BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

H&SBR: Cheating

  
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
Spaniel
18:15 / 15.03.07
Den, on the more negative tip, I used to know a guy who was only ever attracted to people in relationships because it meant never having to commit. Which, you know, would be okay if other people didn't end up getting hurt, but sadly they nearly always did.

I think it was symptomatic of a much bigger problem in that he seemed to have a huge problem taking on board any kind of responsibility.
 
 
ibis the being
22:39 / 15.03.07
I think the whole question of infidelity turns on honesty and the meaning of intimacy, rather than the particular act, or whether it even involves mere desire for someone else or a sexual act. Monogamy doesn't just assume fidelity, it also assumes honesty as the condition of intimacy and partnership -- doesn't it? 'Cheating', I think, is just as much about the violation of that rule of honesty/intimacy with one person as the fact of fucking someone else.

But then we also run into brick walls. Ie, if one proceeds with infidelity but tells one's partner about it, with all the consequences that entails, does it still count as cheating? Or are you just 'trying to hurt someone' by rubbing their nose in it?

Absolutely, it is about honesty and trust. (And I don't think that's true only of monogamous relationships.) In my experience, relationships only become monogamous when there is some kind of conversation about whether or not we both want to be "exclusive" in the relationship. In the best case scenarios, we'd have multiple conversations our parameters, personal boundaries, insecurities, concerns, etc. etc. Having had a discussion where you agree that X with another person is not acceptable to either, X with another person is pretty clearly "cheating" behavior.

If you tell your partner about an infidelity after the fact, that's not honesty, it's honesty after the fact. Assuming there has already been some kind of conversation about exclusivity... people don't tell their monogamous partners, "Look, I'm going to go over to Sarah's and fuck her tonight - we'll talk about it later." They do it first, dishonestly and covertly, and then either confess or continue to lie about it.

Or is it the path to a new definition of monogamy, one which is honest about how people have this tendency to want to do sexy stuff with more than one person?

Well, I don't think everyone does. I don't, and no, I really don't. I find intimacy of any kind rather overwhelming, to be frank, and having it with one person is about all I can handle. If someone does want to do sexy stuff with more than one person, monogamy is probably not hir the best option. Rather than redefining monogamy, we might just insist on it less often. I know a number of people who have caused themselves - and other people - no end of grief by attempting to stuff themselves into a monogamous suit when it was entirely at odds with their real needs and desires. But the prevalence of that kind of situation, I think, does not invalidate monogamy as a lifestyle or personal choice.
 
 
Slim
01:35 / 16.03.07
I'm saddened by the fact that my ability to follow my own thread has been outstripped by the numerous responses

I see where you are going on this one, Slim, but it's a very teleological approach. It depends on discovering whether or not the adulterous relationship upon which you are embarking turns out to be one for which you and/or the other party leave their current partners in order to set up together, at which point you can determine retroactively whether you were right to start cheating in the first place. Functionally, how do you determine at the time whether your feelings are real-in-a-way-that-justifies-cheating, are a response to problems in your actual relationships, or are the result of a bottle of champagne at a sales conference?

That's a good point. My categories work for me because I don't want to date someone unless I really want to date that person. To be a tad bit cliched, I fall rarely but deeply. This manner of determination wouldn't be suitable for someone who tends to fall often. This isn't so much a law but a gentle guideline for viewing the morality of one's actions. If one decides that moral questioning is necessary, of course.

I've much more to but I fear that the thread has left me behind...
 
 
Leigh Monster loses its cool
02:41 / 16.03.07
Slim, your ideas remind me of something an English teacher said once about how love can become a substitute for virtue. She was referring to the way that in certain literature, actions that drive conflict are presented as not only forgivable but sympathetic, if they are motivated by love. But that's a literary perspective, in which motivation matters to an omniscient reader. In real life, the cheating party's SO can't read the Other Guy's/Other Girl's thoughts, and probably won't see hir as the protagonist, and is unlikely to be less hurt if ze's in love anyway. And the Other One is certainly not doing less to damage the existing relationship by being in love than ze would if ze were just playing around.

If you feel that you generally don't believe cheating is ok, but find that a connection with someone is promising enough of a relationship to merit cheating, shouldn't it, by default, be promising enough to merit waiting for and encouraging hir to sort hir shit out with the already existing relationship?

I'm not trying to moralize; it just seems to me that if you need a potential relationship to justify engaging in cheating, then you must be hoping for the current relationship to either end or shift to allow your presence. If it's the first then you're not helping the one you love make a clean break with hir current partner by cheating with hir; if it's the second then you're probably damaging your own chances.

The act of cheating on/with someone is going to be okay or not okay for an individual depending how much moral priority ze gives love/passion/impulse, but I think it's important not to conflate the three, if only to make sure you know what you want from the interaction and are using the best way to go about getting it.
 
 
Scarlett_156
03:09 / 16.03.07
(quote/quote)(me)The designation of sexual activity outside a recognized/so-called "committed" relationship as "cheating" has its roots primarily in religion, and secondarily in perception of property rights. It's only normal to want exclusive access to the sexual favors of one's favorite-- but it's as normal to want to sample the favors of others.

(other guy)We-ell, I think the thing your missing there, Scarlet, is an engagement with the fact that stepping outside of the bounds of any relationship's tacit and not-so-tacit rules runs the risk of hurting other human beings. I think the concept of "cheating" has its roots in more than religion, basically.

It might be normal to want to sample the favours of others (lovely euphemism), but that doesn't necessarily make it okay.(end quote)

Define "rules" and define "bounds". I recently broke up with a guy who was ok with me screwing other guys if he was there watching (and they were friends of his), but when I told him that I had screwed someone while he was in prison, he became (in my opinion) unreasonably angry. Should I be concerned about "rules" in that instance? (I hope my euphemistic terms are not confusing you here.)

And he did act hurt, too. (Now let's define "hurt".) In my universe, you hurt someone when you for example burn them with a lit cigarette. If you tell someone in a civilized setting that you had sex with someone else, and that person-- who has gleefully watched you getting it on with others in real life, i.e., not on vid or the internet-- acts like you injured him, no real hurt has been done, unless of course you take him seriously and feel guilty; then HE has successfully hurt YOU.

(Ask me how hard I laughed when the word "cheat" fell from his lips.)

FYI: This is a guy who had sex with another girl in my car when he was on his way to pick his brother up from work. When I found out about it, I laughed... and he acted hurt! (I guess because I didn't favor him with the anger he expected.)

My conclusion is that "hurt" is highly subjective, and therefore nearly negligible, unless it's something that you have to put a bandage and antibiotic ointment on. And also for your information, in my universe "rules" and "boundaries" are basically nonexistent.

Now that I think about it, perhaps there is an exception to this "rule" at least in my case: A man who is married continually sends me instant messages. (The last one being about five minutes ago, as I was reading through this post.) I started chatting with him before he informed me that he was married. Now that I know, all I can think of is the pain his wife and children would experience if I were to hook up with him. I already know that he has a crush on me, and since I backed off from talking to him on the internet, he has acted... hurt. And yet all I can think of is his wife, and those three kids he SUPPOSEDLY adores. Not wanting to cause intense suffering to these innocent bystanders, I hold back from becoming involved with this married man who continually reaches out to strange women on the internet (and believe me, there aren't many women stranger than me!).

But am I not "hurting" this poor fellow, who needs sex with strange women because his wife is (by his words) "always angry" at him?

(... I wonder why she's always angry at him...? Dang, I'm so stupid... I just can't get my head around it... he seems like such a nice man, too...)
 
 
Spaniel
08:03 / 16.03.07
Scarlet, I don't need to define "rules" and "bounds" - for some they will be binding, for others guidelines, and the details will always need to be worked out by the people in the relationship in question. That's the whole point: folk need to work out their own terms.

As for other's hurt being subjective and therefore negligible… er…. you don't see any serious, worrying problems with that way of thinking?
 
 
Ex
08:11 / 16.03.07
My conclusion is that "hurt" is highly subjective, and therefore nearly negligible,

I see your distinction, but I'd say that non-physical pain is highly subjective and therefore should really be sorted out properly and respected. Partly because there are often forms of legal redress if someone, for example, punches you. Whereas if someone tells you they've been having a parallel relationship with your mum without mentioning it, all you can do is swear and sell your story to Take a Break.

If someone is 'hurt' more often than you're prepared to work round, and for reasons you find a bit feeble, then you probably have to stop seeing them.

(And good luck with the adulterous chap. I feel anyone who not only wants to break his relationship agreement, but also whinge about his partner while doing it [possibly as foreplay] probably isn't much of a catch.)
 
 
Spaniel
09:27 / 16.03.07
If you tell someone in a civilized setting that you had sex with someone else, and that person-- who has gleefully watched you getting it on with others in real life, i.e., not on vid or the internet-- acts like you injured him, no real hurt has been done

I wouldn't want to comment on your situation as I can't possibly know the details of what's gone on there, but I don't see that someone being hurt by the actions described above is necessarily unreasonable.

It all comes down to what you've agreed and what you feel is a breach of trust, and frankly I'd be genuinely surprised if you seriously wanted to question that. As I'm sure you're aware, without boundaries and rules personal relationships quickly become unmanageable and ultimately untenable. At least, every relationship I've encountered that lacked key tacit and/or overtly agreed limits, or was entirely protean in nature has been a complete and utter shambles and very bad for all involved.

Part of establishing rules* is, of course, taking personal responsibility. So if I do something that breaches trust and leads to someone being hurt then my guilt has nothing to do with them hurting me, rather it's the consequence of me behaving badly, and it's a consequence that serves a purpose because it encourages us to think a little harder about the possible results of our actions.

*Thinking about it, establishing a relationship is, on one level, identical to establishing a set of parameters. For example (very crudely), I agree that sex will be a component in relationship x but not relationship y
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:32 / 16.03.07
Isn't that a pretty easy one, though, Scarlett? You had already agreed that you having sex with other men while he watched was OK in the context of your relationship. You had not agreed that having sex with other people with nobody watching was OK, presumably.

Now, where this gets interesting is whether your laughter successfully communicated "I do not care about whether ot not you sleep with other people in any context, and I expect you not to care either. If you do care, and expect either that I will be upset if you do, or that I will feel that you are entitled to be upset if I do, then this relationship is clearly not going to work". It seems it did not, which is why laughter is, although the best medicine, often not the best communications strategy.

This seems to me to be a very good example of why it is important to sort out early what people's expectations are from their relationship and their partner or partners. If you don't have rules or boundaries, then you probably need to find other people who also do not have rules or boundaries, or at the very least do not mind that you do not have any rules or boundaries. On the plus side, stick around Barbelith and you'll get to meet some, I'm sure.
 
 
Quantum
12:32 / 16.03.07
in my universe "rules" and "boundaries" are basically nonexistent.

Like the world described by Neo at the end of the Matrix? That's certainly an interesting position to take. Do you ignore political borders? Laws? Other people's distress?
 
 
Spaniel
12:46 / 16.03.07
(Just so we're clear, I appreciate that guilt can be used a weapon)
 
 
Princess
16:44 / 16.03.07
in my universe "rules" and "boundaries" are basically nonexistent.

Oh dear. You must get into loads of arguments.
 
 
petunia
17:20 / 16.03.07
in my universe "rules" and "boundaries" are basically nonexistent.

how do you avoid bumping into things?
 
 
grant
18:18 / 16.03.07
No boundaries, no things.
No things, no bumping.
No bumping, no arguments.

This is perfect wisdom.
 
 
Papess
18:31 / 16.03.07
no bumping, no grinding
 
 
Papess
18:45 / 16.03.07
I do apologize for being flippant. That is exactly what should be avoided in H&S threads.

So, to add something more constructive: The idea that we are boundless, limitless and can have endless freedom is an interesting idea. I think it is misunderstood one in which "freedom" is assumed to be free.
 
 
Leigh Monster loses its cool
18:55 / 16.03.07
huzzah justrix!

nothing to add at the moment as i am off to work but, i hope the thread stays warm.
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply