irritate you. It's like the person who is stuck in the Chinese finger trap, pulling and sweating and swearing, trying to solve the problem by pulling harder and harder, and getting nowhere; along comes her friend who says, "How's that working out for you? Maybe you'd like to try relaxing and see if it just falls away, easily and effortlessly?" and the trapped person gets VERY irritated with her friend for being so damned wrong!

@Daffy Duck, I understand how you would think what I'm saying is just semantics .. it sounds like I'm just quibbling over the word, "cheating," right? In a way, that's true; I think the word "cheating" is an emotionally loaded word, and one that doesn't work well in romantic relationship -- it's the ordinary way to refer to having sex with someone other than your committed partner, so it may be hard for someone to notice that the word itself is a way of holding on to hard feelings.

For instance, if I referred to my (fictional) husband as a "cheater" because he broke his promise to love me till death do us part, it actually creates "cheating" in my mind. Well, it happens in relationships, broken promises, and I would prefer that everybody in the relationship keep their promises. And how stingy and loveless it would feel to me, to tell my boyfriend, "You Cheater! You promised to love me till death do us part! You are bad, wrong, and evil!"

It makes much more sense to me to, when things happen in relationship, to address them without making the other person wrong, bad, or evil -- and calling someone a cheater (or other emotionally loaded word) is an excellent way of making someone wrong, bad, or evil.

In my relationships, I think the commitment to see the magnificence of the person, and to recognize that he's doing the best he can with the resources he's got, just like me, is FAR more important than promises of sexual fidelity.

I also happen to think the promise to have sex with no one other than your partner forever is as misguided as the promise to love and cherish someone till the day you die. These are wonderful things to commit to for yourself, if it inspires you, but turning it into a marriage vow transforms it into a *debt* and an opportunity for feeling very, very bad when things turn out otherwise. The partner made a deal, and when he renegs, he's *cheating* you out of something he *owes* you.

It's just a matter of values in the area of relationship, that's all. I value freedom, joy, love and enthusiasm in relationship; and for me, demanding or feeling *owed* sexual fidelity (or anything else) just doesn't fit. So the idea of *cheating* is just..... well, not a problem. It was once, so I can certainly understand why you folks might go all frog-in-a-blender about the idea of being *cheated on.* It really is a problem when you think of it as cheating.

And it's not a problem when you move out of that perspective, and see it as, for instance, someone taking their next right action, one which leads to my own next right actions -- which may be to leave, or to stay and look boldly at who I was being, or to look for a third, unknown alternative, or an infinite number of other actions -- the guiding force being Love, and a commitment on my part to see my partner as an extraordinary human being.

It's not just semantics, you see. There's a tremendous difference between being in a relationship with a "cheater" versus an "extraordinary human being." It's a whole different perspective, and a whole different relationship.

[TexasSky]

Originally Posted by Angela

Whoa, there, Tex! No need to go all kittywompus. I'm pretty well versed in the English language (it's capitalized, by the way!), and although you may have the dictionary definitions of the word down pat, what I'm saying is that if you believe all that is "cheating," then you are assigning a story to it -- one that is loaded with negative emotion. The act itself is one thing, and then there's the story you tell about it. If you tell yourself it's cheating, you are making your partner wrong -- the story of cheating is the story of wrongness. That's fine; it's certainly a valid perspective. But it's not the only perspective. Another story, or set of beliefs you might cultivate is:

"My husband promised me he'd never have sex with another woman until the end of forever. And he had sex with another woman before that date, after all; he broke his promise not to. Is that a deal breaker for me, with no further discussion necessary? Maybe. More likely, it's an opening for discussion -- I love this guy and would like to do everything in my power to have this relationship work well.

Maybe after talking with him, I find that it is in fact a deal breaker, and it's time to let him go with love. I am freeing myself to create the kind of relationship I really want, with a person who wants the same thing. And since my husband doesn't want that same thing, I wish that he will find what he is looking for, too. I love him, after all; that hasn't changed.

Or maybe this would be a good time to re-think this "until the end of forever" thing. That is not the most reasonable vow I've ever made, and maybe it's not necessary for our marriage to be happy (and, well, maybe it IS.) Either way, this would be a good time to rethink it, reevaluate, and recommit if that's what there is to do.

And maybe the most valuable thing I can do for myself is to look boldly at who I am being that my dearest friend found it necessary to break his promise or to lie to me or go have sex with another woman. As I take 100% responsibility for this relationship (not the stingy 50% that ordinary people feel is just fine, thank you very much ), I move into a place of power where I can make a difference -- whether I stay in this relationship, or I say goodbye with love. Taking 100% responsibility means for me that regardless of what he says, does, or thinks, I am in charge of my state -- not him, not anyone else.

No one has *cheated* anyone out of anything here. My husband has, instead, presented me with a golden opportunity for personal growth. Now, what am I going to do with this golden opportunity?"



Or you can believe that, if that works well for you. Like I said, it's a perfectly valid, and very common choice.

Whether you consider cheating a deal breaker or not is your personal choice. If you choose to ignore the cheating, that does not change the fact that it was cheating.

The question asked was not, "would you leave someone for cheating." The question was, "is it cheating." The answer to the question is, "yes, it is cheating."

Why do you feel the need to deny the trust is broken in order to forgive? It is more harmful in a relationship to try to pretend the breaking of trust never happened, or that the promises made never mattered to begin with, than it is to say, "You broke a promise, you cheated, but I love you anyway."

Which is really my issue with you from the beginning. I think you're trying to "pretend wrong is not wrong" so you don't have to forgive.

Theft is theft. If you want to forgive someone who steals, fine. Don't, though, let them walk away thinking, "It wasn't really stealing."
Cheating is cheating. If you want to forgive someone who cheats, fine. Don't, though, let them walk away thinking, "It wasn't really cheating."

Stating a fact is not cruel, evil or even painting someone as evil.
I can say, "You stole from me," without saying, "you are a thief."
I can say, "I forgive you for stealing from me," without saying, "You are a thief."
The fact, "you stole from me," addresses that one incident of theft.
The labeling, "You are a thief," implies this is not a random, one-time event.

If you pretend that a broken promise was never broken, you are communicating that the promise didn't matter. If you communicate that "one promise doesn't matter," how do you explain that "most promises do matter".

By saying, "This is cheating," or saying, "This is a broken promise," you are pointing out facts, but you are also letting them know that you did notice it, recognize it, and don't really want it to continue.

Now, if you truly don't care how often he sleeps with others, you should just tell him that up front so he won't have to deal with the stress of sneaking around.

If you do care, though, you need to say, "I know, I don't appreciate it, I'm not leaving you, but stop it."

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Angela

...
In my relationships, I think the commitment to see the magnificence of the person, and to recognize that he's doing the best he can with the resources he's got, just like me, is FAR more important than promises of sexual fidelity.
...

Angela, all in your post makes perfect sense to me but this paragraph above:

Brilliant! I love you! Marry me please!!!!

Errr.... sorry, not the last part. GF would disapprove big time .

OK in a next life then?

[Angela]

.....To understand my perspective (and yes, Daffy, it is a perspective I look at the world through, not just a randomly expressed one ), you'd have to understand that I don't see HSWSOTYS* or other broken relationship vow as a crime, or someone who does it as a criminal.

So comparing a third party who comes along and has sex with your wife to an accessory in a crime, a contributor to the evil-doing, just doesn't make sense to me. And neither does that little rape analogy, Daffy!


*"Having sex with someone other than your spouse." Or as you folks call it, "Cheating."

[Plato]

I've figured out how to express my meaning!

Ok, there is an underlying assumption among many people here that if you don't have rules, labels, and pre-judgments you can't be pro-active. Or that if you are unconditionally loving you will never DO anything.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. When we refrain from creating mental constructs, we are actually much more able to assess situations and take the best possible action.

Rules and judgments are like putting on blinkers. They don't help us. Rather they blind us to the bigger picture.

The concept of cheating is a set of blinkers. The same with "right" and "wrong" in the conventional absolute meanings of the words.

Rules, false dichotomies, and labels are all blocks to unconditional love. They prevent us from thinking rationally.

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY!!!!

[Angela]

Very well put, Plato -- my sentiments exactly.

[Daffy Duck]

Cheating on your partner is not the same type of crime as rape or bank robbery, no. The latter two are punishable by law, whereas cheating is just a dishonest thing to do (but it won't put you in jail). My analogies are often exaggerated to show a point. I still consider it a crime in the context of personal relationships. To a lesser extent, if I promise my girlfriend to put the toilet seat down, and I constantly leave it up, then I am committing a "crime" of breaking my promise. This doesn't make me an "evil criminal," I never said it did, but it does make me someone who breaks promises. And if I break enough promises, chances are my girlfriend won't want to hang around. I wouldn't either.

If you're in an open relationship, then cheating doesn't exist. If you agreed ahead of time you can sleep with whoever you want, that's fine. But if you agreed to be with each other only, then it's breaking a promise to sleep with someone else.

See, to me this is all semantics again. I think some of us are saying the same thing but we're using the words in different ways!

I don't consider "rules" to be a blinker. Especially not the Golden Rule. Rules exist for a good reason. Angela, as a forum moderator, you know this deeply.

Loving someone unconditionally doesn't mean you let them do whatever they want and say it's all okay and happy happy joy joy. "Go ahead and kill everyone, I love you unconditionally!" Rules don't block unconditional love (unless you want to think they do). They just help control actions.

Rules help us play the game. What would Monopoly be without rules? Maybe some people don't want to play Monopoly, but it serves me very well.

Originally Posted by Plato

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY!!!!

Indeed. That's a very good way to sum up your whole post.

But at the end of the day, and here we go again with more semantics, I think all of us follow our own set of rules.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Loving someone unconditionally doesn't mean you let them do whatever they want and say it's all okay and happy happy joy joy.

Rules and knowing what to do are not the same thing.

That's not just a semantic difference.

Originally Posted by Angela

Very well put, Plato -- my sentiments exactly.

Thanks! It's a fun challenge trying to convey these sentiments, isn't it. I wonder how much more effective practical techniques are to convey the message though? Experiencing seems to be more transformative than theoretical understanding, though they compliment each other.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Plato

Rules and knowing what to do are not the same thing.

Fair enough.

Rules: This is what you're allowed to do.

Knowing what to do: This is what you can do to create a desired response. Cause and effect.

With that said, I think your internal rules determine what you "know" to do. To me this IS just more semantics. I think we both know what each other really means, but we're sitting here playing with words. Even I'm doing this, using the word "rule" in different ways. Words are often not enough to easily express what we mean.

When people "break a rule," they're not giving up rules -- they're just changing them.

[James81]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Agreed. But how do you know that when you tell yourself 'cheating is bad' that that is not a lie?

Well, you have to define what it means to be "bad."

I would think that doing something that causes somebody else pain is bad. Yes, I realize that sometimes the bad things end up turning out to be the best thing to happen to someone, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the intial bad thing is "bad."

Bad exists. Pain exists. Let's acknowledge that and embrace it. Bad things happen all the time. But they only REMAIN bad things if we allow them to. We have a choice to turn bad things into good things, but even if turning a bad thing into a good thing is the best thing that could ever happen to us, it doesn't change the fact that something bad happened. And we don't need to look back at that bad thing and think of it as good, just because it led to good.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Fair enough.

Rules: This is what you're allowed to do.

Knowing what to do: This is what you can do to create a desired response. Cause and effect.

With that said, I think your internal rules determine what you "know" to do.

I'll agree there.

The internal rules aren't really rules in the way we understand them though. They are inside the unconscious mind and far too complex to express in words.

When we create external rules, however, we prevent the unconscious from following its own "rules" effectively.

It's like using a pocket calculator to perform 5 of the 1,000,000 sums necessary to find the optimal solution, when we could use the most powerful processor in the world to do it all instantly.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Plato

When we create external rules, however, we prevent the unconscious from following its own "rules" effectively.

It's like using a pocket calculator to perform 5 of the 1,000,000 sums necessary to find the optimal solution, when we could use the most powerful processor in the world to do it all instantly.

Indeed. We're taught early on in math that calculator's can not always express "exact" answers, so good analogy!

It's definitely true that rules can limit us at times. If that's the case, we should break the rule. When I was younger, my ex-girlfriend shared that she was being abused at home. She tried "conventional" ways of helping the situation, but nothing seemed to help. So we decided to "break the rules" and I helped her run away. Many of her "friends" told her how bad this was, seeming to forget that she was being abused. Uh, hello!

I could write a novel about this full story, but to make it short: everything turned out well, it was quite an adventure, there was a lot of growth and everything is good now.

Ultimately, my whole point in this thread is this: Daffy Duck rules!

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Ultimately, my whole point in this thread is this: Daffy Duck rules!

Haha, nice.

On a point of interest did you know that Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics (probably the most highly regarded ethical treatise in history) was actually a description of how a "happy" person behaves, not a theory of how one should behave.

Edit: A happy person was somebody who performed their role within society to a high ability... that is essentially where unconditional love leads.

It was considered that any rational being would want to be this way, therefore it was not a rule that needed enforcing but a guideline on how to be happy.

Since the Enlightenment ethics changed to be absolute rules of what you can and cannot do.