NationStates Jolt Archive

The debate started on this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570510

It is now here to prevent a threadjack. The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can someone please elaborate?

Yes, in an exclusive relationship it is wrong to cheat.

No doubt about it: Yes.

Cheating is wrong and i'd never even think of it.

Yes, in an exclusive relationship it is wrong to cheat.

Is it wrong to marry someone who is not a virgin? Is there any thing immoral about sex? Why does it suddenly become immoral to have sex with anyone but one's partner once a "relationship" starts?

^ ^ v v < > < > B A (start)

If you want to pick some flowers out of your garden, be first sure that your gardener think the same way.

Otherward it's lying, and throwing the love of your partner to garbages.

So if you're openly on an exclusive relationship, cheating is wrong, because it's a theft of someone trust.

Cheating is wrong and i'd never even think of it.

But why? Some people consider sex outside of wedlock wrong; others consider "cheating" wrong; why?!

But why? Some people consider sex outside of wedlock wrong; others consider "cheating" wrong; why?!

Because, a pineapple about this color.

Not only is it wrong, but to pose such a question is almost too silly to bear. You asked if "in an EXCLUSIVE relationship, is it wrong to cheat"?

Cheating is defined as having a relationship with someone outside of your current relationship. So, if you are already in an exclusive relationship, which says that you want to be with that person and no one else, and then you cheat on that person, then you are obviously a hypocrite and in the wrong.

There is no need to "rationalize" any form of relationship, because it it no one's damn business but the people in that relationship.

And yes, obviously cheating is wrong, by the very definition of the term. If you are going behind your partner's back (or partners' backs, for that matter) to do something which you know they are not okay with, you're being a selfish dick. It doesn't really matter whether that something is having sex with other people, or having sex with certain other people, or doing drugs, or staying out late without calling, or wearing red shirts; if you have made a commitment to someone not to engage in a particular activity and you do so anyway, that's wrong.

Is it wrong to marry someone who is not a virgin? Is there any thing immoral about sex? Why does it suddenly become immoral to have sex with anyone but one's partner once a "relationship" starts?

It's not if your partner doesn't mind.

The debate started on this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570510

It is now here to prevent a threadjack. The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can some elaborate?

Let me put it this way - in an exclusive relationship, cheating is obviously wrong, because then it wouldn't be exclusive... there is no need for a rational reason for an exclusive relationship, if both people agreed to have one because that's what they felt like at the moment, that should be enough, right? Just as much as there is no need to rationalise a non-exclusive relationship...

As with contracts, I'd assume if there is no specific agreement for an non-exclusive relationship, I'd default to what is commonly expected of a relationship - i.e. it would be exclusive unless stated otherwise, therefore making cheating wrong.

^ ^ v v < > < > B A (start)

just because we use cheats doesn't mean we're not smart?

The debate started on this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570510

It is now here to prevent a threadjack. The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can someone please elaborate?

in an exclusive relationship, it's agreed by both parties that they will be exclusive. so cheating is wrong. it's breaking your word. a betrayal of trust if you will.

^ ^ v v < > < > b a (start)

idkfa

just because we use cheats doesn't mean we're not smart?

You've gotta do it backwards for Contra 3. :D

Is it wrong to marry someone who is not a virgin? Is there any thing immoral about sex? Why does it suddenly become immoral to have sex with anyone but one's partner once a "relationship" starts?

OMG, are you dense or are you seriously not getting this, Parkus? You yourself posted the very answer to your question. You are in an EXCLUSIVE relationship. Start by defining what "exclusive" means:
–adjective 1. not admitting of something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive plans of action.
2. omitting from consideration or account (often fol. by of): a profit of ten percent, exclusive of taxes.
3. limited to the object or objects designated: exclusive attention to business.
4. shutting out all others from a part or share: an exclusive right to film the novel.
5. fashionable; stylish: to patronize only the most exclusive designers.
6. charging comparatively high prices; expensive: exclusive shops.
7. noting that in which no others have a share: exclusive information.
8. single or sole: the exclusive means of communication between two places.
9. disposed to resist the admission of outsiders to association, intimacy, etc.: an exclusive circle of intimate friends.
10. admitting only members of a socially restricted or very carefully selected group: an exclusive club.
11. excluding or tending to exclude, as from use or possession: exclusive laws.
12. Grammar. (of the first person plural) excluding the person or persons spoken to, as we in We'll see you later. Compare inclusive (def. 4).
–noun 13. Journalism. a piece of news, or the reporting of a piece of news, obtained by a newspaper or other news organization, along with the privilege of using it first.
14. an exclusive right or privilege: to have an exclusive on providing fuel oil to the area.

When you're in an exclusive relationship, you're solely with one person. Therefore it is wrong to stray and have sexual intercourse with someone else. What about this is it you're not getting? I think Neesika also explained it to you on the Betrayal thread.

idkfa

Why'd your post make everything lowercase, precisely?

Cheating is wrong because it's deceptive. To be in a relationship is not just to engage in certain sexual activities with someone; it is to have a certain status with respect to that person (or persons), a status that contains within it certain agreed-upon rules. If one of those rules is exclusivity, then to maintain the relationship while violating the exclusivity is, in effect, to continually lie. In a relationship without such a rule, matters are of course different.

As for "rationaliz[ing] exclusive relationships", people are free to make their own choices regarding exclusivity for their own reasons. More to the point of what I understand your general message on such subjects to be, people choose exclusive relationships for a number of reasons, including a desire to avoid (or minimize) the problems of jealousy, an enhanced feeling of intimacy associated with it, and a wish to abide by cultural or religious traditions in which they invest worth.

None of those seem particularly unreasonable to me.

You've gotta do it backwards for Contra 3. :D

I have that song in my head now. :mad:

When you're in an exclusive relationship, you're solely with one person. Therefore it is wrong to stray and have sexual intercourse with someone else. What about this is it you're not getting? I think Neesika also explained it to you on the Betrayal thread.

And this is exactly why i'll never betray my gal. :)

Why'd your post make everything lowercase, precisely?

because I don't like shouting...

Is it wrong to marry someone who is not a virgin? Is there any thing immoral about sex? Why does it suddenly become immoral to have sex with anyone but one's partner once a "relationship" starts?

But why? Some people consider sex outside of wedlock wrong; others consider "cheating" wrong; why?!

are you asking about EXCLUSIVE relationships or any relationship in general?

I mean seriously, this girl is the most fantastic thing ever. Why would I even want to sleep with anyone else? She's perfection for me. :)

The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can someone please elaborate?
A contract is a contract, whether it's written or verbal.

Exclusive relationship, by definition, is a verbal contract involving not having intercourse with any humans other than the participants.

A contract is a contract, whether it's written or verbal.

Exclusive relationship, by definition, is a verbal contract involving not having intercourse with any humans other than the participants.

... so intercorse with a non-human is ok? :p

okay for men wrong for women.

... so intercorse with a non-human is ok? :p

Okay in a relationship, may or may not be okay in the laws of your region.

Considering that on a thread about having kids, some responses were along the lines of "you don't need to rationalize it, you should just do it, it's natural, you don't need a reason", I say why not the same for going and and shagging other people outside a relationship? After all, sex drive is instinct, so it must be intrinsically right....

... so intercorse with a non-human is ok? :p
Hands and fists.
Dildoes and buttplugs.
Fleshlights and viblators.
Rubber women and men.
HELLO KITTY.

Considering that on a thread about having kids, some responses were along the lines of "you don't need to rationalize it, you should just do it, it's natural, you don't need a reason", I say why not the same for going and and shagging other people outside a relationship? After all, sex drive is instinct, so it must be intrinsically right....

I don't recall anyone saying "you should just have kids, you don't need a reason." I do remember plenty of people, myself included, saying "you don't have any obligation to justify your decision as to whether or not to have children to people who are not you or your child-rearing partner(s)." So, sure, do feel free to apply that logic to this thread, too, seeing as I'd similarly agree that the rules of my relationship are no one's business but mine and my partner's.

Hands and fists.
Dildoes and buttplugs.
Fleshlights and viblators.
Rubber women and men.
HELLO KITTY.

of course those are non human (tho the hands and fists can be argued to be part of the human body thu not non-human.)

but there are others in the non-human catagory that would still be considered 'cheating' and just plain wrong. :p

and thank you for putting an image with a man going at it with a stuffed japanese kitty in my brain! :eek2:

Cheating is hurtful to a relationship whether the relationship is exclusive or not. If you want to consider it wrong or right is up to you, but when you are deceitful, you rightly lose the trust of your S.O. and are therefore ruining the relationship.

Hands and fists.
Dildoes and buttplugs.
Fleshlights and viblators.
Rubber women and men.
HELLO KITTY.

....and, of course, any or all of those could also be "cheating" if you and your partner have agreed that there will be no fucking of the Hello Kitty while you are together.

of course those are non human (tho the hands and fists can be argued to be part of the human body thu not non-human.)
But parts of a human who is a partner in the relationship - thus fine.


but there are others in the non-human catagory that would still be considered 'cheating' and just plain wrong.
"Just plain wrong" will be the main issue.


and thank you for putting an image with a man going at it with a stuffed japanese kitty in my brain! :eek2:
We always pleased serving u! :)))))

Wercome to the HELLO KITTY HELL (http://www.kittyhell.com/2008/04/23/hello-kitty-pedicab/)! :)

Would u please liek our Super Fun, BLAND New, SELF LUBLICATING, Super High Power HELLO KITTY VIBLATOR ??? :)) :))) :)))) ???

Yes, if it is an exclusive relationship. If it's an open one, then it's not cheating and all that.

Okay, most people nowadays assume that once you're in a relationship, it's exclusive. If you and your partner have agreed that you won't be having sex with other people, then yes, having sex with other people is wrong. It violates the trust your partner has placed in you. And, speaking from experience, it can take a long time to regain that trust, if it ever happens at all.

Firstly, there's nothing rational or irrational about preferring exclusive relationships to open ones, or vice versa. It's entirely a matter of preference, the same way that one person might prefer chocolate ice cream while another might prefer strawberry. Just as ice cream comes in many flavors to meet the preferences of many people, so do relationships.

The problem isn't having sex outside of the relationship, then, it is in the deception, the broken promise. If you agree to an exclusive relationship (which doesn't have to be monogamous-- it could be exclusive, say, within a group of people.), and have sex with somebody not included in that relationship, you have committed a wrong by not honoring your agreement.

And, actually, your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum fails to demonstrate any real flaw in the argument against cheating: I would argue that it would be equally wrong to enter into a marriage on the agreed upon condition that you are a virgin when you are not indeed one. I personally would not demand my partner be a virgin, but if I did, it would be wrong for somebody to tell me that she had never had sex when, in fact, she had.

If the relationship is exclusive, then yes, cheating is wrong.

If the relationship is nonexclusive then chetaing is not possible unless there's a "No having sex with XYZ!" and you do it anyway.... or you're playing chess and remove one of the opponent's pieces when they're not looking XD

Exclusive relationship, by definition, is a verbal contract involving not having intercourse with any humans other than the participants.

I would say that a relationship is exclusive, once its official that a couple, triad, or whatever is "together", in an implicit contract unless otherwise specified.

Yes, if it is an exclusive relationship. If it's an open one, then it's not cheating and all that.

It would depend on the action taken and the agreed upon rules. Some open relationships will only agree to kiss their primary partner, as a sign of a special intimacy. Others will need the partners to tell the other when they have decided to have sex with someone outside the partnership. If the agreed upon rules are violated I would call that cheating.

But parts of a human who is a partner in the relationship - thus fine.so it cheating when it's someone else's hand who is not part of the relationship. :tongue:

"Just plain wrong" will be the main issue. I think most people here put beastiality under the "Just plain wrong' catagory. ;)

We always pleased serving u! :)))))

Wercome to the HELLO KITTY HELL (http://www.kittyhell.com/2008/04/23/hello-kitty-pedicab/)! :)

Would u please liek our Super Fun, BLAND New, SELF LUBLICATING, Super High Power HELLO KITTY VIBLATOR ??? :)) :))) :)))) ???
:D

I don't understand why this even needs a thread. Isn't the answer implicit in the question?

okay for men wrong for women.

Is this a serious post or trolling?

But why? Some people consider sex outside of wedlock wrong; others consider "cheating" wrong; why?!

Because when you are in an exclusive relationship you are promising to only be with that person.


To sleep with another person is a violation of their trust and your word.

The debate started on this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570510

It is now here to prevent a threadjack. The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can someone please elaborate?

It seems pretty self explanatory, don't you think?

No one needs to rationalize or justify their relationship preferences to anyone but their partner(s), and even then only insofar as they must come to an agreement with said partner(s) on the terms of their relationship.

Once that agreement is made, it is their responsibility to either hold to it or to dissolve the relationship.

Is this a serious post or trolling?

As near as can be deciphered from his posting history, yes.

I don't understand why this even needs a thread. Isn't the answer implicit in the question?
yes it is.

what if the question were "is cheating in monopoly wrong?"

the word cheating implies wrong.

maybe he is confusing "cheating" with "having different rules than society suggests for sexual relationships".

as in when you decide to have going past "go" earn you $500 in monopoly. its not the standard rule but if everyone agrees on it its not cheating. if you grab $500 from the bank when your opponent goes to the bathroom, thats cheating. you havent made the new rule "going to the bathroom gets your opponent $500" so you have broken the trust with your opponent.

if your relationship with your lover has the rulethat you will not have sex with another person and you do, thats cheating. if your relationship doesnt have that rule, its not cheating.

There is no need to "rationalize" any form of relationship, because it it no one's damn business but the people in that relationship.

And yes, obviously cheating is wrong, by the very definition of the term. If you are going behind your partner's back (or partners' backs, for that matter) to do something which you know they are not okay with, you're being a selfish dick. It doesn't really matter whether that something is having sex with other people, or having sex with certain other people, or doing drugs, or staying out late without calling, or wearing red shirts; if you have made a commitment to someone not to engage in a particular activity and you do so anyway, that's wrong.

But what if that activity does no harm, and in fact is just a way of having fun; it seems rather possessive to deny one's partner that activity.

Because when you are in an exclusive relationship you are promising to only be with that person.


To sleep with another person is a violation of their trust and your word.

Yes, and there are many people who consider any sex outside the relationship--even before the relationship started--a violation of trust. Is it not all petty?

But what if that activity does no harm, and in fact is just a way of having fun; it seems rather possessive to deny one's partner that activity.

Yes, for many people it is seen that way, hence the existence of open relationships, where people agree to rules aloowing sex with people other than one's SO.

For many others, however, it is agreed that it should be monogomous, and a limiting of that fun to just one's SO. These are the exclusive relationships.

It's really not that difficultt.

Yes, and there are many people who consider any sex outside the relationship--even before the relationship started--a violation of trust. Is it not all petty?
perhaps your question should be "is it reasonable to require that your lover not have sex with other people?"

Yes, and there are many people who consider any sex outside the relationship--even before the relationship started--a violation of trust. Is it not all petty?

One might say it's petty for someone to want to eat only weet-bix for breakfast, and refuse to eat anything else. In fact, I would say that's petty. But does that mean I am gonna stop them?

The fact is that in an exclusive relationship, either both partners want exclusivity (and there are some benefits in the form of stability and minimising potential damage to the relationship), or one partner wants it and the other one agrees to it as a sacrifice, or disagrees and leaves.

There's nothing wrong with it as long as there is mutual consent.

But why? Some people consider sex outside of wedlock wrong; others consider "cheating" wrong; why?!

In an exclusive relationship cheating is wrong that's why it's called cheating. It's wrong because you have agreed with your partner (or your partners if you're exclusive with a poly group rather than a single individual) that you would not have sex with anyone else. That why it's called an "exclusive relationship". Is this really a difficult concept?

are you asking about EXCLUSIVE relationships or any relationship in general?

Well, if none of the parties are in exclusive relationships, then it isn't cheating is it?

But what if that activity does no harm, and in fact is just a way of having fun; it seems rather possessive to deny one's partner that activity.
If you think that you should not enter into an exclusive relationship, then do not enter into one.
If you enter into one, you should abide by your word.
If you are in one and no longer wish to be, either renegotiate the relationship or end it.


Yes, and there are many people who consider any sex outside the relationship--even before the relationship started--a violation of trust. Is it not all petty?
I answered this already: if somebody wants a relationship with somebody who has never had sex, then, yes, it would be wrong for somebody to claim never to have if, in fact, they had.


perhaps your question should be "is it reasonable to require that your lover not have sex with other people?"

That would be a more interesting question, I think. I would say it's not all unreasonable-- again, it's just a matter of preference. As I said in a previous post, just as ice cream comes in different flavors to meet the tastes of different people, so do relationships.

That would be a more interesting question, I think. I would say it's not all unreasonable-- again, it's just a matter of preference. As I said in a previous post, just as ice cream comes in different flavors to meet the tastes of different people, so do relationships.

yeah but it does need some answer.

sort of

you may have the preference that your lover not have sex with others but is it a REASONABLE request? (like asking that she stop picking her nose in your presence might be a reasonable request) if she wants to have sex with others now and then and you disagree, should one of you compromise? is there a reasonable compromise? and it is worth breaking up over or are you being an ass?

yeah but it does need some answer.

sort of

you may have the preference that your lover not have sex with others but is it a REASONABLE request? (like asking that she stop picking her nose in your presence might be a reasonable request) if she wants to have sex with others now and then and you disagree, should one of you compromise? is there a reasonable compromise? and it is worth breaking up over or are you being an ass?

Frankly, I don't think there's a universal standard for what constitutes a reasonable request, nor do I think it matters. If all parties involved in a relationship agree to an arrangement, who cares whether or not anyone outside the relationship finds it "reasonable"?

yeah but it does need some answer.

sort of

you may have the preference that your lover not have sex with others but is it a REASONABLE request? (like asking that she stop picking her nose in your presence might be a reasonable request) if she wants to have sex with others now and then and you disagree, should one of you compromise? is there a reasonable compromise? and it is worth breaking up over or are you being an ass?

I would say that every person has things they are willing to compromise on in a relationship and things that they are not. If there is an aspect of a relationship that bothers one of the people in it and no compromise can be reached, I would say it's perfectly reasonable to break off the relationship, no matter how trivial the annoyance may seem to others.

Personally, I would probably be willing to compromise on some level when it comes to exclusivity in this situation, so long as myself and my partner were held to the same standard. But that's just me, others may have other preferences.

Frankly, I don't think there's a universal standard for what constitutes a reasonable request, nor do I think it matters. If all parties involved in a relationship agree to an arrangement, who cares whether or not anyone outside the relationship finds it "reasonable"?
oh i agree with the outside part.

but what if you have a disagreement on it? should you walk away? are there situations where you SHOULD let your lover have his way (no matter which way he prefers it to be)?

I would say that every person has things they are willing to compromise on in a relationship and things that they are not. If there is an aspect of a relationship that bothers one of the people in it and no compromise can be reached, I would say it's perfectly reasonable to break off the relationship, no matter how trivial the annoyance may seem to others.

Personally, I would probably be willing to compromise on some level when it comes to exclusivity in this situation, so long as myself and my partner were held to the same standard. But that's just me, others may have other preferences.
it seems far more common for one person to pretend to agree to exclusivity and "cheat" now and then than it is to be honest and let the other person walk away.

it seems far more common for one person to pretend to agree to exclusivity and "cheat" now and then than it is to be honest and let the other person walk away.

Of course it is.

Which brings us full circle back to the original topic of the thread. :)

Look at the economic-social-moral consequences of such activity.

Of course it is.

Which brings us full circle back to the original topic of the thread. :)
cheating is wrong.

it seems far more common for one person to pretend to agree to exclusivity and "cheat" now and then than it is to be honest and let the other person walk away.

Yes, because those who "cheat" (derive pleasure from someone other than one's possessor) are looked upon as scum, just like 19th century women who did not preserve their virginity before marriage were.

Yes, because those who "cheat" (derive pleasure from someone other than one's possessor) are looked upon as scum, just like 19th century women who did not preserve their virginity before marriage were.

You keep ignoring posts and constructing strawmen about "possession."

The problem with cheating has nothing to do with possession. It has to do with honoring your word. If you agree to an exclusive relationship, and you end up having sex with somebody else anyway, you have violated your word. Broken a contract, so to speak.
If you don't enjoy exclusive relationships, then do not enter into them.

Yes, because those who "cheat" (derive pleasure from someone other than one's possessor) are looked upon as scum, just like 19th century women who did not preserve their virginity before marriage were.
and they ARE scum.

well they are doing something very wrong that when it comes to light has a great chance of destroying their relationship and perhaps their family.

if someone wants the luxury of being able to have sex with people other than their primary lover, they need to take the time to find a lover who doesnt have a problem with that.

then they will only face society's scorn of "swingers"

Yes, because those who "cheat" (derive pleasure from someone other than one's possessor) are looked upon as scum, just like 19th century women who did not preserve their virginity before marriage were.

But they don't have to justify it to society.

They have to justify it to their lover.

If they know that their lover will leave them if he/she finds out, but keeps them in the dark about it, then they are doing something wrong.

If, on the other hand, they've reached an accord where it's fine, in the relationship (even if not in society), to have sex with other people, then there is nothing wrong.

Your answer is implied in the manner you worded your question. If you worded your question "Are exclusive relationships wrong?" Then it's really a matter of preference, isn't it?

Are you going to force a lover to be in an inclusive relationship, if they desire something exclusive? Are you going to lie to them to make them believe they are in an exclusive relationship, if they are not?

I know I've used strong words in the above questions, so feel free to tone them down a bit (to compromise, for example), but I could easily turn them around for myself.

Am I going to force a lover to be in an exclusive relationship if they want an inclusive one? Probably not. At the moment, I am in an exclusive relationship. Until this changes, I won't ponder the question, because it's not an issue to me. I don't care to have sex with anyone else. Would I break up with them? I'm not sure. I might be able to find a compromise of sorts. Something I could deal with.

However, I would be pissed if I was lied to. If I was told it was an exclusive relationship, and it wasn't, that's a breach of trust. The cheating is not in the sex and never will be. It will be in the lie. Some lies a relationship can survive. Others, it cannot.

But they don't have to justify it to society.

They have to justify it to their lover.

If they know that their lover will leave them if he/she finds out, but keeps them in the dark about it, then they are doing something wrong.

If, on the other hand, they've reached an accord where it's fine, in the relationship (even if not in society), to have sex with other people, then there is nothing wrong.

Your answer is implied in the manner you worded your question. If you worded your question "Are exclusive relationships wrong?" Then it's really a matter of preference, isn't it?

Are you going to force a lover to be in an inclusive relationship, if they desire something exclusive? Are you going to lie to them to make them believe they are in an exclusive relationship, if they are not?

I know I've used strong words in the above questions, so feel free to tone them down a bit (to compromise, for example), but I could easily turn them around for myself.

Am I going to force a lover to be in an exclusive relationship if they want an inclusive one? Probably not. At the moment, I am in an exclusive relationship. Until this changes, I won't ponder the question, because it's not an issue to me. I don't care to have sex with anyone else. Would I break up with them? I'm not sure. I might be able to find a compromise of sorts. Something I could deal with.

However, I would be pissed if I was lied to. If I was told it was an exclusive relationship, and it wasn't, that's a breach of trust. The cheating is not in the sex and never will be. It will be in the lie. Some lies a relationship can survive. Others, it cannot.

So if someone lies by claiming virginity (the partner refuses a relationship with anyone not a virgin), then it is a breach of trust?

oh i agree with the outside part.

but what if you have a disagreement on it? should you walk away? are there situations where you SHOULD let your lover have his way (no matter which way he prefers it to be)?

Well, it pretty much depends on where you draw your personal line. Essentially, I'd say that one should compromise until compromising makes one more unhappy than walking away would. No one should stay in a relationship that makes them miserable just because they feel like their misery is somehow "unreasonable."

you may have the preference that your lover not have sex with others but is it a REASONABLE request? (like asking that she stop picking her nose in your presence might be a reasonable request) if she wants to have sex with others now and then and you disagree, should one of you compromise? is there a reasonable compromise? and it is worth breaking up over or are you being an ass?
Long-term relationships are draining; they require a substantial expenditure of time, emotion, thought, planning and money. If someone is going to put that much effort into something, I don't think any request is particularly unreasonable. This isn't an 18th century romance where you have to pick the suitor/woman with the least deal-breaking flaws out of the only two options you will ever get.
If my girlfriend's nose picking is really bothering me and she won't stop, I'll quit seeing her. Similarly, if she started sleeping around behind my back (which is what cheating is; if you're honest about it, it isn't cheating), I'd find someone more loyal or honest.

So if someone lies by claiming virginity (the partner refuses a relationship with anyone not a virgin), then it is a breach of trust?

Um, yes. Duh.

So if someone lies by claiming virginity (the partner refuses a relationship with anyone not a virgin), then it is a breach of trust?

Yes.

I would think that person to be quite unreasonable, but still, to lie is a breach of trust.

If someone lies by claiming to not have any STDs (the one-night stander refuses to have sex with anyone that has STDs, for health reasons), is that not a breach of trust too?

So if someone lies by claiming virginity (the partner refuses a relationship with anyone not a virgin), then it is a breach of trust?
its a big time breach of trust.

Long-term relationships are draining; they require a substantial expenditure of time, emotion, thought, planning and money. If someone is going to put that much effort into something, I don't think any request is particularly unreasonable. This isn't an 18th century romance where you have to pick the suitor/woman with the least deal-breaking flaws out of the only two options you will ever get.
If my girlfriend's nose picking is really bothering me and she won't stop, I'll quit seeing her. Similarly, if she started sleeping around behind my back (which is what cheating is; if you're honest about it, it isn't cheating), I'd find someone more loyal or honest.
i dont find it to be cheating when you have sex behind your lovers back unless you are married and have a formal vow of exclusivity.

but i DO find it to be a declaration that your lover doesnt find your relationship as important as her lust for others. its a good time to walk away.

and i agree, ANY reason is a good reason to break up as long as you dont have a formal vow. if you are married you need to try to compromise before you break up. its implied in the vows.

Exclusive means, you know, excluding all others.

What if the relationship was never explicitly stated to be exclusive?

The debate started on this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570510

It is now here to prevent a threadjack. The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can someone please elaborate?
Exclusive means, you know, excluding all others.
Cheating is wrong.
If everyone knows that the relationship is open, that's fine -- if you agree to be in an exclusive relationship and then decide to make it non-exclusive without telling your partner, it's low and cowardly. You're exposing them to the health risk of the other partner you picked without giving them the option of declining or breaking it off with you so you can pursue the new relationship. You're also cheating them of the possibility of other partners they might otherwise have pursued had they not honored their commitment to you.

Is it wrong to marry someone who is not a virgin? Is there any thing immoral about sex? Why does it suddenly become immoral to have sex with anyone but one's partner once a "relationship" starts?
Why are you introducing other questions into this? It seems like trying to dodge the original discussion -- which you started.

What if the relationship was never explicitly stated to be exclusive?
Dude, you're the one who set the premise in the original post: Exclusive relationships.

That aside, apparently you chose not to read the rest of the post.

I would think that person to be quite unreasonable, but still, to lie is a breach of trust.

Very well then, you agree demanding complete (past, present and future) sexual exclusiveness is silly; now, is it such stretch to say the same thing of any sexual exclusiveness?

What if the relationship was never explicitly stated to be exclusive?

Most relationships are implied to be exclusive. It would be rather disingenuous for a person in a relationship to pretend otherwise, and attempt to justify his or her behavior on that basis. At the least, he or she should seek to clarify it with his or her partner before actually breaking the generally-accepted social rules.

okay for men wrong for women.
What an asinine comment.

Most relationships are implied to be exclusive. It would be rather disingenuous for a person in a relationship to pretend otherwise, and attempt to justify his or her behavior on that basis. At the least, he or she should seek to clarify it with his or her partner before actually breaking the generally-accepted social rules.

But are not those social rules ridiculous, much like the rules that implied virginity before marriage?

What an asinine comment.

It may merely be a very poor attempt at humor.

Very well then, you agree demanding complete (past, present and future) sexual exclusiveness is silly; now, is it such stretch to say the same thing of any sexual exclusiveness?
no.

there are far too many potential problems involved in non-exclusive long term relationships to consider it always wrong to require sexual faithfulness.

But are not those social rules ridiculous, much like the rules that implied virginity before marriage?

I think, by definition, you're more concerned about the other person's feelings than the empirical rationality of your actions. Call it caution.

Incidentally, listen, if you just wanna call society prudish and overly hung-up about sex, come out and say it, most of us here will agree with you, at least tentatively.

Yes, because those who "cheat" (derive pleasure from someone other than one's possessor) are looked upon as scum, just like 19th century women who did not preserve their virginity before marriage were.
Of course. Why would anyone value a liar?
What does it cost to say, "I don't want to be in an exclusive relationship anymore," other than the risk of losing one's partner?

To cheat is childish, selfish, petty and disrespectful and cowardly. At least have the balls to be honest about wanting the right to fuck whomever you want, whenever you want.

Dude, you're the one who set the premise in the original post: Exclusive relationships.

I apologize for the fact that I did a terrible job of making my post clear; what I meant to say is: "Are not exclusive relationships absurd? Is there anything immoral about stimulating oneself with something or someone other than the body of one's partner? Is it not petty to demand that one not find pleasure with others?"

I apologize for the fact that I did a terrible job of making my post clear; what I meant to say is: "Are not exclusive relationships absurd? Is there anything immoral about stimulating oneself with something or someone other than the body of one's partner? Is it not petty to demand that one not find pleasure with others?"

Heeey, there we go. And now, in chorus, we can all answer "No, there's nothing immoral about that in and of itself, but people have a right to...blah blah...personal preferences...consenting adults..." ...Well, you get the idea.

I think, by definition, you're more concerned about the other person's feelings than the empirical rationality of your actions. Call it caution.

Do you mean that one must accommodate the irrational morality of one's time and partner?

Incidentally, listen, if you just wanna call society prudish and overly hung-up about sex, come out and say it, most of us here will agree with you, at least tentatively.

But most of this forum is also "prudish and overly hung-up about sex".

Do you mean that one must accommodate the irrational morality of one's time and partner?

I tried not doing that once, she kinda dumped me...

Do you mean that one must accommodate the irrational morality of one's time and partner?



But most of this forum is also "prudish and overly hung-up about sex:.
no you dont. you dont have to stay with anyone who requires exclusivity.

but it IS hard to find a good long term partner who will have no problem with outside sexual contact.

But are not those social rules ridiculous, much like the rules that implied virginity before marriage?

He wasn't commenting on the sensibility of the social rule. For most people, exclusitivty is implied when they start a new relationship. Claiming that someone didn't explicitly say that they wanted an exclusive relationship as an excuse is a cop-out. You may not agree with social norms but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider them in your relationships with people.

I apologize for the fact that I did a terrible job of making my post clear; what I meant to say is: "Are not exclusive relationships absurd? Is there anything immoral about stimulating oneself with something or someone other than the body of one's partner? Is it not petty to demand that one not find pleasure with others?"
Ah. Well, they're not absurd if both partners agree to an exclusive relationship. As a matter of fact, people who wish to have an exclusive relationship may prefer it simply because it limits the number of sexual partners' health histories they need to worry about, rather than the issue of possessiveness you seem to be focusing on.

Open relationships also are not absurd, if everyone in them knows they are open.

Very well then, you agree demanding complete (past, present and future) sexual exclusiveness is silly; now, is it such stretch to say the same thing of any sexual exclusiveness?

This is an interesting, and somewhat compelling, argument.

First, just to clarify the implications of my argument here, "silly" or not I'd say that anyone in a relationship with a person has to either abide by the agreed-upon rules (which should be mutual, not imposed by one or the other), or end the relationship. We are not required to abide by commitments we no longer wish to abide by, but we must not claim to abide by them past the point that we actually do so.

Second... well, it's certainly true that a lot of the same reasons people cite in support of monogamy in relationships can be (and are) cited also in support of abstinence until marriage. Part of the difference, though, is in the simple fact of cultural change: simply because monogamy in relationships is expected, but abstinence prior to relationships is not, the first demand is more reasonable, in this society, than the second.

Part of the difference, also, is that the kind of commitment demanded is different. In entering a relationship, I can certainly say, and honestly abide by, something like "From now on I will not engage in sexual activity outside of the relationship." But if I am not a virgin, I cannot magically restore my virginity: the element of chosen commitment is gone, because I cannot choose now to have been sexually exclusive in my past.

Part of the difference, too, is the scale of the commitment demanded. Even ignoring the problem of reverse causation mentioned above, to insist upon sexual exclusivity throughout life is quite a stronger demand to insist on sexual exclusivity throughout a given relationship, which even if it lasts until death will only encompass part of life. Rules of relationships are always about compromise and balancing: considerations like avoidance of jealousy and enhanced intimacy may support exclusivity, while considerations like maintaining personal autonomy and independence may support more openness. When multiple competing values are in play, it's generally wise to avoid frameworks too far to either extreme.

But most of this forum is also "prudish and overly hung-up about sex".Good thing you said most. I'm not. Sex is just a thing that happens, or doesn't.

Now, on to the topic:
To act dishonestly; practice fraud. To deceive by trickery.That's the definition of the word "cheat".
Cheating is actively doing the above. I do not believe that it is right.

But are not those social rules ridiculous, much like the rules that implied virginity before marriage?

Presumably, when starting a relationship, you actually bother to find out what the other person wants from it, so the existance of a social rule on the subject is pretty irrelevant.

Parkus, really, you already answered yourself with the very title of your thread. If you used the word exclusive, you already know it´s meaning and, therefore, you know why if you´re in an -exclusive relation- is bad to cheat.:rolleyes:

Open communication is the key. If you are in an exclusive relationship and you are not truthful, that is a difficult thing to get back - it is constantly being earned.

The value placed on the relationship must be equal on both parts. The one who engages in extramarital/cheating activities is stating that they are placing a lower value on the relationship then their partner is. That hurts. If you no longer want it, then be up front and move on. It would seem cowardly to sneak around behind your partners back to engage in these activities. If it were alright engage in sex or cheat, why then would you need to try to hid it - hence the term "caught in the act."

Fights/murders/wars have been started over such betrayals. If it is not a big deal then why do these things happen?

Exclusive is, well, exclusive. If you don't want that, don't have that kind of relationship and accept the consequences, good or bad, that will stem from it.

I'd be rather interested to see how many people would prefer an exclusive relationship if one partner was seeing a disproportionate number of people compared to the other. I think a lot of people seem to like the idea of open relationships until they're actually in one as opposed to people who do actually like the idea.

Parkus, really, you already answered yourself with the very title of your thread. If you used the word exclusive, you already know it´s meaning and, therefore, you know why if you´re in an -exclusive relation- is bad to cheat.:rolleyes:

Stop repeating this argument from definition. It proves little even in response to the initial question (If I'm factually enslaved to someone, am I morally forbidden to act in a way that does not befit a slave?), and it proves even less in response to what appears to be Parkus's real concern, which is whether and how demands of exclusivity can be judged to be reasonable.

But are not those social rules ridiculous, much like the rules that implied virginity before marriage?

I didn't see this, but I've responded to the notion already in replying another of your posts.

Let me just add that, yes. My "gut reaction" to sexual exclusivity is that it's ridiculous, and it's not something of which I'm particularly fond. But it does not follow that no one else can have good reasons for it, or even that those good reasons would be incomprehensible to me (or to you, whose attitude on this question may be somewhat similar to mine.)

What if the relationship was never explicitly stated to be exclusive?

then it's not exclusive.

and whether or not it's wrong depends on the viewpoints of both the 'cheater' and the 'cheated'.

I'd be rather interested to see how many people would prefer an exclusive relationship if one partner was seeing a disproportionate number of people compared to the other.

This is a separate question, really, from the wisdom of open relationships as such. Social disparities between people in a relationship can cause problems whether it is open or not. And they can be dealt with within the framework of a relationship that remains basically open without reverting all the way back to exclusivity.

I think a lot of people seem to like the idea of open relationships until they're actually in one as opposed to people who do actually like the idea.

Isn't that true of any relationship form, including exclusive ones?

If I'm factually enslaved to someone, am I morally forbidden to act in a way that does not befit a slave?

Nobody is talking about slavery. You can leave a relationship whenever you want.

Nobody is talking about slavery. You can leave a relationship whenever you want.

The point is not the exactness of the analogue. The point is that the mere fact that a certain relation between people is characterized by a term does not mean that the definition of that term has moral force. There is nothing incoherent about saying, "Even if you have agreed to be in an exclusive relationship, you may nevertheless have sex with whomever you please." You may not approve of its ethics, but it is not false by definition.

This is a separate question, really, from the wisdom of open relationships as such. Social disparities between people in a relationship can cause problems whether it is open or not. And they can be dealt with within the framework of a relationship that remains basically open without reverting all the way back to exclusivity.

Oh, it is. I'm simply ruminating on the likely reality that many people simply use the term "open relationship" to their advantage at the expense of another, or whom might be involved in such a relationship to the detriment of themselves and their partners. There's a lot of security to be had in an exclusive relationship, and for most people it's far, far easier to form deep bonds with one person than it is with multiple individuals.

Isn't that true of any relationship form, including exclusive ones?

Possibly, but I would think true polyamory is a rarity making true open relationships a relatively uncommon occurrence.

Stop repeating this argument from definition. It proves little even in response to the initial question (If I'm factually enslaved to someone, am I morally forbidden to act in a way that does not befit a slave?), and it proves even less in response to what appears to be Parkus's real concern, which is whether and how demands of exclusivity can be judged to be reasonable.

If you´re in an exclusive relationship (meaning you promised to be solely with that one person), and you cheat, hurting the person you´re with, that´s morally wrong. To hurt someone is morally wrong.

There's a lot of security to be had in an exclusive relationship, and for most people it's far, far easier to form deep bonds with one person than it is with multiple individuals.

Open relationships aren't about forming deep bonds "with multiple individuals"; if they're concerned with forming deep bonds at all, it's only with one's partner. It's just that this "deep bond" formation is not assumed to necessitate sexual exclusivity: you might have sex with multiple people, but you love only one.

Possibly, but I would think true polyamory is a rarity making true open relationships a relatively uncommon occurrence.

Polyamorous relationships are not the same as open relationships. They can be either exclusive (sex is only permitted among the partners) or open. And they do rely on forming deep romantic bonds with multiple people, which I'll agree is a more tenuous possibility than that of maintaining romantic intimacy in combination with sexual openness.

If you´re in an exclusive relationship (meaning you promised to be solely with that one person), and you cheat, hurting the person you´re with, that´s morally wrong. To hurt someone is morally wrong.

Fair enough. It's just that enough people are giving TPE a hard time on sometimes spurious grounds that I felt inclined to defend him at least a little....

Fair enough. It's just that enough people are giving TPE a hard time on sometimes spurious grounds that I felt inclined to defend him at least a little....

No problem, it´s just that to me, the answer was implicit on the very title. Perhaps because I´m prone to have exclusive relationships.

If you´re in an exclusive relationship (meaning you promised to be solely with that one person), and you cheat, hurting the person you´re with, that´s morally wrong. To hurt someone is morally wrong.

What if that person would feel hurt if you enjoyed an ice-cream flavor he/she did not like? Would it be terribly wrong to eat that ice-cream in secret?

What if that person would feel hurt if you enjoyed an ice-cream flavor he/she did not like? Would it be terribly wrong to eat that ice-cream in secret?

it depends. if both people talk about it and come to some arraingement such as "I won't eat that flavor when I'm with you". then no, eating it in secret won't be wrong.

but if the arraingment is "I won't touch that flavor any more" then eating in secret would be wrong.

What if that person would feel hurt if you enjoyed an ice-cream flavor he/she did not like? Would it be terribly wrong to eat that ice-cream in secret?

The situations you´re using do not even begin to compare, Parkus.

What if that person would feel hurt if you enjoyed an ice-cream flavor he/she did not like? Would it be terribly wrong to eat that ice-cream in secret?

Yes, if it involved the deceptive violation of agreed-upon rules for the relationship. No, if it did not.

It depends somewhat also on the nature of the "hurt." My partner might not have a problem with me eating the ice cream so much as he has a problem with being exposed to it or having to think about it; that's how it works for most preferences regarding things we find disgusting (as opposed to, say, morally offensive). If I abide by a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" rule, then, I have a perfectly clean moral slate.

The ambiguous case would be when my partner would be hurt by it however and whenever I eat the ice cream, but has enough respect for my autonomy that he does not set up my non-consumption of it as a rule of the relationship. In such a case I would not be strictly obligated to avoid eating it (there has been no commitment), but it may not be very nice of me to do so.

What if that person would feel hurt if you enjoyed an ice-cream flavor he/she did not like? Would it be terribly wrong to eat that ice-cream in secret?

If you've agreed not to? Yes. Seriously, this isn't complicated. If I agree with my partner that I will not engage in a certain behavior and then go behind his back and do it anyway, that is a betrayal of trust.

The point is not the exactness of the analogue.

Well it is, because any comparison to slavery is completely invalid. Slavery is bondage by force. A relationship is by agreement. It's a false analogue.

It's a false analogue.

No, it's a reductio ad absurdum about the validity of arguments from definition in this context. Having a certain status with respect to another person does not, simply from the definition of that status, generate any particular moral rules regarding treatment of that person. We may have independent moral reasons for granting such a status moral importance, but the whole point of the question is to provide such reasons and use them to justify the conclusion, not to just point to a definition and end it there.

The only important, and the only necessary, similarity here between the status of slavery and the status of an exclusive relationship is that both are statuses founded on having a certain relationship with someone else. The example is extreme, but I've found that sometimes it takes extreme examples for people to realize the logical leaps in their reasoning--at least when they don't just shout "slippery slope!" and miss the point.

What if that person would feel hurt if you enjoyed an ice-cream flavor he/she did not like? Would it be terribly wrong to eat that ice-cream in secret?
What if the reason they did not want you to eat a particular flavor because they're amazingly allergic to it and even a whiff of it on your breath, even a particle breathed onto them, would kill them? Would you have to eat that ice cream anyway, or could you sacrifice it for the length of your commitment to them?

Yes cheating is wrong. There are worse things you could do but generally making people cry is the wrong thing to do.

Anyone who thinks that cheating isn't wrong clearly has never been in a real relationship.

Anyone who thinks that cheating isn't wrong clearly has never been in a real relationship.Antisocial personality disorder, maybe?

The debate started on this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570510

It is now here to prevent a threadjack. The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can someone please elaborate?

To me, it's not the sex itself that is the real problem with cheating. It's the deception and betrayal of trust.

If you don't think it's possible for you (figurative you, I don't actually mean you yourself specifically) to be in an exclusive relationship and not cheat, you should consider an open relationship.

When you're in a relationship with someone, you tend to trust them very deeply. It can be really devastating when that trust is broken. Which is why if you think you can't resist sex with other people, a closed relationship isn't really for you.

I have a question for you people from all around the world.
I've heard that ...
in Europe cheating is not such a big deal unless you are engaged or something.
In America it is wrong and you are aweful for doing it but it is not the end of the world.
In Australia change your name and move to a new town or else you are never going to date again.

I apologize for the fact that I did a terrible job of making my post clear; what I meant to say is: "Are not exclusive relationships absurd? Is there anything immoral about stimulating oneself with something or someone other than the body of one's partner? Is it not petty to demand that one not find pleasure with others?"

It's petty to drag this thread around for however many pages just to try to prove some theoretical point about the selfishness of humanity, especially since you've loudly declared many times on this board that you have no desire for a relationship.

You don't want a relationship, but you don't like the rules other people have about their own. Sad.

It's petty to drag this thread around for however many pages just to try to prove some theoretical point about the selfishness of humanity, especially since you've loudly declared many times on this board that you have no desire for a relationship.

You don't want a relationship, but you don't like the rules other people have about their own. Sad.


I think trying to rationalize relationships is folly anyway.

The debate started on this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570510

It is now here to prevent a threadjack. The only answer I was given was to this effect: "cheating is wrong, and there is no need to rationalize exclusive relationships". Can someone please elaborate?

Yes, in an exclusive relationship cheating is wrong.

And once again, Parkus, I point to the fact that most, if not all, people here aren't as worried about the sex that their partner had, but the fact that their partner had to lie to them, had to do it behind their back, had to betray their trust and had to be selfish about it.

It kinda sucks to be in an open relationship you think is exclusive. If you wanted an open relationship, you probably won't mind so much when you find out your partner wants it to be open. Still, that's a lack of communication and a relationship cannot stay healthy when the people involved in it do not communicate.

What would really suck is also being in an open relationship where your partner wants the right to have sex with other people, but you're not allowed to and if you do, they'll leave you. It doesn't matter whether you want an open or exclusive relationship, your partner is being selfish in that case.

Really, nobody here has made any argument that "sex is wrong, therefore, you must have as little sex as possible." or any other prudish comments.

And to try to rationalize why people want monogamy or an open relationship is like trying to rationalize why people want vanilla or strawberry. It doesn't make any sense.

I hope you can see that people are, at worst, being mildly prudish, and at best, seeing the real foundation of this issue: Betrayal and not sex.

And once again, Parkus, I point to the fact that most, if not all, people here aren't as worried about the sex that their partner had, but the fact that their partner had to lie to them, had to do it behind their back, had to betray their trust and had to be selfish about it.

It kinda sucks to be in an open relationship you think is exclusive. If you wanted an open relationship, you probably won't mind so much when you find out your partner wants it to be open. Still, that's a lack of communication and a relationship cannot stay healthy when the people involved in it do not communicate.

What would really suck is also being in an open relationship where your partner wants the right to have sex with other people, but you're not allowed to and if you do, they'll leave you. It doesn't matter whether you want an open or exclusive relationship, your partner is being selfish in that case.

Really, nobody here has made any argument that "sex is wrong, therefore, you must have as little sex as possible." or any other prudish comments.

And to try to rationalize why people want monogamy or an open relationship is like trying to rationalize why people want vanilla or strawberry. It doesn't make any sense.

I hope you can see that people are, at worst, being mildly prudish, and at best, seeing the real foundation of this issue: Betrayal and not sex.

Exactly. I'd be fine with my ladyfriend having sex with other people if we had previously discussed the matter and decided to have an open relationship. We have not done so, so I would be very hurt if I found out that she was sleeping with other people, just as she would if it were the other way around. Not because of the sex itself, but because of the going behind my/her back, and in generally breaking trust.

I have a question for you people from all around the world.
I've heard that ...
in Europe cheating is not such a big deal unless you are engaged or something.
In America it is wrong and you are aweful for doing it but it is not the end of the world.
In Australia change your name and move to a new town or else you are never going to date again.

I can tell you from experience that even the completely unfounded accusation of cheating in my neck of the woods is pretty much a sign on your forehead.

Exactly. I'd be fine with my ladyfriend having sex with other people if we had previously discussed the matter and decided to have an open relationship. We have not done so, so I would be very hurt if I found out that she was sleeping with other people, just as she would if it were the other way around. Not because of the sex itself, but because of the going behind my/her back, and in generally breaking trust.

It's been said before in so many ways, but this sums it up quite nicely ^^

You don't want a relationship, but you don't like the rules other people have about their own. Sad.

If I was in a "relationship", I can assure you I would be totally loyal to my partner; I simply could not do otherwise. Yet I have not found any way to rationalize this moral, and I will continually question society about it.

But why? Some people consider sex outside of wedlock wrong; others consider "cheating" wrong; why?!

Cheating = Betrayal of trust.

If I was in a "relationship", I can assure you I would be totally loyal to my partner; I simply could not do otherwise. Yet I have not found any way to rationalize this moral, and I will continually question society about it.

What's to rationalize? If you agree to a certain set of behaviours with your partner, and you deviate from that set of behaviours, you've broken that verbal contract you had with your partner.

Yes, and there are many people who consider any sex outside the relationship--even before the relationship started--a violation of trust. Is it not all petty?

Well, than that person can only date virgins. Its their choice.


Look, we get it. You hate relationships. You hate human companionship. You hate sex. You find it all vile and a waste of time. Youve made this very clear through your posting history. No need to keep telling us.

Look, we get it. You hate relationships. You hate human companionship. You hate sex. You find it all vile and a waste of time. Youve made this very clear through your posting history. No need to keep telling us.

But but but... secks iz awesum!:eek:

But but but... secks iz awesum!:eek:

Have you read any of TPE's posts in relationship threads? His hatred of relationships and anything that comes with them is in almost every post he makes, cloacked under finding it "illogical" or in the case of sex "unsanitary".

Have you read any of TPE's posts in relationship threads? His hatred of relationships and anything that comes with them is in almost every post he makes, cloacked under finding it "illogical" or in the case of sex "unsanitary".

I've seen some of his posts, yes. And yes, there is a latent dislike for all things human. I just can't understand this dislike.

Exclusive relationships mean exclusive. You and him/her. That's it. Period. End of Discussion.

Open relationships or Open Marriages mean you can play around outside of your primary relationship.

So yes, in an exclusive relationship, cheating is wrong.

In an open relationship, 'cheating' is allowed. Not hard to understand.

You hate sex. You find it all vile and a waste of time.

I find it ironic that you bring this up in a thread I created to defend promiscuity.

deception is wrong. causing unhappiness is wrong. but otherwise mutually aggreed upon nonmonogamous relationships there's nothing "wrong" with at all. not in any absolute and natural sense. i mean if you want to affiliate with a particular belief, then, well that means committing to the 'rules' that 'define the game' of that belief, but otherwise, in a more general sense, i mean if everybody knows about it and voluntarilly aggrees about it, and nobody is made big emotional problems by it, then i don't see how even calling it cheating makes any kind of sense.

Yes, in an exclusive relationship cheating is wrong.

If you read further he's shifted the goal posts all the way from an (American) Football field to the neighboring Soccer field.

i'm still not convinced it isn't the idea of exclusive relationships that is what is wrong.

just of the value and importance of not causing unneccessary unhappiness.

If you have already agreed upon an exclusive relationship, then 'cheating' is a breach of that agreement. Most people would agree that breaching an agreement, unless absolutely necessary to achieve a greater good, is dishonourable behaviour.

Here is a thought: If you enter into a relationship with the company you work for not to give your work to another company, and then in secret give your work to a rivial company, is that wrong, Parkus Empire?

Not a great analogy but similar.

deception is wrong. causing unhappiness is wrong. but otherwise mutually aggreed upon nonmonogamous relationships there's nothing "wrong" with at all. not in any absolute and natural sense. i mean if you want to affiliate with a particular belief, then, well that means committing to the 'rules' that 'define the game' of that belief, but otherwise, in a more general sense, i mean if everybody knows about it and voluntarilly aggrees about it, and nobody is made big emotional problems by it, then i don't see how even calling it cheating makes any kind of sense.

When in a non-exclusive relationship, in other words, an open relationship, if those in it have agreed that such is what it is, sexual relations with another person outside the relationship isn't "cheating." Because it's all out in the open, there's no betrayal of trust, there's no deception. Therefore, not cheating.

If I was in a "relationship", I can assure you I would be totally loyal to my partner; I simply could not do otherwise. Yet I have not found any way to rationalize this moral, and I will continually question society about it.

It's a betrayal of trust. If you love someone, and they love you, is it not wrong and quite hurtful to break that trust?

Interestingly enough, my friends are in an open relationship, in that they both agree that they can screw basically whoever they want (with a couple exceptions) outside the relationship. Oddly, neither of them has as of yet used that option.

The issue is that if you cheat, you have betrayed your SO's trust. In an open relationship, you have permission to 'cheat', so it is not wrong in that sense.

In Western culture, the default assumption is that a relationship is exclusive. In a society that has no taboo against adultery, the opposite would hold true.

It may be uncomfortable, but I would suggest that couples have a conversation at some point to clarify what the rules are, preferably before they are broken.

As for whether demanding that your partner be faithful is unreasonable, consider that normally, a person making this demand intends to reciprocate. Demanding that your partner be faithful when you will not is unreasonable.

But what if that activity does no harm, and in fact is just a way of having fun; it seems rather possessive to deny one's partner that activity.

It isn't possessive unless one side gets that privilege and the other does not (some people in relationships can be that manipulative, or so I'm told over much beer).

The nature of the activity -- whether or not it causes harm -- is entirely subjective and largely irrelevant. What YOU might think causes no harm COULD cause significant harm to the person you're in the relationship with. The key is to COMMUNICATE your desires to each other in a frank and open manner. Sadly, many people find that too difficult to do, and are yet surprised and hurt when a line that was drawn only in one of the couple's minds is crossed by the other.

It can be argued that if you've called your relationship exclusive, and you've come to an agreement as to exactly what that means, that seeking sex outside of that exclusivity is wrong. It's effectively a lie, and one with potential consequences beyond just the breach of trust (STIs, pregnancies, psychotic lovers, etc.).

What if the relationship was never explicitly stated to be exclusive?

That obviates your thread's thesis, but then you'd have a problem. That problem is "conventional wisdom". When two people start a sexual relationship, the majority (though likely not VAST majority) of people would likely agree that the "exclusive" part is implied. Thus the necessity of open communication between those claiming to be in love.

In short, it's best to determine what the nature of the relationship is when it's being formed -- when you're "declaring" it by telling others, stuff like that. If you still want to seek sexual gratification with other people, the other person in your relationship deserves to know about it, per the aforementioned conventional wisdom. That said, if you're getting into a relationship and you don't bring up parameters like what is and isn't cheating to you, you're equally to blame if the other person never brought it up and seeks sex elsewhere at some point. Like I said -- the importance of communication.

Do you mean that one must accommodate the irrational morality of one's time and partner?

Oh, shit fire and save matches, why don't you? Your perception of what your "time" or partner sees as necessary parameters of a relationship is irrelevant. If you want a relationship with that person, you will inquire as to those parameters and abide by them. If you find them irrational, then that person is probably not someone you should be dating. If you're not interested in what the other person thinks about such things, then you're not really looking for a "relationship", as that's deliberately avoiding "relating" to the other person.

But most of this forum is also "prudish and overly hung-up about sex".

That's bullshit. This forum is overflowing with people who are FAR from hung up about sex. You're trying to rationalize the desire tp have sex with anyone you want within the bounds of an exclusive relationship. That's a contradiction. Don't blame NSG for your failure to understand that.

Oh, it is. I'm simply ruminating on the likely reality that many people simply use the term "open relationship" to their advantage at the expense of another, or whom might be involved in such a relationship to the detriment of themselves and their partners. There's a lot of security to be had in an exclusive relationship, and for most people it's far, far easier to form deep bonds with one person than it is with multiple individuals.

Possibly, but I would think true polyamory is a rarity making true open relationships a relatively uncommon occurrence.

Rare as praeseodymium. I have discovered, by having several close friends enter into polyamorous relationships, that for what I've seen, polyamory = swinging with lip service to being in love with more than one person. True, I've not seen every so-called polyamorous relationship, but of the twenty or so I've seen, one has lasted longer than a year with the original marriage still intact. I think polyamory was a word/concept invented by swingers who wanted to give their hobby a patina of legitimacy. Horseshit. Just enjoy yourselves and quit trying to play it off. What other people set as the boundaries for their relationships means less than nothing to me unless I'm personally involved. Fool yourselves if you need to, but don't expect me to swallow that codswallop.

If I was in a "relationship", I can assure you I would be totally loyal to my partner; I simply could not do otherwise. Yet I have not found any way to rationalize this moral, and I will continually question society about it.

And yet several posts have been made giving you exactly what you claim to want. It's about trust and being loyal to your word and your partner. If you don't know if something you want to do is covered by what you've discussed, you need to ask about it. How difficult is that to understand? And if that sounds to you like "possessiveness", it isn't. It's consideration -- something which I already find lacking in most relationships without some fractious rule-lawyer trying to bleed it out of the definition of exclusivity.

You're a smart kid, Parkavenue. Stop chasing your own tail.

Yes, cheating is always wrong.

What activities constitute "cheating" are defined by mutual agreement in each individual relationship.

When my partner and I first started dating, "cheating" consisted of lying about your sexual or romantic involvements with others. We were both free to sleep around or date whomever we wanted, provided that we were 100% honest with each other.

Over time we decided to become a monogamous couple. In our relationship right now, it would be "cheating" for me to have any sexual contact with someone other than my partner, unless he had specifically given his direct permission ahead of time. (And the same rule applies equally to him.)

My general rule is, when in doubt, something is "cheating" if you really wouldn't want your partner to ever find out about it.

Is there any debate here? If it wasn't wrong it wouldn't be call cheating. If sleeping around is OK in the relationship by argreement it's not really cheating is it?

If you're not sure if it's OK because you and your partner 'never talked about it' or you're not 'exclusive', lemme put your mind to rest.

It's not OK.

Trust me.

If it's left unsaid, best to leave it undone. You wanna sleep with more than one person at a time, save yourself some grief and make sure all those other people are aware and agree with those actions before hand.