NationStates Jolt Archive

Ran across this article while visiting Data Node One (Matrix Online forum)

Is This Man Cheating on His Wife?
Alexandra Alter on the toll one man's virtual marriage is taking on his real one and what researchers are discovering about the surprising power of synthetic identity.
By ALEXANDRA ALTER
August 10, 2007; Page W1

On a scorching July afternoon, as the temperature creeps toward 118 degrees in a quiet suburb east of Phoenix, Ric Hoogestraat sits at his computer with the blinds drawn, smoking a cigarette. While his wife, Sue, watches television in the living room, Mr. Hoogestraat chats online with what appears on the screen to be a tall, slim redhead.

He's never met the woman outside of the computer world of Second Life, a well-chronicled digital fantasyland with more than eight million registered "residents" who get jobs, attend concerts and date other users. He's never so much as spoken to her on the telephone. But their relationship has taken on curiously real dimensions. They own two dogs, pay a mortgage together and spend hours shopping at the mall and taking long motorcycle rides. This May, when Mr. Hoogestraat, 53, needed real-life surgery, the redhead cheered him up with a private island that cost her $120,000 in the virtual world's currency, or about $480 in real-world dollars. Their bond is so strong that three months ago, Mr. Hoogestraat asked Janet Spielman, the 38-year-old Canadian woman who controls the redhead, to become his virtual wife.

The woman he's legally wed to is not amused. "It's really devastating," says Sue Hoogestraat, 58, an export agent for a shipping company, who has been married to Mr. Hoogestraat for seven months. "You try to talk to someone or bring them a drink, and they'll be having sex with a cartoon."

Mr. Hoogestraat plays down his online relationship, assuring his wife that it's only a game. While many busy people can't fathom the idea of taking on another set of commitments, especially imaginary ones, Second Life and other multiplayer games are moving into the mainstream. With some 30 million people now involved world-wide, there is mounting concern that some are squandering, even damaging their real lives by obsessing over their "second" ones. That's always been a concern with videogames, but a field of study suggests that the boundary between virtual worlds and reality may be more porous than experts previously imagined.

Nearly 40% of men and 53% of women who play online games said their virtual friends were equal to or better than their real-life friends, according to a survey of 30,000 gamers conducted by Nick Yee, a recent Ph.D. graduate from Stanford University. More than a quarter of gamers said the emotional highlight of the past week occurred in a computer world, according to the survey, which was published in 2006 by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press's journal Presence.

"There's a fuzziness that's emerging between the virtual world and the real world," says Edward Castronova, associate professor in the Department of Telecommunications at Indiana University, Bloomington.

Weekends As 'Dutch'

A burly man with a long gray ponytail, thick sideburns and a salt-and-pepper handlebar mustache, Mr. Hoogestraat looks like the cross between a techie and the Grateful Dead fan that he is. He drives a motorcycle and wears faded black Harley-Davidson T-shirts around the house. A former college computer graphics teacher, Mr. Hoogestraat was never much of a game enthusiast before he discovered Second Life. But since February, he's been spending six hours a night and often 14 hours at a stretch on weekends as Dutch Hoorenbeek, his six-foot-nine, muscular, motorcycle-riding cyber-self. The character looks like a younger, physically enhanced version of him: a biker with a long black ponytail, strong jaw and thick handlebar mustache.

In the virtual world, he's a successful entrepreneur with a net worth of about $1.5 million in the site's currency, the linden, which can be earned or purchased through Second Life's Web site at a rate of about 250 lindens per U.S. dollar. He owns a mall, a private beach club, a dance club and a strip club. He has 25 employees, online persons known as avatars who are operated by other players, including a security guard, a mall concierge, a manager and assistant manager, and the "exotic dancers" at his club. He designs bikinis and lingerie, and sells them through his chain store, Red Headed Lovers.

"Here, you're in total control," he says, moving his avatar through the mall using the arrow keys on his keyboard.

Virtual worlds like Second Life have fast become a testing ground for the limits of relationships, both online and off. In the game, cyber sex, marriage and divorce are common. Avatars have sued one another, as well as the site's parent company, Linden Lab, in real-life courts for in-game grievances such as copyright infringement and property disputes. The site now has more than eight million registered "residents," up from 100,000 in January 2006, though the number of active users is closer to 450,000, according to Linden Lab's most recent data. A typical "gamer" spends 20 to 40 hours a week in a virtual world.

Academics have only recently begun to intensively study the social dynamics of virtual worlds, but some say they are astonished by how closely virtual relationships mirror real life. "People respond to interactive technology on social and emotional levels much more than we ever thought," says Byron Reeves, a professor of communication at Stanford University. "People feel bad when something bad happens to their avatar, and they feel quite good when something good happens."

On a neurological level, players may not distinguish between virtual and real-life relationships, recent studies suggest. In an experiment conducted at the University of Washington's Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, test subjects were hooked up to neuroimaging machines while they played a simple computer game in which they moved colored discs to form a pattern. When told that they were playing with a person rather than a computer, participants showed increased activity in areas of the brain that govern social interaction.

Other experiments show that people socializing in virtual worlds remain sensitive to subtle cues like eye contact. In one study, participants moved their avatars back if another character stood too close, even though the space violation was merely virtual, says Jeremy Bailenson, director of Stanford's Virtual Human Interaction Lab, which was created five years ago to study social behavior in virtual worlds. "Our brains are not specialized for 21st-century media," says Prof. Reeves. "There's no switch that says, 'Process this differently because it's on a screen.' "

A Full-Blown Dance Party

On a Saturday afternoon in July, Mr. Hoogestraat decides to go to the beach. He lights a cigarette and enters Second Life, one of 42,752 people logged on at the time. Immediately, he gets an instant message from Tenaj Jackalope, his Second Life wife, saying she'll be right there.

They meet at their home, a three-story, modern-looking building on a grassy bluff overlooking the ocean, then head to his beach club by teleporting, or instantly moving to a new screen by typing in a location. A full-blown dance party is under way. A dozen avatars, digital representations of other live players, gyrate on the sand, twisting their hips and waving their arms. Several dance topless and some are fully nude. Dutch gets pelted with instant messages.

"What took you so long, Dutch?" a dancer asks.

"Howdy, Boss Man," an avatar named Whiskey Girl says.

Before discovering Second Life, Mr. Hoogestraat had bounced between places and jobs, working as an elementary schoolteacher and a ski instructor, teaching computer graphics and spending two years on the road selling herbs and essential oils at Renaissance fairs. Along the way, he picked up a bachelor's degree in education from Arizona State University and took graduate courses in education and instructional technology at the University of Wyoming and the University of Arizona. He currently works as a call-center operator for Vangent Inc., a large corporation that outsources calls for the government and private companies. He makes $14 an hour.

Mr. Hoogestraat learned about Second Life in February, while watching a morning news segment. His mother had just been hospitalized with pancreatic cancer -- she died two weeks later -- and he wanted a distraction. He was fascinated by the virtual world's free-wheeling, Vegas-like atmosphere. With his computer graphics background, he quickly learned how to build furniture and design clothing. He upgraded his avatar, buying defined stomach muscles, a furry chest and special hair that sways when he walks. Other, missing anatomy was also available for purchase. Before long, Mr. Hoogestraat was spending most nights and weekends acting out his avatar's life.

When Mr. Hoogestraat was diagnosed with diabetes and a failing gall bladder a few months ago, he was home-bound for five weeks. Some days, he played from a quarter to six in the morning until two in the morning, eating in front of the computer and pausing only for bathroom breaks.

During one marathon session, Mr. Hoogestraat met Tenaj (Janet spelled backward) while shopping. They became fast friends, then partners.

A week later, he asked her to move into the small apartment he rented in Phantom Island, an area of Second Life. In May, they married in a small ceremony in a garden overlooking a pond. She wore a strapless white dress that she bought at a Second Life yard sale and he wore a tuxedo. Thirty of their avatar friends attended.

"There's a huge trust between us," says Ms. Spielman, a divorced mother of two who works in office sales in Calgary, Alberta, and began logging on to Second Life in January. "We'll tell each other everything."

That intimacy hasn't spilled into real life. They never speak and have no plans to meet. Aside from the details they share over Second Life instant messages, each knows little about the other beyond what's posted on their brief online user profiles.

Mr. Hoogestraat's real-life wife is losing patience with her husband's second life. "It's sad; it's a waste of human life," says Mrs. Hoogestraat, who is dark-haired and heavy-set with smooth, pale skin. "Everybody has their hobbies, but when it's from six in the morning until two in the morning, that's not a hobby, that's your life."

The real Mrs. Hoogestraat is no stranger to online communities -- she met her husband in a computer chat room three years ago. Both were divorced and had adult children from previous marriages, and Mrs. Hoogestraat says she was relieved to find someone educated and adventurous after years of failed relationships. Now, as she pays household bills, cooks, does laundry, takes care of their three dogs and empties ashtrays around the house while her husband spends hours designing outfits for virtual strippers and creating labels for virtual coffee cups, she wonders what happened to the person she married.

Just a Game

One Saturday night in early June, she discovered his cyber wife. He called her over to the computer to show her an outfit he had designed. There, above the image of the redheaded model, it said "Mrs. Hoorenbeek." When she confronted him, he huffily replied that it was just a game.

Two weeks later, Mrs. Hoogestraat joined an online support group for spouses of obsessive online gamers called EverQuest Widows, named after another popular online fantasy game that players call Evercrack.

"It's avalanched beyond repair," says Sharra Goddard, 30, Mrs. Hoogestraat's daughter and a sign-language interpreter in Chandler, Ariz. She says she and her two brothers have offered to help their mother move out of the house.

Mrs. Hoogestraat says she's not ready to separate. "I'm not a monster; I can see how it fulfills parts of his life that he can no longer do because of physical limitations, because of his age. His avatar, it's him at 25," she says. "He's a good person. He's just fallen down this rabbit hole."

Mr. Hoogestraat, for his part, doesn't feel he's being unfaithful. "She watches TV, and I do this," he says. "I tried to get her involved so we could play together, but she wasn't interested."

Family-law experts and marital counselors say they're seeing a growing number of marriages dissolve over virtual infidelity. Cyber affairs don't legally count as adultery unless they cross over into the real world, but they may be cited as grounds for divorce and could be a factor in determining alimony and child custody in some states, according to several legal experts, including Jeff Atkinson, professor at the DePaul University College of Law and author of the American Bar Association's "Guide to Marriage, Divorce and Families."

This past June, the American Medical Association called for more psychiatric research on excessive gaming, but backed away from classifying videogame addiction as a formal disorder.

Some gamers say the addictive dangers have been overstated, citing surveys that show most players spend fewer hours online than the average American spends watching television. And unlike television, online games are social. In June, when Mr. Hoogestraat first logged on to Second Life after he had his gall bladder removed, he was greeted with 50 messages from virtual friends asking him how the surgery went.

Still, some antigaming organizations and psychiatrists say the social aspects of such games may be driving up pressure to play for longer stretches. Kimberly Young, a clinical psychologist and founder of the Center for Internet Addiction Recovery, said the majority of the 200 cases a year she sees for counseling involve interactive fantasy role-playing games. "They start forming attachments to other players," she says. "They start shutting out their primary relationships."

Back in the world of Second Life, Mr. Hoogestraat's avatar and Tenaj have gotten bored at the beach, so they teleport to his office, a second-floor room with a large, tinted window overlooking the stage of the strip club he owns. Tenaj plays with her pug, Jolly Roger, commanding the dog to sit and fetch its toy. Dutch drinks a Corona, Mr. Hoogestraat's beer of choice in real life, and sits at his desk. For a while, Mr. Hoogestraat, sitting at his computer, stares at an image of his avatar sitting at his computer.

The next morning, he's at his computer at 10 a.m., wearing the same black Harley-Davidson T-shirt. It is Sunday. He's been logged on to Second Life for four hours.

Staring purposefully at the screen, he manipulates his avatar, who is shirtless in cut-off denim shorts and flip-flops and renovating the lower level of his mall. "Sunday is my heavy-duty work day," Mr. Hoogestraat explains. Earlier that morning, he evicted 10 shop owners who hadn't paid rent, and signed up four new vendors, including an avatar named Arianna who sells virtual necklaces and women's shoes.

From the kitchen, Mrs. Hoogestraat asks if he wants breakfast. He doesn't answer. She sets a plate of breakfast pockets on the computer console and goes into the living room to watch a dog competition on television. For two hours, he focuses intently on building a coffee shop for the mall. Two other avatars gather to watch as he builds stairs and a counter, using his cursor to resize wooden planks.

At 12:05, he's ready for a break. He changes his avatar into jeans, leather motorcycle chaps and motorcycle gloves, and teleports to a place with a curvy, mountain road. It's one of his favorite places for riding his Harley look-alike. The road is empty. He weaves his motorcycle across the lanes. Sunlight glints off the ocean in the distance.

Mrs. Hoogestraat pauses on her way to the kitchen and glances at the screen.

"You didn't eat your breakfast," she says.

"I'm sorry, I didn't see it there," he responds.

"They probably won't taste any good now," she says, taking the plate.

Over the next five hours, Mr. Hoogestraat stares at the computer screen, barely aware of his physical surroundings. He adds a coffee maker and potted palms to the cafe, goes swimming through a sunken castle off his waterfront property, chats with friends at a biker clubhouse, meets a new store owner at the mall, counsels an avatar friend who had recently split up with her avatar boyfriend, and shows his wife Tenaj the coffee shop he's built.

By 4 p.m., he's been in Second Life for 10 hours, pausing only to go to the bathroom. His wrists and fingers ache from manipulating the mouse to draw logos for his virtual coffee cups. His back hurts. He feels it's worth the effort. "If I work a little harder and make it a little nicer, it's more rewarding," he says.

Sitting alone in the living room in front of the television, Mrs. Hoogestraat says she worries it will be years before her husband realizes that he's traded his real life for a pixilated fantasy existence, one that doesn't include her.

"Basically, the other person is widowed," she says. "This other life is so wonderful; it's better than real life. Nobody gets fat, nobody gets gray. The person that's left can't compete with that."
Link (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html)

Here's what I wrote on DN1, and what I'll write here. Honestly, I would have to say yes, he is cheating. Even though there has been no physical contact, he is still devoting time, money and energy on this virtual life that he could've been spending on his real life wife. When you divert your attention, emotions and money from your wife who you are legally married to, for another woman, then you are cheating.

If I was the wife, I would ask for divorce.

Ran across this article while visiting Data Node One (Matrix Online forum)


Link (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html)

Here's what I wrote on DN1, and what I'll write here. Honestly, I would have to say yes, he is cheating. Even though there has been no physical contact, he is still devoting time, money and energy on this virtual life that he could've been spending on his real life wife. When you divert your attention, emotions and money from your wife who you are legally married to, for another woman, then you are cheating.

If I was the wife, I would ask for divorce.Especially the part about asking to marry the redhead.

Even though there has been no physical contact, he is still devoting time, money and energy on this virtual life that he could've been spending on his real life wife. When you divert your attention, emotions and money from your wife who you are legally married to, for another woman, then you are cheating.

You'd be surprised at how good people are at deceiving themselves. I never thought I'd take a relationship over the internet seriously, as the only ones I ever had were on roleplaying games.

As of today, it's been two and a half years since I met my girlfriend :p

While I do think that in this particular case, the man is cheating, I am going to also have to state that you have to devote a certain amount of attention, emotion and money in order to breach a threshold and I am going to guess that it's different for everyone. To give an example as to why I say this: If you go out with some friends and one of them happens to be a woman, then it is perfectly possible to actually go to the movies, chat with them and even have dinner with them (them = group of friends), without cheating on your wife (despite that you're spending attention, money and possibly emotion on another woman).

The reason why this guy crosses the line is:
1) This is Second Life. People do take it surprisingly seriously and it is not a roleplaying game, unless you play it as one.
2) To say "It's just a game" is ignoring the fact that it's an MMO. There are real people behind those other characters people! And the means of interaction means you're not interacting so much with the avatars as the people behind the avatars. Hence, "It's just a game" doesn't cut it.
3) The guy is playing the game even after he's been told that it's taking a toll on his (supposed) loved ones.

Bah, I can't word my thoughts correctly, but I hope they'll be understood.

Ran across this article while visiting Data Node One (Matrix Online forum)


Link (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html)

Here's what I wrote on DN1, and what I'll write here. Honestly, I would have to say yes, he is cheating. Even though there has been no physical contact, he is still devoting time, money and energy on this virtual life that he could've been spending on his real life wife. When you divert your attention, emotions and money from your wife who you are legally married to, for another woman, then you are cheating.

If I was the wife, I would ask for divorce.

careful... an author writing a book featuring a woman can fall into that definition.

Same with an artist perfecting his masterpiece.

and why another woman, why not another man. after all, there's no guarentee that the person on the other side of the avatar is a woman.

I don't call it cheating because of this.
Mr. Hoogestraat, for his part, doesn't feel he's being unfaithful. "She watches TV, and I do this," he says. "I tried to get her involved so we could play together, but she wasn't interested."

so what if he was golfing and spent all his free time golfing with the same female golf partner. would that be cheating?

she can ask for a divorce, but I don't call it cheating. Obsessing? yes, but not cheating.

The real question is, of course: should we be so irritatingly righteously judgmental about everything everyone on this whole planet does?

so what if he was golfing and spent all his free time golfing with the same female golf partner. would that be cheating?

she can ask for a divorce, but I don't call it cheating. Obsessing? yes, but not cheating.

And if he asked this female golf partner to marry him?

And if he asked this female golf partner to marry him?

Because it's not a Computer Simulation, then it's bigamy.

However, since Second Life is a computer simulation. what laws are being broken since there is no legal document binding one Second life character to another?

I've RPed a PnP game where my character has sexual relations with another player. that doesn't mean I'm not a virgin. even if the description was more than "ok you two spend the night together." it doesn't mean squat since nothing physcial and real happened.

he does have an obsession, that I will say. and if she wants to divorce him, then I won't hold it against her. after all, he's negleting her (and it can be argued she's neglecting him depending on how much TV she's watching.)

but that doesn't mean cheating.

careful... an author writing a book featuring a woman can fall into that definition.

Same with an artist perfecting his masterpiece.

and why another woman, why not another man. after all, there's no guarentee that the person on the other side of the avatar is a woman.

I don't call it cheating because of this.


so what if he was golfing and spent all his free time golfing with the same female golf partner. would that be cheating?

she can ask for a divorce, but I don't call it cheating. Obsessing? yes, but not cheating.
the thing is he is cheating the marriage, addiction of any kind hurts a marriage, cheating is something you do to hurt the marriage.

Even open relationship people have that line you don't cross, and it's when it begins to hurt the relationship.

Not cheating, but neglect.

Ballotonia

no its not cheating.

but its not harmless fun either.

they have been married 7 months and her husband is spending the time he should be spending with her with another woman. this is wrong.

its time to give him an ultimatum. if he cant drop this game, she should divorce him.

I've RPed a PnP game where my character has sexual relations with another player. that doesn't mean I'm not a virgin. even if the description was more than "ok you two spend the night together." it doesn't mean squat since nothing physcial and real happened.

*raises eyebrow* Reeeeeeeaaaallllllyyyyy.


Honestly, how could you divorce him and give up a name like Hoogestraat?

Cheating, possible. Poor judgment, definitely. If he wants to spend so much time in his little online world, he ought to just leave his wife, let her find someone who isn't addicted to online RPGs, and just go with this online relationship.

So uhmm... on one hand, its a stupid game, I stress STUPID. He shouldn't spend so much time playing it and more time with his wife though. This one falls inside a kind of wierd grey area that shouldn't even exist; there are so many possible variables.

I do think he needs to get back to his REAL life and spend less time on second life.

Ran across this article while visiting Data Node One (Matrix Online forum)


Link (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html)

Here's what I wrote on DN1, and what I'll write here. Honestly, I would have to say yes, he is cheating. Even though there has been no physical contact, he is still devoting time, money and energy on this virtual life that he could've been spending on his real life wife. When you divert your attention, emotions and money from your wife who you are legally married to, for another woman, then you are cheating.

If I was the wife, I would ask for divorce.

Jesus. She should ask for divorce.

To give an example as to why I say this: If you go out with some friends and one of them happens to be a woman, then it is perfectly possible to actually go to the movies, chat with them and even have dinner with them (them = group of friends), without cheating on your wife (despite that you're spending attention, money and possibly emotion on another woman).
Wait, you can't go out with friends of the opposite sex in a one-on-one basis after getting married when there are no romantic motives involved? That seems dumb.

You'd be surprised at how good people are at deceiving themselves. I never thought I'd take a relationship over the internet seriously, as the only ones I ever had were on roleplaying games.

As of today, it's been two and a half years since I met my girlfriend :p

While I do think that in this particular case, the man is cheating, I am going to also have to state that you have to devote a certain amount of attention, emotion and money in order to breach a threshold and I am going to guess that it's different for everyone. To give an example as to why I say this: If you go out with some friends and one of them happens to be a woman, then it is perfectly possible to actually go to the movies, chat with them and even have dinner with them (them = group of friends), without cheating on your wife (despite that you're spending attention, money and possibly emotion on another woman).

The reason why this guy crosses the line is:
1) This is Second Life. People do take it surprisingly seriously and it is not a roleplaying game, unless you play it as one.
2) To say "It's just a game" is ignoring the fact that it's an MMO. There are real people behind those other characters people! And the means of interaction means you're not interacting so much with the avatars as the people behind the avatars. Hence, "It's just a game" doesn't cut it.
3) The guy is playing the game even after he's been told that it's taking a toll on his (supposed) loved ones.

Bah, I can't word my thoughts correctly, but I hope they'll be understood.

I think you've worded it okay and I broadly agree with you.

The line between online and offline relations is extremely blurred and we have a man here who is deeply emotionally invested, not because of the online marriage but because of the time spent with her, in another woman - and that emotional investment does not seem to be matched with his real-life wife.

Technically, he hasn't cheated because the relationship online has not been consummated and so the grounds for divorce would not be infidelity.

Yet this still seems to be a defunct relationship, irreconcilable differences, and, unless the wife can join him online or the husband devote equal or more time to her, I can't see this as a healthy relationship.

Because it's not a Computer Simulation, then it's bigamy.

However, since Second Life is a computer simulation. what laws are being broken since there is no legal document binding one Second life character to another?

I've RPed a PnP game where my character has sexual relations with another player. that doesn't mean I'm not a virgin. even if the description was more than "ok you two spend the night together." it doesn't mean squat since nothing physcial and real happened.

he does have an obsession, that I will say. and if she wants to divorce him, then I won't hold it against her. after all, he's negleting her (and it can be argued she's neglecting him depending on how much TV she's watching.)

but that doesn't mean cheating.

I should think they are both in need of counseling -- because if he is spending all of his time with a game and carrying on a virtual relationship with someone he's never met to the point that the wife is upset, and if their relationship is so non-existant that he feels that this online relationship is as important or more important than a RL connection to his wife, they BOTH have issues that need to be dealt with.

The real question is, of course: should we be so irritatingly righteously judgmental about everything everyone on this whole planet does?
Yes. Next question: Are you seriously going to wear that shirt in public?

People have basic psychological needs among these are:
Acceptance by a social group, contributing productively to that group, rewards for hard work, loyalty, etc.
For many real life doesn't provide these basic social necessities while virtual life does.
This is also why so many are attracted to organized religion.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." ---Wendell Berry

I say that he is virtually cheating on his wife.
it's a fantasy, but when fantasy intrudes in your normal life then you are guilty of neglect of your responsibilities towards your partner or family.

Yes. Next question: Are you seriously going to wear that shirt in public?

Okay, okay, I'll take it off, and the rest too!
http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/images/fat_guy.jpg
This okay? Can I go out now?

Everyone keeps separating the difference between reality and fantasy.


But in my opinion, if two people are truly in love (which is then officially recognized and cemented by marriage), then reality and fantasy should be one and the same. For example, this man's fantasy should be to be with his wife, because he should love her so much that he made reality to fit his fantasy by actually marrying her.


Perhaps this is just an old fashioned viewpoint of love. Maybe I'm the last of the great, dying breed of hopeless romantics.

Yes, this man is cheating on his wife. Cheating is not just a physical aspect. In my opinion, physically cheating on someone is not as bad as mentally cheating on them. Because with the physical, there's usually no love involved, it's just that they gave in to their impulses. But with the mental, that's where the love is, it's all in the heart and mind. And if you lose that, you have nothing left to give or get. And your world, the person that you built your life around, the reason why you get up in the morning so you can look into your partner's eyes and tell them how lucky you are to have them and how much you love them, all of that, is gone and destroyed, and a part of you is gone with it.


Sigh, how depressing. :(

Second Life: what you get when you really really need a life, but can't afford a new life. You buy second-hand.

Sigh, how depressing. :(

Mmm, I guess. You don't need to judge your own conclusions, though, we can do that for you.

Everyone keeps separating the difference between reality and fantasy.


But in my opinion, if two people are truly in love (which is then officially recognized and cemented by marriage), then reality and fantasy should be one and the same. For example, this man's fantasy should be to be with his wife, because he should love her so much that he made reality to fit his fantasy by actually marrying her.


Perhaps this is just an old fashioned viewpoint of love. Maybe I'm the last of the great, dying breed of hopeless romantics.

Yes, this man is cheating on his wife. Cheating is not just a physical aspect. In my opinion, physically cheating on someone is not as bad as mentally cheating on them. Because with the physical, there's usually no love involved, it's just that they gave in to their impulses. But with the mental, that's where the love is, it's all in the heart and mind. And if you lose that, you have nothing left to give or get. And your world, the person that you built your life around, the reason why you get up in the morning so you can look into your partner's eyes and tell them how lucky you are to have them and how much you love them, all of that, is gone and destroyed, and a part of you is gone with it.

I'm close to just quoting that for truth. Living is dying, one day at a time.

Physically cheating is worse. If the mind or heart don't have the strength to keep the pants on the body, why should anyone (oneself, one's partner, or we third parties) give that mind or heart any credance at all? If the domain of the mind (or heart) does not encompass the physical body it owes its existence to, what faith should we have in it?

Mmm, I guess. You don't need to judge your own conclusions, though, we can do that for you.

I don't need you to tell me how to judge my own writing. Get over yourself.



Physically cheating is worse. If the mind or heart don't have the strength to keep the pants on the body, why should anyone (oneself, one's partner, or we third parties) give that mind or heart any credance at all? If the domain of the mind (or heart) does not encompass the physical body it owes its existence to, what faith should we have in it?

And clearly, this entire subject nothing more than opinion based, so there's no point in arguing it. Simply providing your opinion in an open fashion rather than by a rebuttal would have been more appropriate. To presume that your "opinion" is worthy of more consideration or "truth" than mine is arrogantly foolish of you. It's still just an opinion.

Everyone keeps separating the difference between reality and fantasy.


But in my opinion, if two people are truly in love (which is then officially recognized and cemented by marriage), then reality and fantasy should be one and the same. For example, this man's fantasy should be to be with his wife, because he should love her so much that he made reality to fit his fantasy by actually marrying her.


Perhaps this is just an old fashioned viewpoint of love. Maybe I'm the last of the great, dying breed of hopeless romantics.

Yes, this man is cheating on his wife. Cheating is not just a physical aspect. In my opinion, physically cheating on someone is not as bad as mentally cheating on them. Because with the physical, there's usually no love involved, it's just that they gave in to their impulses. But with the mental, that's where the love is, it's all in the heart and mind. And if you lose that, you have nothing left to give or get. And your world, the person that you built your life around, the reason why you get up in the morning so you can look into your partner's eyes and tell them how lucky you are to have them and how much you love them, all of that, is gone and destroyed, and a part of you is gone with it.


Sigh, how depressing. :(

no its not an old fashioned view of love, its a naive and unrealistic view of love.

Okay, okay, I'll take it off, and the rest too!
*pic*
This okay? Can I go out now?

Yep. There's the door. And here's a shoe-horn to help you through it.

no its not an old fashioned view of love, its a naive and unrealistic view of love.

possibly



but i must believe that love is an endearing quality that transcends all other emotions and actions, otherwise what is the use of love?

but i must believe that love is an endearing quality that transcends all other emotions and actions, otherwise what is the use of love?

*shrug* meh, not so concerned about it's purpose, I just enjoy it.

*shrug* meh, not so concerned about it's purpose, I just enjoy it.

that's what makes it useful :)

possibly



but i must believe that love is an endearing quality that transcends all other emotions and actions, otherwise what is the use of love?

im not sure id go as far as that transcending thing but love isnt automatic or enduring. you need to work on it, to make sure that you dont destroy it, and sometimes give up your fun times like second life in order to keep it.

not because your wife should be your fantasy but because your fantasy should never be more important than your wife.

I don't need you to tell me how to judge my own writing. Get over yourself.

You judged your own writing, already. You called it depressing, didn't you?

I was disagreeing, in the most agreeable way. I begged to find something in your post other than "depressing."

And clearly, this entire subject nothing more than opinion based, so there's no point in arguing it. Simply providing your opinion in an open fashion rather than by a rebuttal would have been more appropriate. To presume that your "opinion" is worthy of more consideration or "truth" than mine is arrogantly foolish of you. It's still just an opinion.

I rebutted??

I swear that was not my intention. "I very nearly quoted this for truth."

I very nearly agree with you. That is no basis for a rebuttal. I layed out exactly how I disagree, a matter of nothing more than opinion. The physical actions of the body are the least measure of devotion -- devotion should be more than that, in the mind and the heart -- but perhaps the physical actions of the body are the truest measure of devotion, too.

If we can't rule our bodies by the high ideals of love, what are our words and dainty gifts worth?

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's hillarious. The best part is that his Second Life wife could be a dude, and he wouldn't even know.

im not sure id go as far as that transcending thing but love isnt automatic or enduring. you need to work on it, to make sure that you dont destroy it, and sometimes give up your fun times like second life in order to keep it.

not because your wife should be your fantasy but because your fantasy should never be more important than your wife.

well i pretty much agree with you

and I didn't say love is enduring, i said it's endearing. Love is never automatic, and is never guaranteed, nor should it be assumed. But it is a beloved attribute that evokes certian affections and consequent actions

frankly, the "wife being your fantasy" part was radical, I'll admit and i'm not saying that should be the norm in every situation.

But it is always nice to think that you are your partner's fantasy :)

This is cheating. Cheating doesn't have to be about sex; in fact, I'd say that cheating often is not about sex even when it includes sex.

More than a quarter of gamers said the emotional highlight of the past week occurred in a computer world, according to the survey, which was published in 2006 by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press's journal Presence.

Well, I'm kind of new to the "friends online" thing, I've been at it for a year or so and I'm still too shy to have learnt a real-world name or done much private messaging. I think flirting with entities in Second Life would quite gross me out.

But that kind of fits. At least one in four of the last 52 weeks, the emotional highlight of my week has been something that happened ... well, here.

But I have a very sheltered life. I haven't had to grow a thicker skin... because I bite.

You judged your own writing, already. You called it depressing, didn't you?

I was disagreeing, in the most agreeable way. I begged to find something in your post other than "depressing."



I rebutted??

I swear that was not my intention. "I very nearly quoted this for truth."

I very nearly agree with you. That is no basis for a rebuttal. I layed out exactly how I disagree, a matter of nothing more than opinion. The physical actions of the body are the least measure of devotion -- devotion should be more than that, in the mind and the heart -- but perhaps the physical actions of the body are the truest measure of devotion, too.

If we can't rule our bodies by the high ideals of love, what are our words and dainty gifts worth?



I'm sorry if I misjudged your intentions, I read your post as something entirely different (it's hard to gauge intent and tone on an online forum) and I apologize for my overly critical critique of your post.


And yes, I do agree that physically cheating is an egregious offense that is not to be taken lightly. But there are circumstances where the rendering of physical affection is nowhere close to the damage that the mental aspect of love would afford.

For example, if a boyfriend gets drunk and has sex with another girl, it's an unforgivable act, to be sure. But he didn't give up his heart to her, he just made a stupid and horrible mistake.

And when he has to confront his girlfriend about it, that's exactly what it was, just a stupid mistake and he didn't mean it and he'll never do it again, etc. He can still tell his girlfriend that he loves her.

The worse pain in the world, I believe, is when your partner tells you that they no longer love you anymore. It's a stake right through the heart.

It's like when people say "you can have my body but never my heart." Same concept.

Now when both the heart and the body are given away, well that's a different case altogether.

Wait, you can't go out with friends of the opposite sex in a one-on-one basis after getting married when there are no romantic motives involved? That seems dumb.

The real question is: Why would you want to?

In theory, all your romantic needs should be filled by the person whom you love and care for the most. That's not to say no one else can, but that special someone should, if everything is good, be the best to do this.

well i pretty much agree with you

and I didn't say love is enduring, i said it's endearing. Love is never automatic, and is never guaranteed, nor should it be assumed. But it is a beloved attribute that evokes certian affections and consequent actions

frankly, the "wife being your fantasy" part was radical, I'll admit and i'm not saying that should be the norm in every situation.

But it is always nice to think that you are your partner's fantasy :)

at least sometimes.

some people seem to have the impression that as long as you stick to the letter of the law (so to speak) you can do whatever you want in a marriage. so as long as he is not touching another women with his penis, he is not cheating and his wife should be OK with it. he is so wrong.

its not cheating but his wife has no reason to put up with this kind of abandonment.

at least sometimes.

some people seem to have the impression that as long as you stick to the letter of the law (so to speak) you can do whatever you want in a marriage. so as long as he is not touching another women with his penis, he is not cheating and his wife should be OK with it. he is so wrong.

its not cheating but his wife has no reason to put up with this kind of abandonment.

hear hear!


it must be a difficult choice for her though. i mean, he must have loved her and showed it in the past, and now, nothing. So she might be thinking that if she waits just long enough, he'll change and go back to his old self.

I'm sorry if I misjudged your intentions, I read your post as something entirely different (it's hard to gauge intent and tone on an online forum) and I apologize for my overly critical critique of your post.

My post wasn't all that clear. I'm a beginner myself.

And yes, I do agree that physically cheating is an egregious offense that is not to be taken lightly. But there are circumstances where the rendering of physical affection is nowhere close to the damage that the mental aspect of love would afford.

Yes! "There are circumstances" is quite right, and it's why this will only ever be a matter of opinion. There is no objective standard of loyalty, it is a matter for the two parties of loyalty to agree on.

"Loyalty" is a new word to the subject, I grant. I am looking for an antithesis to "cheating." "Being true" would apply OK too, but begs the question "true to what?"

*snip gratuitous essay*

The real question is: Why would you want to?

In theory, all your romantic needs should be filled by the person whom you love and care for the most. That's not to say no one else can, but that special someone should, if everything is good, be the best to do this.

Sure, but Dakini said she wasn't talking about romance, but simply about hanging out with members of one's preferred gender one-on-one. There is no reason why I should need a chaperone simply to have dinner with anyone and everyone possessed of a penis.

the thing is he is cheating the marriage, addiction of any kind hurts a marriage, cheating is something you do to hurt the marriage. But cheating =|= addiction. If she sues for divorce, it would be easier to prove Negligence due to addiction than cheating. she can probably prove emotional distress alot easiler than Cheating.

Even open relationship people have that line you don't cross, and it's when it begins to hurt the relationship.
and the line is defined by both partners. which is why I also said I can see and will agree with her, if she wants a divorce. For me, I won't see it as cheating if my [future] Wife's Second Life character gets married to someone else.

I might even ask to watch the cerimony. :p

"Cheating" is a perception of the one being cheated upon. For some, looking at Porn is 'Cheating'. being friendly with another person is 'cheating'. heck, going out to meet an old boy/girlfriend is cheating. it's all on the perception of the other partner.


*raises eyebrow* Reeeeeeeaaaallllllyyyyy.


Honestly, how could you divorce him and give up a name like Hoogestraat?... Junii Hoogestraat... hmm... nah, HE's Not my type. now the wife on the other hand... :p [jking]

I should think they are both in need of counseling -- because if he is spending all of his time with a game and carrying on a virtual relationship with someone he's never met to the point that the wife is upset, and if their relationship is so non-existant that he feels that this online relationship is as important or more important than a RL connection to his wife, they BOTH have issues that need to be dealt with.
agreed. and if she's 'watching' television all the time he's online.. it really seems that the 'spark' went out on that marriage a looong time ago.

The real question is: Why would you want to?
Why would I want to hang out with a male friend in a non-romantic context despite being in a romantic relationship with someone else?

In theory, all your romantic needs should be filled by the person whom you love and care for the most. That's not to say no one else can, but that special someone should, if everything is good, be the best to do this.
In theory a person might want to spend time with their friends regardless of the gender of their friends and different relationships (romantic, friendly, familial et c) should be maintainable throughout a person's life if they are worthwhile relationships.

Sure, but Dakini said she wasn't talking about romance, but simply about hanging out with members of one's preferred gender one-on-one. There is no reason why I should need a chaperone simply to have dinner with anyone and everyone possessed of a penis.
Oh damn, you beat me to it. :S

Ran across this article while visiting Data Node One (Matrix Online forum)


Link (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html)

Here's what I wrote on DN1, and what I'll write here. Honestly, I would have to say yes, he is cheating. Even though there has been no physical contact, he is still devoting time, money and energy on this virtual life that he could've been spending on his real life wife. When you divert your attention, emotions and money from your wife who you are legally married to, for another woman, then you are cheating.

If I was the wife, I would ask for divorce.

At school, I roleplayed with friends. One of my characters was married to one of the other characters... they even had children.

I wonder how many people think the old pencil-and-paper equivalent would count as cheating. It seems to me that people judge it differently because there are physical representations.

Like, maybe everyone is subtly crossing that dividing line between the physical and the virtual.

It's not surprising - science has shown we project some of our awareness on virtual forms.

Oh damn, you beat me to it. :S

When had A NSGer's point already being made every stopped them from posting?

Everyone keeps separating the difference between reality and fantasy.


But in my opinion, if two people are truly in love (which is then officially recognized and cemented by marriage), then reality and fantasy should be one and the same. For example, this man's fantasy should be to be with his wife, because he should love her so much that he made reality to fit his fantasy by actually marrying her.

Apparently you've never heard of a happily married couple engaging in roleplay. Marrying someone does not mean that you no longer have any fantasies whatsoever, sexual or otherwise. Taking a job doesn't mean you don't have fantasies about being a CEO or a movie director. I realize that a job and a marriage are not the same thing, but as much as the churches and popular culture cram the whole "two become one" horseshit down people's throats, two people can never become on person - unless it's through some sort of freak accident or insane bout of medical science. The two people are not one person - the closest thing they can become is a team.

People have fantasies. Getting married doesn't change that. There's no "should" about it - don't hold back human nature.

Perhaps this is just an old fashioned viewpoint of love. Maybe I'm the last of the great, dying breed of hopeless romantics.

Possible, yes. Again, though, fantasy is separate from reality. Blending the two is folly. Telling another person what their fantasy should be is folly as well - if your fantasy is to be a duck, then someone telling you that your fantasy is to be a multi-billionaire tobacco executive doesn't change the fact that, damnit, you just want to be a duck.

Yes, this man is cheating on his wife. Cheating is not just a physical aspect. In my opinion, physically cheating on someone is not as bad as mentally cheating on them. Because with the physical, there's usually no love involved, it's just that they gave in to their impulses. But with the mental, that's where the love is, it's all in the heart and mind. And if you lose that, you have nothing left to give or get. And your world, the person that you built your life around, the reason why you get up in the morning so you can look into your partner's eyes and tell them how lucky you are to have them and how much you love them, all of that, is gone and destroyed, and a part of you is gone with it.


Sigh, how depressing. :(

Again, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. This is why I would argue that the man in this case is not cheating.

It may take a lot of involvement, and it may eat into his time, but the bottom line is - it's still fantasy. Him roleplaying someone's wife on the other end doesn't make him a cheater any more than him roleplaying as the GM of a pro football team makes him an athlete. Sure, it's crappy judgment, and it shows where your priorities are. But if you're going to count this as cheating, then the man who works 90+ hours a week as a business executive is "cheating" on his wife with his job. Would anyone besides the Church make the argument that such a thing is actual, serious cheating? Come on. (Actually, when my wife and I did pre-Cana, the people running the workshop actually claimed that working too much was cheating. I pretty much tuned them out after that.)

I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying that it doesn't qualify as "cheating." It qualifies as "a problem" and "pretty bad judgment," and it would qualify as "ignoring his wife." But cheating? I wouldn't say that. He didn't meet her in person, and he doesn't appear to be planning to. And to be honest, it doesn't sound like he'd be too upset if she did the same thing he's doing.

No brainer: of course he's cheating, and he knows it.

At school, I roleplayed with friends. One of my characters was married to one of the other characters... they even had children.

I wonder how many people think the old pencil-and-paper equivalent would count as cheating. It seems to me that people judge it differently because there are physical representations.

Like, maybe everyone is subtly crossing that dividing line between the physical and the virtual.

It's not surprising - science has shown we project some of our awareness on virtual forms.

Difference is, the guy is clearly taking it seriously and has a vested interest. If something were to happen to the redhead, my guess is that he'd be in an emotional distress.

If something were to happen to the character of your friend, you probably wouldn't care outside of the game. If something were to happen to your friend, it wouldn't be because of your ingame marriage that you'd be worried.

If however, you did get worried outside of the game about what happened to the character in the game, then you've taken the game too far (as he has).

At school, I roleplayed with friends. One of my characters was married to one of the other characters... they even had children.

I wonder how many people think the old pencil-and-paper equivalent would count as cheating. It seems to me that people judge it differently because there are physical representations.

If you routinely neglected your real-world spouse and engaged in "fantasy" behaviors that she specifically objected to, then yes...you were cheating.


Like, maybe everyone is subtly crossing that dividing line between the physical and the virtual.

It's not surprising - science has shown we project some of our awareness on virtual forms.
My partner and I have played a number of online RPGs. We actually have several good friends who we only know within a game. I don't think these relationships are automatically less meaningful simply because we haven't had physical contact with these individuals. Indeed, one of my friends from City of Heroes is somebody I feel more familiar and friendly with than many of my real-world coworkers whom I see in person on a regular basis.

For me, cheating is about how your behavior impacts your partner and your relationship. Having physical, sexual contact with another person may be cheating, but it also may not be cheating...it all depends on your relationship and your partner's feelings on the subject.

Having an active online fantasy life doesn't necessarily constitute cheating, either. At one point, I was ill for several weeks and ended up spending most of that time online because I couldn't go out to do anything. So I can certainly empathize with the fellow in the OP's article! But my partner has specifically told me that he is not comfortable with me engaging in serious flirting or RPing relationships with folks online, and it would be cheating if I did those things. Anybody who claims that they can't RP without having an in-game "wife" is a damn liar.

It would also be a betrayal if I let my game playing over-ride my responsibilities to my partner. It's possible to let a game addiction become as destructive as any other addiction, and it's not okay to subject your love one(s) to that kind of crap!

Wait, you can't go out with friends of the opposite sex in a one-on-one basis after getting married when there are no romantic motives involved? That seems dumb.
The real question is: Why would you want to?

In theory, all your romantic needs should be filled by the person whom you love and care for the most. That's not to say no one else can, but that special someone should, if everything is good, be the best to do this.

I don't think you read what Dakini said. "No romantic motives involved." Of course your romantic needs should be fulfilled by your spouse. That doesn't, however, mean that you can't or shouldn't spend time with friends.

Are you suggesting that you cannot have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex that is not romantic?

At school, I roleplayed with friends. One of my characters was married to one of the other characters... they even had children.

I wonder how many people think the old pencil-and-paper equivalent would count as cheating. It seems to me that people judge it differently because there are physical representations.

Like, maybe everyone is subtly crossing that dividing line between the physical and the virtual.

It's not surprising - science has shown we project some of our awareness on virtual forms.

I think it's more the amount of time spent on it than the physical representation. If this guy spent a few hours a week playing his character and had a virtual wife, it probably wouldn't be a problem. His RL wife really could just laugh it off as "just a game". However, he spends more time interacting with his virtual wife than he RL wife. He spends entire days in his virtual life, while ignoring his real one.


For me, cheating is about how your behavior impacts your partner and your relationship. Having physical, sexual contact with another person may be cheating, but it also may not be cheating...it all depends on your relationship and your partner's feelings on the subject.

Having an active online fantasy life doesn't necessarily constitute cheating, either. At one point, I was ill for several weeks and ended up spending most of that time online because I couldn't go out to do anything. So I can certainly empathize with the fellow in the OP's article! But my partner has specifically told me that he is not comfortable with me engaging in serious flirting or RPing relationships with folks online, and it would be cheating if I did those things. Anybody who claims that they can't RP without having an in-game "wife" is a damn liar.

I think you've hit the nail on the head right here. My husband and I both play WoW on a regular basis. For quite a while, we were playing with a guild full of people we had never met, but really enjoyed spending the time with. And flirting was pretty constant. But if the flirting or playing had adversely affected our relationship, it would have been time to stop doing it. Our commitment is to each other, and letting a game get in the way of that relationship would have been a betrayal - and a really stupid one at that.

It would also be a betrayal if I let my game playing over-ride my responsibilities to my partner. It's possible to let a game addiction become as destructive as any other addiction, and it's not okay to subject your love one(s) to that kind of crap!

As for the OP, I'm not sure I'd call it "cheating", but it is an offense along those same lines. When I married my husband, I agreed to be with him, forsaking all other - putting him before other people and other concerns in my life - and most marriage vows include such a clause. This man has put a game before his relationship with his wife, ignoring his relationship with her. Most likely (I obviously don't know exactly what their vows were), he is breaking the vow he made when he married her. That betrayal is the sort of thing that can (and maybe should) end marriages.

I think you've hit the nail on the head right here. My husband and I both play WoW on a regular basis. For quite a while, we were playing with a guild full of people we had never met, but really enjoyed spending the time with. And flirting was pretty constant. But if the flirting or playing had adversely affected our relationship, it would have been time to stop doing it. Our commitment is to each other, and letting a game get in the way of that relationship would have been a betrayal - and a really stupid one at that.

Far out, another WoW couple!

One of the things I most enjoy about that game is the range of interactions you can have with other players. You can play solo if that's your thing, and it's quite possible to experience a fuckton of content without having to socialize. You can have temporary interactions with small groups, if you want to team up for immediate challenges. And if you want longer-term team ups, you can join a guild and cultivate a circle of in-game buddies.

This is largely why I think it's so bunk when people are using a game to cheat on their real-life partner. There's such an amazing range of options that you can't honestly claim you had no choice but to cheat. It's the same as the real world, frankly. You can have plenty of hobbies or interests in the real world that your partner doesn't share, and you can pursue those interests without cheating. Same goes for games. You can have tons of fun and a very active fantasy life online without cheating on your partner.

I think it's an extraordinarily far stretch, perhaps unrecoverably so, to suggest that doing something that your partner doesn't want you to do is cheating.

I think the man is behaving inappropriately, I think he is behaving obsessively. I think his behavior is disrespectful to his family and borders on addictive personality if the story is to be believed.

But cheating by talking to someone you have never met never spoken to and will never do either...I dunno, that stretches the word "cheating" to the point where the concept loses all tangible meaning, at least for me.

I think it's an extraordinarily far stretch, perhaps unrecoverably so, to suggest that doing something that your partner doesn't want you to do is cheating.
What is cheating, if not betraying your partner and doing something that you know will hurt them?

"Doing something that your partner doesn't want you to do" is too vague. I don't want my partner to smoke, but I also don't begrudge him a cigarette every now and then. I would be bothered if he started sneaking around to smoke, because I would be bothered if he were intentionally deceiving me about something he knew would make me unhappy, but I don't consider it cheating when he mentions that he's going to pop outside for a quick smoke.

One's partner is probably always going to do at least a few "unwanted" things. The issue, at least for me, is the seriousness of the actions and the degree to which they are bothersome.

Bottom line is, your relationship with somebody is defined by BOTH of you. Both parties are entitled to lay down some fundamental deal-breaker lines. If one of you lays down a line that the other simply cannot accept, then the honest and honorable thing to do is end the relationship. If you choose, instead, to deceive your partner and cross the line anyhow, then you're cheating. The line doesn't have to relate to sexual activities for it to be cheating.

What is cheating, if not betraying your partner and doing something that you know will hurt them?

...

The line doesn't have to relate to sexual activities for it to be cheating.

I would disagree, I think the term "cheating" has very specific connotations to suggest sexual, or at very least somewhat romantic activities done outside the relationship.

There are other things that of course can be dishonest and unhealthy for the relationship, but "cheating" has specific connotations.

I would disagree, I think the term "cheating" has very specific connotations to suggest sexual, or at very least somewhat romantic activities done outside the relationship.

Well, then it's obviously important for you to make that very clear with any partner you choose to have.

I cannot use so simplistic a definition, of course, since my partner and I were in an open relationship for a number of years. We've both had sexual contact with other parties during the course of our relationship, and none of this constituted cheating.

I think cheating is defined by the dishonesty and the betrayal of the "rules" (whatever rules you and your partner have decided upon). It's like how you can cheat at poker and you can also cheat at golf; the actual specific actions you take are not remotely similar, because the games are totally different. What matters is that you were supposed to be playing within a certain set of rules, and you decided to break the rules.

Each relationship is a different "game," in the sense that each couple will set different boundaries and different "rules" for their relationship. What is cheating in one relationship will not be cheating in another.

I would disagree, I think the term "cheating" has very specific connotations to suggest sexual, or at very least somewhat romantic activities done outside the relationship.

There are other things that of course can be dishonest and unhealthy for the relationship, but "cheating" has specific connotations.

yeah. cheating is sexual cheating.

there are many other dealbreaking things that can be done but they arent referred to as cheating.

in this case i dont see that its the cybersex that is the problem. its the emotional attachement to another person and spending his emotional life with that person instead of with his spouse. even then they should try councilling rather than jump to divorce. but if he cant give up his cyber life, its as good a reason as any for his wife to move on.

Well, then it's obviously important for you to make that very clear with any partner you choose to have.

OK, well, thank you for the relationship advice on what to make clear to my partners...one would think that after having had several I would have figured that particular tidbit out myself along the way...

I cannot use so simplistic a definition, of course, since my partner and I were in an open relationship for a number of years. We've both had sexual contact with other parties during the course of our relationship, and none of this constituted cheating.

Me too, and of course the mere presence of sexual contact with someone other than your partner is not cheating.

Rather, sexual contact not allowed within the bounds of the relationship is cheating. Cheating does not mean ANY sexual contact, but the word "cheating" has strong connotations involving sexual contact.

I think cheating is defined by the dishonesty and the betrayal of the "rules" (whatever rules you and your partner have decided upon). It's like how you can cheat at poker and you can also cheat at golf; the actual specific actions you take are not remotely similar, because the games are totally different. What matters is that you were supposed to be playing within a certain set of rules, and you decided to break the rules.

OK. I define it differently. Breaking a rule "in general" is, as you said it, dishonesty and betrayal. Not all dishonesty and betrayal is cheating, cheating has a strong connotation of sexual dishonesty and betrayal.

This doesn't mean that other kinds of things are OK. They're still bad. They're just not cheating.

OK, well, thank you for the relationship advice on what to make clear to my partners...one would think that after having had several I would have figured that particular tidbit out myself along the way...

I'm sorry if that came off as rude, I was intending that as a general "you" rather than a personal one.


Me too, and of course the mere presence of sexual contact with someone other than your partner is not cheating.

Rather, sexual contact not allowed within the bounds of the relationship is cheating. Cheating does not mean ANY sexual contact, but the word "cheating" has strong connotations involving sexual contact.

Perhaps for some people it does. It doesn't with me, and I am a person, so it is therefore theoretically possible for somebody to become involved with a person who does not automatically attach sexual connotations to 'cheating'. This leads me to conclude that it would probably be unwise to assume that 'cheating' always has sexual connotations, since you might just happen to find yourself involved with somebody who doesn't view it that way...and it would be better to know about that BEFORE you do something they view as cheating! :D


OK. I define it differently. Breaking a rule "in general" is, as you said it, dishonesty and betrayal. Not all dishonesty and betrayal is cheating, cheating has a strong connotation of sexual dishonesty and betrayal.

This doesn't mean that other kinds of things are OK. They're still bad. They're just not cheating.
What do you call them?

(Honest curiosity, here)

Do other types of betrayal have specific words of their own? For instance, if your partner betrays your trust in a manner related to finances, does that have a name the way a sexual betrayal is named 'cheating'?

I'm not being snarky, just to be clear, I'm actually interested because it might be handy to have specific words for different types of betrayals.

Do other types of betrayal have specific words of their own? For instance, if your partner betrays your trust in a manner related to finances, does that have a name the way a sexual betrayal is named 'cheating'?

I'm not being snarky, just to be clear, I'm actually interested because it might be handy to have specific words for different types of betrayals.

On the flip side...do you consider financial betrayal 'cheating' ? Seems odd to me.

I'm sorry if that came off as rude, I was intending that as a general "you" rather than a personal one.

Figured, but let it never be said I don't pass up an opportunity to be snarky.

Perhaps for some people it does. It doesn't with me, and I am a person, so it is therefore theoretically possible for somebody to become involved with a person who does not automatically attach sexual connotations to 'cheating'. This leads me to conclude that it would probably be unwise to assume that 'cheating' always has sexual connotations, since you might just happen to find yourself involved with somebody who doesn't view it that way...and it would be better to know about that BEFORE you do something they view as cheating! :D

Sure, and then it would behoove you to inform your partners about that :p


What do you call them?

(Honest curiosity, here)

Do other types of betrayal have specific words of their own? For instance, if your partner betrays your trust in a manner related to finances, does that have a name the way a sexual betrayal is named 'cheating'?

I'm not being snarky, just to be clear, I'm actually interested because it might be handy to have specific words for different types of betrayals.

I'm not entirely sure I have a specific name for specific acts, and I'm equally unsure it matters.

You sound very much like a lawyer, it seems at times we get off at labling things...if you do it this way, it's X, if you do it the same way except hopping on one foot it's Y.

We spend a great deal of time arguing things like "What is force, what is speech, what defines intent?"

Except those definitions can be of crucial importance at times. For instance, the definition of "intent" can, in some parts of this country, literally be the difference between life and death. We can't just arbitrarily punish someone, we punish them based on what their crime was.

Relationships don't really work that way. We don't have this formalized heirarchy of punishments. Smoked a cigarette, night on the couch. Forgot to pay the electric bill, stern talking to. Schtuped the neighbor's wife, divorce.

People are free to enter and leave relationships as they choose. As such it may not be important for me to say "I consider if you do X cheating, but if you do Y it's something else" What matters is how I feel about you committing the act, and what I am prepared to do about it.

On the flip side...do you consider financial betrayal 'cheating' ? Seems odd to me.
I don't differentiate between types of cheating. To me, my partner is cheating if s/he betrays the fundamental "rules" of our relationship.

(I keep putting "rules" in quotes because it isn't quite the word that fits. It's not like we have a handbook with a list of do's and do-not's. It's more like we have, over the course of our years together, defined the general boundaries of our relationship. We couldn't give you a list of specific rules off the top of our heads, but we could both tell you if a given action is "out of bounds" in our relationship.)

To use my earlier example in a slightly different way, it's like how there are many different ways you could cheat at cards. You could deal from the bottom of the deck and intentionally pad your hand. Or you could give the other party a shitty hand. Or you could peep at their hand without them knowing. Or you could use a trick deck. You could engage in any number of different shady activities. But they're all cheating.

dp...

I don't think you read what Dakini said. "No romantic motives involved." Of course your romantic needs should be fulfilled by your spouse. That doesn't, however, mean that you can't or shouldn't spend time with friends.

It seems we read/talked past each other :p thank you for clearing that up

Are you suggesting that you cannot have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex that is not romantic?

No. I actually suggested that you can have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, so long as it is not romantic.

I don't differentiate between types of cheating. To me, my partner is cheating if s/he betrays the fundamental "rules" of our relationship.

(I keep putting "rules" in quotes because it isn't quite the word that fits. It's not like we have a handbook with a list of do's and do-not's. It's more like we have, over the course of our years together, defined the general boundaries of our relationship. We couldn't give you a list of specific rules off the top of our heads, but we could both tell you if a given action is "out of bounds" in our relationship.)

To use my earlier example in a slightly different way, it's like how there are many different ways you could cheat at cards. You could deal from the bottom of the deck and intentionally pad your hand. Or you could give the other party a shitty hand. Or you could peep at their hand without them knowing. Or you could use a trick deck. You could engage in any number of different shady activities. But they're all cheating.

I agree. I define cheating as anything that "cheats" the relationship, when one partner puts things, or people, or anything else in an improper position so that it is more important than the relationship as a whole, you are cheating (general you).

I'm not entirely sure I have a specific name for specific acts, and I'm equally unsure it matters.

You sound very much like a lawyer, it seems at times we get off at labling things...if you do it this way, it's X, if you do it the same way except hopping on one foot it's Y.

Now I'm confused.

To me, it seems like that is what YOU are doing! You name something "cheating" if it is sexual (or romantic?), but it's not "cheating" if it's some other form of betrayal.

I view all forms of cheating as the same fundamental problem. If there were different terms for each type of cheating, I would simply use those terms to more clearly communicate with my partner. I still would view them all as under the umbrella of "cheating," and would react to them based on the severity of the betrayal (rather than the minutia of the type of betrayal).


Relationships don't really work that way. We don't have this formalized heirarchy of punishments. Smoked a cigarette, night on the couch. Forgot to pay the electric bill, stern talking to. Schtuped the neighbor's wife, divorce.

Sure, it's not formalized. But there IS a hierarchy.

There are deal-breakers in my relationship. There are things my partner could do (in theory) which would instantly result in a break-up.

There are other things my partner could do which would not result in a break-up, but which still would result in fighting or problems.

I feel it is best for you both to be clear about which things are deal-breakers. This doesn't have to be phrased in terms of punishment, either! It's more about making sure both people understand each other and know what they are committing to in the relationship, so they can choose not to commit if they realize the other person is looking for something they aren't prepared to give.


People are free to enter and leave relationships as they choose. As such it may not be important for me to say "I consider if you do X cheating, but if you do Y it's something else" What matters is how I feel about you committing the act, and what I am prepared to do about it.
This is true. Which is why it confuses me when you restrict your definition of "cheating" to only a specific set of activities, when your reaction to other activities might be similar (if not identical).

Or wouldn't it?

Maybe that's what I'm not understanding. Is your reaction to sexual betrayal, in particular, different than the reaction you would have to another betrayal of equal severity?

To me, it seems like that is what YOU are doing! You name something "cheating" if it is sexual (or romantic?), but it's not "cheating" if it's some other form of betrayal.

Mainly because that's the definition of "cheating" that I've been exposed to. Do I particularly feel the need to segment things into different aspects? No.

But every definition I have come across in my life has been cheating is sexual contact outside of agreed exceptions defined as the relationship. That's what cheating means.

This is true. Which is why it confuses me when you restrict your definition of "cheating" to only a specific set of activities, when your reaction to other activities might be similar (if not identical).

Or wouldn't it?

Maybe that's what I'm not understanding. Is your reaction to sexual betrayal, in particular, different than the reaction you would have to another betrayal of equal severity?

Frankly, the way I define cheating, it's REALLY hard to cheat on me. And even when you did, it generally wouldn't bother me that much. So yeah I would react pretty much as I would of a betrayal of equal severity, which is to say, not much.

There are many things I would consider far more severe.

Mainly because that's the definition of "cheating" that I've been exposed to. Do I particularly feel the need to segment things into different aspects? No.

But every definition I have come across in my life has been cheating is sexual contact outside of agreed exceptions defined as the relationship. That's what cheating means.
Ahh! I see. I (incorrectly) thought that you were defining the word the way you, personally, wanted to, rather than simply using the working definition that prevails among the people you deal with.

That makes total sense. It's like how I don't try to use the slang term "fag" to refer to a cigarette around DC, because I know how most people would react to that word!

Perhaps for some people it does. It doesn't with me, and I am a person, so it is therefore theoretically possible for somebody to become involved with a person who does not automatically attach sexual connotations to 'cheating'. This leads me to conclude that it would probably be unwise to assume that 'cheating' always has sexual connotations, since you might just happen to find yourself involved with somebody who doesn't view it that way...and it would be better to know about that BEFORE you do something they view as cheating! :D

There's also the issue that some people see certain types of sexual contact as "cheating", but not others. I've met plenty of girls who, when dating guys, think it is perfectly ok to fool around with another woman - that isn't cheating, they say. I knew a guy once who thought it wasn't cheating if he fooled around with one particular girl (who was not his girlfriend), because that was "just part of their relationship." It didn't seem to occur to him until later that his girlfriend might not see it that way.

It seems to me that the boundaries of a relationship, whatever they may be, are one of those important conversations you should have pretty much at the outset. Sort of like having the "What to do if we get pregnant" conversation before having sex. Unfortunately, too many people wait until the situation comes up to discuss it.


No. I actually suggested that you can have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, so long as it is not romantic.

Ah, good then. We are in agreement. =)

It's cheating if his RL wife feels it's cheating. In other words, if she feels she's being cheated out of something in their relationship. By the same token, you might also consider it cheating of a sort if he spent twelve hours a day at the golf course. No matter who he was golfing with. Because either way he's cheating his wife out of time and attention she obviously wants and needs.

His needs are being met, hers aren't. Nobody likes to be on the losing end of that situation, regardless of the reason.

It seems to me that the boundaries of a relationship, whatever they may be, are one of those important conversations you should have pretty much at the outset. Sort of like having the "What to do if we get pregnant" conversation before having sex. Unfortunately, too many people wait until the situation comes up to discuss it.

Exactly!

I really don't think of this in terms of outlining punishments for transgressions. I think of it as making sure that both people know what they are getting into BEFORE they get into it, so that they can still gracefully back out if it looks like they are simply too incompatible.

Ahh! I see. I (incorrectly) thought that you were defining the word the way you, personally, wanted to, rather than simply using the working definition that prevails among the people you deal with.

That makes total sense. It's like how I don't try to use the slang term "fag" to refer to a cigarette around DC, because I know how most people would react to that word!

Ah, semantics. =)

I tend to use "cheating" in a sexual connotation as well, simply because it's the way I've always heard it. I see the term "unfaithful", however, as referring to pretty much any type of betrayal of a relationship. Of course, I've heard "unfaithful" used to simply mean "sexual betrayal" as well.

Maybe people focus too much on the sexual? Don't get me wrong, I do think that it is an important part of a romantic relationship. But it is hardly the sum total of the relationship itself.

so who here would tell their friends that their husband "cheated on them" if he spent the retirement money on a new sports car? or if he beat the crap out of them? or if he became a heroin addict?

those are all "against the rules" and a big time betrayal but i certainly wouldnt ever refer to it as cheating.

so who here would tell their friends that their husband "cheated on them" if he spent the retirement money on a new sports car? or if he beat the crap out of them? or if he became a heroin addict?

those are all "against the rules" and a big time betrayal but i certainly wouldnt ever refer to it as cheating.
I'd probably tell my friends what he did. If he blew our savings, that's what I'd tell them. If he beat me, that's what I'd tell them. He was hooked on smack, that's what I'd tell them. If he fucked somebody he wasn't supposed to fuck, that's what I'd tell them.

I wouldn't simply tell my friends he "cheated" in any of these situations, because "cheated" is such a general term. Heck, if a friend told me their partner cheated on them I wouldn't have much idea what they meant, specifically, even if I assumed the "sexual or romantic" narrowing of the term.

Did he start dating somebody else? Did he go to a hooker for a BJ? Did he father a child with another woman?

I know people who consider it cheating if he made out with another woman, but I also know people who use an "anything but" rule (meaning their partner can do anything other than have penis-in-vagina intercourse).

If somebody tells me their partner "cheated" on them, the only thing I know for sure is that their partner betrayed them in a manner that was rather significant to them. What they consider "cheating" may not actually fit with what another person considers "cheating," even if we narrow the term as others have suggested.

so who here would tell their friends that their husband "cheated on them" if he spent the retirement money on a new sports car? or if he beat the crap out of them? or if he became a heroin addict?

those are all "against the rules" and a big time betrayal but i certainly wouldnt ever refer to it as cheating.To me "cheating" = not playing by the rules. Regardless of whether or not sex or romance enters the picture. Certain rules of behavior are usually understood in a relationship. Trying to circumvent them or taking more than you give (giving your partner less "value" than you recieve) seems to be what cheating means.

I'd probably tell my friends what he did. If he blew our savings, that's what I'd tell them. If he beat me, that's what I'd tell them. He was hooked on smack, that's what I'd tell them. If he fucked somebody he wasn't supposed to fuck, that's what I'd tell them.

I wouldn't simply tell my friends he "cheated" in any of these situations, because "cheated" is such a general term. Heck, if a friend told me their partner cheated on them I wouldn't have much idea what they meant, specifically, even if I assumed the "sexual or romantic" narrowing of the term.

Did he start dating somebody else? Did he go to a hooker for a BJ? Did he father a child with another woman?

I know people who consider it cheating if he made out with another woman, but I also know people who use an "anything but" rule (meaning their partner can do anything other than have penis-in-vagina intercourse).

If somebody tells me their partner "cheated" on them, the only thing I know for sure is that their partner betrayed them in a manner that was rather significant to them. What they consider "cheating" may not actually fit with what another person considers "cheating," even if we narrow the term as others have suggested.

cheating ALWAYS means some kind of indiscretion with another person. it never means anything other kind of betrayal.

the only difference is in the details of the definition.

so is it reasonable to consider typing sexual scenarios with another person cheating? i would say not and that any woman who wants to call that cheating had better make it clear upfront.

at the same time i would consider it the wifes right to tell him to cut it out and that if he wasnt willing to that it might well end up breaking the marriage. especially one that is only 7 months old.

To me "cheating" = not playing by the rules. Regardless of whether or not sex or romance enters the picture. Certain rules of behavior are usually understood in a relationship. Trying to circumvent them or taking more than you give (giving your partner less "value" than you recieve) seems to be what cheating means.

that wasnt the question

would you tell your friends that your man was cheating on you if what he was doing was going out drinking with the boys every night after work (and if that was against the rules)?

cheating ALWAYS means some kind of indiscretion with another person. it never means anything other kind of betrayal.

I think we've conclusively established that this is untrue on this very thread.


the only difference is in the details of the definition.

so is it reasonable to consider typing sexual scenarios with another person cheating? i would say not and that any woman who wants to call that cheating had better make it clear upfront.

If you don't feel that cyber sex counts as cheating, that's your business (and your partner's, too, I suppose). My partner does consider it cheating, and I am willing to respect that boundary, so it is cheating to us.

that wasnt the question

would you tell your friends that your man was cheating on you if what he was doing was going out drinking with the boys every night after work (and if that was against the rules)?If you'd rather I narrow it down, I see your point. I'm aware that most people think of "cheating" as a sexual indescretion. But I personally believe anything that cheats your partner out of full value of the realtionship counts as cheating. And is no less harmful to the relationship than sexual indescretion. Why are people so hung up on the idea that only sex counts?

If you routinely neglected your real-world spouse and engaged in "fantasy" behaviors that she specifically objected to, then yes...you were cheating.


I think that 'cheating' usually has a specific connotation. I don't think this 'relationship' meets that definition.

As an incidental... what if your partner smokes, despite you asking them not to? Is that 'cheating'? If we aren't going to use the sexual (or at least, romantic) connection... then what does constitute cheating?

Is it JUST because it is social activity that she is objecting to? What if she objected to him having ANY friends? Is it then 'cheating' if he has a virtual friend - with or without romantic/sexual/even non-sexual connections?


My partner and I have played a number of online RPGs. We actually have several good friends who we only know within a game. I don't think these relationships are automatically less meaningful simply because we haven't had physical contact with these individuals. Indeed, one of my friends from City of Heroes is somebody I feel more familiar and friendly with than many of my real-world coworkers whom I see in person on a regular basis.


Some of my friends from City of Heroes are some of my best friends. For some of them - that is purely within that virtual environment, for others, we have friendships that extend beyond Paragon.


For me, cheating is about how your behavior impacts your partner and your relationship. Having physical, sexual contact with another person may be cheating, but it also may not be cheating...it all depends on your relationship and your partner's feelings on the subject.

Having an active online fantasy life doesn't necessarily constitute cheating, either. At one point, I was ill for several weeks and ended up spending most of that time online because I couldn't go out to do anything. So I can certainly empathize with the fellow in the OP's article! But my partner has specifically told me that he is not comfortable with me engaging in serious flirting or RPing relationships with folks online, and it would be cheating if I did those things. Anybody who claims that they can't RP without having an in-game "wife" is a damn liar.


Why should one NOT roleplay a marriage? Why is it okay to roleplay death, violence, theft, etc... but not a bit of domestic downtime?


It would also be a betrayal if I let my game playing over-ride my responsibilities to my partner. It's possible to let a game addiction become as destructive as any other addiction, and it's not okay to subject your love one(s) to that kind of crap!

'Game addiction' is bullshit... and it worries me that it is dangerously close to getting it's own special chapter in the medical 'what-is-wrong-with-me' canon. If you are talking about someone who gets withdrawal symptoms from Tetris... maybe that's valid... but as brain studies have shown - we engage different parts of our brains when we play 'social' games.

Interacting in a social environment that is virtual, is no more an 'addiction' than someone doing the same thing in 'real-life'.

Difference is, the guy is clearly taking it seriously and has a vested interest. If something were to happen to the redhead, my guess is that he'd be in an emotional distress.

If something were to happen to the character of your friend, you probably wouldn't care outside of the game. If something were to happen to your friend, it wouldn't be because of your ingame marriage that you'd be worried.

If however, you did get worried outside of the game about what happened to the character in the game, then you've taken the game too far (as he has).

There has to be SOME degree of immersion in a role-play, or it's not doing it's job.

And, I'm not sure where you are going with the inside/outside thing here. It seems from the article that people are responding to each other's RL situations through the virtual platform.. not so much about responding to each other's virtual situations in real-life.

I agree. I define cheating as anything that "cheats" the relationship, when one partner puts things, or people, or anything else in an improper position so that it is more important than the relationship as a whole, you are cheating (general you).

Doesn't this conflict with being Christian, then?

no. It wouldn't. There is a proper place for everything. God, then spouse, then children, then .....whatever else as is appropriate for your situation.

Putting an online friend above spouse and children is wrong.

Putting an online friend above spouse is wrong, but putting a possibly imaginary entity above spouse AND family is okay?

Yet another reason I can never buy into Christianity.

Doesn't this conflict with being Christian, then?

no. It wouldn't. There is a proper place for everything. God, then spouse, then children, then .....whatever else as is appropriate for your situation.

Putting an online friend above spouse and children is wrong.

There has to be SOME degree of immersion in a role-play, or it's not doing it's job.

And, I'm not sure where you are going with the inside/outside thing here. It seems from the article that people are responding to each other's RL situations through the virtual platform.. not so much about responding to each other's virtual situations in real-life.

You can immerse yourself in roleplaying game, with little to no problems.

However, you can also treat what should be a roleplaying game as if it were real life. That is what the guy seems to be doing. I think he crossed that line right about the time where his real life issues started to affect his (purely) second life relationships.

I think that 'cheating' usually has a specific connotation. I don't think this 'relationship' meets that definition.

This appears to be the bone we're all worrying at the moment.


As an incidental... what if your partner smokes, despite you asking them not to? Is that 'cheating'? If we aren't going to use the sexual (or at least, romantic) connection... then what does constitute cheating?

If I told my partner that his smoking was a serious problem for me and I wanted him to knock it off completely, and he said "okay," then it would be cheating if he snuck around and and smoked anyhow. The non-cheating options for him would be: to assert that he would continue to smoke and let me decide if I was willing to accept that, or to stop smoking.

But, since I don't feel that way and have not told him that, it's not cheating.


Is it JUST because it is social activity that she is objecting to? What if she objected to him having ANY friends? Is it then 'cheating' if he has a virtual friend - with or without romantic/sexual/even non-sexual connections?

Like I've said...cheating is whatever they agree it is.

Personally, I would never agree to be in a relationship with somebody who viewed it as cheating for me to have friends. However, if somebody agrees to that standard within their own relationship, then they would be cheating if they broke that rule.


Some of my friends from City of Heroes are some of my best friends. For some of them - that is purely within that virtual environment, for others, we have friendships that extend beyond Paragon.

Yep, I'm much the same with my buddies. Some people are only "in-game" friends, but some of them are people I know and love IRL.


Why should one NOT roleplay a marriage? Why is it okay to roleplay death, violence, theft, etc... but not a bit of domestic downtime?

I never said it wasn't. I simply said that if your partner expresses the fact that they perceive RPing a marriage as cheating, then your options are three:

1) RP marriage anyway, while still staying with your partner. In this case, you are cheating on your partner.
2) Choose not to RP marriage. In this case, you are not cheating (at least not in that way :P).
3) Break up with your partner and then RP marriage. In this case, you are not cheating.


'Game addiction' is bullshit... and it worries me that it is dangerously close to getting it's own special chapter in the medical 'what-is-wrong-with-me' canon. If you are talking about someone who gets withdrawal symptoms from Tetris... maybe that's valid... but as brain studies have shown - we engage different parts of our brains when we play 'social' games.

Game addiction is as valid, clinically speaking, as gambling addiction. An addiction, in psychological terms, is simply is a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity even if negative outcomes result. From the clinician's point of view, something is an "addiction" if you are compelled to do it even after it begins to interfere with the rest of your life, and after it starts creating negative outcomes for you.

Please be clear, too, that I am not advocating that such 'addiction' be used as an excuse for shitty behavior. The fact that somebody may be addicted to something doesn't mean they are allowed to hurt other people in their efforts to satisfy their compulsion.


Interacting in a social environment that is virtual, is no more an 'addiction' than someone doing the same thing in 'real-life'.
Never said it was! I'm absolutely not saying that a person is necessarily addicted to a game simply because they play it a lot.

Putting an online friend above spouse is wrong, but putting a possibly imaginary entity above spouse AND family is okay?

Yet another reason I can never buy into Christianity.

I think you don't understand my God type relationship.

Ahh! I see. I (incorrectly) thought that you were defining the word the way you, personally, wanted to, rather than simply using the working definition that prevails among the people you deal with.

As much as I would love to be able to make up the meaning of words as I go along (it would make my job significantly easier) my authority over the english language has not yet been recognized.

And yes, my definition of "cheating" is the definition as it is commonly used. That definition does little to help me define my own relationships as the common definition of "cheating" with me...well, isn't that big a deal.

In other words, I have never found "cheating" (in the specific use of the word) to be that much cheating (in the general use of the word). But that's just me.

So, using the prevailing working definition of the word it's not cheating because the prevailing working definition of the word means some degree of physical intimacy with another person.

It may well be a breach of trust and a betrayal of sorts, which can be just as bad, but it's not cheating. This is not to minimize the impact of the act or say it shouldn't be viewed as just as severe. Merely to say that cheating, as far as I have known, has a specific definition, and this aint it.

If you'd rather I narrow it down, I see your point. I'm aware that most people think of "cheating" as a sexual indescretion. But I personally believe anything that cheats your partner out of full value of the realtionship counts as cheating. And is no less harmful to the relationship than sexual indescretion. Why are people so hung up on the idea that only sex counts?

The bolded part is the problem. Nobody is saying that other things aren't just as bad if not worse than cheating. A lot of things can be just as bad. Draining your joint bank account and taking a weekend in vegas and blowing all your money is also really really bad. It's just not cheating.

Rape is really really bad. But it's not murder. Pointing out that rape (a really really bad thing) is not murder (another really really bad thing) doesn't in any way diminish the impact of rape or imply that it's not a really really bad thing. It is.

It's just not THAT really really bad thing. Rape is bad. Murder is bad. Pointing out that rape is not the same thing is murder doesn't diminish the evilness of rape or imply that it's not really bad. It merely states that rape and murder are two different things.

I think you don't understand my God type relationship.

Maybe.

It seems hypocritical to me, I admit.

If you love god, marry god. Nuns do it. It seems to work for them. And, at least that way, your mortal partners are not cheated by being second place.

On the other hand, if you are going to devote yourself to a mortal partner, it seems hypocritical to say "you are the most important thing in the world to me. Well, except..."

There is nothing above my family. Nothing is more important. To me, it would be failing as a parent and partner if it were otherwise. If this means I can never comprehend what it means to 'be Christian'... or means I can never be one.. well, I couldn't be another way.

The bolded part is the problem. Nobody is saying that other things aren't just as bad if not worse than cheating. A lot of things can be just as bad. Draining your joint bank account and taking a weekend in vegas and blowing all your money is also really really bad. It's just not cheating.

Rape is really really bad. But it's not murder. Pointing out that rape (a really really bad thing) is not murder (another really really bad thing) doesn't in any way diminish the impact of rape or imply that it's not a really really bad thing. It is.

It's just not THAT really really bad thing. Rape is bad. Murder is bad. Pointing out that rape is not the same thing is murder doesn't diminish the evilness of rape or imply that it's not really bad. It merely states that rape and murder are two different things.
This is a very nice clarification, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

The only problem I have, then, is that we don't have a word (or words) for the non-sexual/romantic types of betrayal.

This is like if we had the word "rape" but lacked any other terms for crimes of similar severity. Imagine if we didn't have a word for murder, and instead it was "a bad crime that isn't rape." That's how it sounds when you have "cheating" and "a betrayal that is really bad but isn't cheating."

1) RP marriage anyway, while still staying with your partner. In this case, you are cheating on your partner.
2) Choose not to RP marriage. In this case, you are not cheating (at least not in that way :P).
3) Break up with your partner and then RP marriage. In this case, you are not cheating.


This still gives me problems.

Why is the partner not expected to accept the first parties behaviour? Is it just time spent? I don't see that - an indiscretion could be over in minutes and be very real 'cheating' in all the ways that count. Is it because the word marriage is used? Is not the wife 'cheating' equally when she watches her television programs? She is immersing herself in an existence outside her own. As far as I can tell... virtual relationships are the new rock-and-roll. Watching tv is okay because everyone does it, and they have for a while, now. Virtual relationships, on the other hand, are the devil's tool, and will lead to the destruction of society.

Doesn't this conflict with being Christian, then?

Um....no. In fact, what Smunkee described is precisely what I have always seen as a Christian marriage (and is pretty much what the reverend who performed our marriage said as well). As part of our wedding ceremony, we both answered "I will," to the following question:

"Will you take [name] to be your wedded husband, to live together in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health; and forsaking all other keep you only unto him so long as you both shall live?"

Or, well, something almost exactly like that, and of course the gendered terms were changed when he was asked the question. The important part here is "and forsaking all other keep you only unto him". While many take that as "Don't sleep around," it really means quite a bit more. It means that my commitment to my husband is my foremost commitment - that nothing else in this life should ever come before that commitment, whether it is a job, another person, or a video game.


So, using the prevailing working definition of the word it's not cheating because the prevailing working definition of the word means some degree of physical intimacy with another person.

To be fair, the idea that cybersex with another person is "cheating" is becoming increasingly prevalent. It doesn't involve actual physical contact with another person, but is still a form of sexual intimacy. The article wasn't clear on whether or not he had engaged in cybersex with his virtual wife, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising if he had.

Is not the wife 'cheating' equally when she watches her television programs? She is immersing herself in an existence outside her own.

Is she neglecting her marriage to watch them? Does he feel neglected, and still she makes no effort to interact with him? If that is the case, then yes, she is also being unfaithful.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case as described. It sounds more like she's sitting in front of the TV because she has nothing else to do - her husband is ignoring her for a virtual life, and she feels like she just has to sit around and wait for him to care about his real one.

This is a very nice clarification, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

The only problem I have, then, is that we don't have a word (or words) for the non-sexual/romantic types of betrayal.

This is like if we had the word "rape" but lacked any other terms for crimes of similar severity. Imagine if we didn't have a word for murder, and instead it was "a bad crime that isn't rape." That's how it sounds when you have "cheating" and "a betrayal that is really bad but isn't cheating."

This is true, but then again I wonder how important that is that we do have such a distinction and seperate words. The difference between rape and murder is very important, because crimes have different punishments, different elements to be proven etc. etc. it's very very important that we have very specific definitions.

Is it that important that we are able to subdivide catagories of "really bad things" in relationships? Ehh, not really. It's entirely internal. What may be a deal breaker for you may be no big deal for me. In the end what is important is what YOU define important in YOUR relationship.

I merely define cheating as a specific thing because, as far as I have seen, that's what the word means. Does it matter if someone "cheats" on you as opposed to doing something that you find equally as bad? Not really. The act, to you, is as bad, which is all that matters.

Law needs to be objective, ones feelings do not.

Now, again, in fairness, perhaps I am being a bit too literal. But then again, I'm a lawyer, we're anal like that.

no. It wouldn't. There is a proper place for everything. God, then spouse, then children, then .....whatever else as is appropriate for your situation.

Putting an online friend above spouse and children is wrong.That's why a frank discussion of such a "ranking" is in order before a relationship gets serious. I imagine that your husband is like-minded and also puts the importance in the same order. As a non-theist I wouldn't be able to tolerate being put second to something I don't even believe in.

And please don't think I'm trying to belittle your beliefs if my analogy strikes you wrong, because I'm aware it's not quite the same thing.

If he's a total Nascar nut, and spends every waking moment thinking of it, he needs a mate that is just as nutty about it.

I have several passions, like caring for animals and getting involved, or at least constantly talking about, politics and civil rights. Since these are things that consume a great deal of my attention I need a mate that is equally passionate about them. Or at the very least is not bothered by the amount of my attention they consume and can stand hearing me talking about them constantly.

What I seem to be having such a hard time saying is- if you have something that is so important to you that it may overshadow your mate, make sure it's near the top of their list too.

This still gives me problems.

Why is the partner not expected to accept the first parties behaviour?

Because nobody is ever required to remain in a relationship. If you've told your partner that you want to do something, and they have told you that they are totally not cool with that, then they're giving you a choice: you can stop the behavior, or the relationship can end.


Is it just time spent? I don't see that - an indiscretion could be over in minutes and be very real 'cheating' in all the ways that count. Is it because the word marriage is used? Is not the wife 'cheating' equally when she watches her television programs? She is immersing herself in an existence outside her own. As far as I can tell... virtual relationships are the new rock-and-roll. Watching tv is okay because everyone does it, and they have for a while, now. Virtual relationships, on the other hand, are the devil's tool, and will lead to the destruction of society.
Maybe it would help if you read through some of my previous posts on this thread, because I don't think my concept of "cheating" is what you think it is.

The specific action doesn't determine if something is cheating or not. One couple may view cybering as cheating, while another couple does not. Exact same action, but in one case it is cheating and in another it is not.

The only thing that matters is what you and your partner agree upon. If your partner says, "I am really not cool with you doing X," then you are cheating if you sneak around and do X anyhow, knowing they will be hurt. You can tell them, "I'm going to do X. Is this something you are prepared to break up over?" That's an honorable thing to do. If they say, "Sorry, but it's a deal breaker," then you end the relationship. You don't continue the relationship and sneak around doing whatever you feel like.

Also, I don't know why you think I have a problem with 'virtual relationships.' Are you perhaps confusing me with somebody else?