# Why do people cheat?



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

There are a multitude of people that I know who cheat, but I've never understood why. 

Recently it has hit me rather hard that people cheat when I came back 'home' for the weekend. There was a girl at my cousins house that is in a long distance relationship. In all honesty, I find her very attractive and probably even had a chance to have sex with her last night, but didn't. I already know that my older cousin has fooled around with her and it's my observation that she would gladly have sex with him whenever. I just chalked that up to sexual frustration because her boyfriend lives so far away. 

But tonight, a good friend of my cousins came down to hunt turkey's, he's married, and him and my cousin are going to go drive around and drink beer with some women. He plans to cheat, and I know this because my cousin gave him a condom in which they joked around about him not needing to knock somebody up. He's married. 

Why would you stab somebody in the back like that? I don't understand the reasoning...


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Some people just can't get enough. They just need more and more and more...


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

I started dating a girl for 3 weeks. I cheated on her with an ex girlfriend when i got pissed at the first girl.

I felt so incredibly crappy, I sat down and told her. She was not impressed, and dumped me. Which I expected.

that was 23 years ago. I have never forgotten that horrible, awful feeling.

Never cheated since.


----------



## Random User (Apr 5, 2013)

For sex.


----------



## EightySixOneMe (Jan 1, 2011)

Mental instability.


----------



## RandomNote (Apr 10, 2013)

Just how people are.


----------



## 172harmonic (Jan 19, 2012)

Because life is hard and so are they.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I think if a person cheats, it generally means that the person does not love or respect the person s/he is in a relationship with, but does not feel that leaving his/her partner will be beneficial.

This can occur for many reasons, some of which are unfair, and some of which make sense despite being horrible or tragic.

One partner might cheat on the other because s/he doesn't think any man/woman deserves respect. The cheater might be staying with the disrespected/unloved partner to use him/her. Staying may be simplest way to maintain access to sexual favors or material possessions, and cheating may be a way of getting such favors from more than one person at a time. 

At the other extreme, a person might disrespect his/her partner because the partner is abusive, and might be staying against his/her will because the abusive partner has threatened or intimidated him/her into it, or has intentionally created social or financial obstacles that prevent escape. The cheater might want to leave the abuser for someone non-abusive that s/he actually loves and respects, but leaving the abuser might be riskier or less feasible than seeking out temporary comfort from the person s/he is cheating with.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I honestly have no clue. Even when I had opportunities to do so, I didn't. Three of my exes cheated on me and none of them had any explanation or reason behind it. I mean, they did give me reasons, but they were so lame that I just dismissed them as bullshit and they just didn't want to say the truth. Sometimes people don't want to say the truth when they have moral conflicts due to what they've done. I think it's part cowardice and part indifference. 

Anyway, don't worry, dude. Not everybody is like that, even though it might seem so.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I found a rather disconcerting article about cheating... A quick Google search provided similar statistics in various different websites... :sad:

Five myths about cheating - Washington Post

I really thought the numbers were lower... Now I am kinda worried, too... If only I could switch my desire for emotional and physical intimacy off...


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

Most people lack self control when it comes to sex. Repeat offenders simply lack morals.

I do not intend to get married. I'll fall in love no doubt, probably several times. I'll have many relationships, but we all know that marriage is probably gonna fail. So why get married?


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

I have had the urges to do it,
Just like any human?

The mistakes come in beating yourself for it,
Accept feelings will be feelings,
And what you do with those feelings rather than getting them,
Is the thing that makes you a "cheater" or not.

So don't feel guilty for having urges,
It's a part of being human,
Feel proud for overcoming those urges for someone special 

My two cents!


----------



## Serak (Jul 26, 2012)

Never have, never will. I have an absolutely non-existent libido, so this isn't an issue for me. When I'm committed to someone, I'm _committed_. I've never felt the desire to cheat, nor the desire to break that commitment to my partner or the promise to myself. I guess I get off easy in that regard.

On the flip side, I'm very open with my approach to relationships. Monogamy is _not_ an easy thing for most people (as that linked article from @Diligent Procrastinator shows) and I understand that. Life's short, I don't mind experimenting with different ways to share a relationship with someone.

Another note might be that it's not _always_ a simple lack of respect. Do I think it exists at some level when someone cheats? Of course. If they break that agreed upon term of sexual exclusivity then a lack of respect certainly exists. You keep your belt on or you don't, the choice is entirely yours. However I also recognize that some people have very _real_ and serious issues with sexual self-control. It's a thing and a simple expectation to not do it anyway isn't always enough. Like with anything in life I think there are circumstances--however uncommon they may be--that make it more than a black-and-white violation of trust.

Or maybe I'm wrong! I might give the benefit of the doubt too readily.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

RandomNote said:


> Just how people are.


It's no more complicated than that. Some people just don't really care, don't feel or think about the ripples of their actions or their wants. Most people just want what they want and they'll want it regardless of other people.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

Except people who cheat when caught in terribly abusive relationships, cheats are full of shit. They're weak ass cowards who cheat for a variety of reasons including:-

1. Being too moronic to realize that relationships take a crap load of effort. So, they get jaded, and since they already lack balls, they take the easy way out and just start sleeping around.

2. Not having the gumption to tell a partner that they're no longer in love/no longer committed. Because breaking such 'news' involves conflict and most people would much rather avoid, avoid and avoid some more than make tough decisions, they take the easy way out and cheat. 

3. Some cheat because they're no longer 'attracted' to their partner. A lot of women deal with this bullshit, especially after pregnancy or during. This reason for cheating is among the more revolting ones. If a person completely lets themselves go, anger is understandable. If someone were being self-destructive and were unwilling to accept help, I'd leave them immediately. But, a lot of cheats who talk about not being 'attracted' to partners anymore aren't in extenuating/extreme situations.

I am sure there are other reasons people cheat. These are the most common excuses I have come across. Fortunately, I have never been cheated on. And, I will surely never cheat on a partner. When I am done with someone, I leave them instead of tucking my tails between legs and running to the 'other' man.


----------



## CrystallineSheep (Jul 8, 2012)

Some people are selfish and self-serving. It is surprising how many people are, "Me. Me. Me." They are pained over things they want for themselves. Some can't imagine having to give up something like being faithful to their partner. Some are just wired to think of how things affect them only.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Did it ever occur to you that humans are not a naturally monogamous species? Within the primate world, only a small minority of species copulate with one partner, and even then, there is a fair amount of going behind ones back.

Here's the set up - female picks mate, mate looks after offspring. Unbeknownst to the male however, the female is screwing better male specimens - that way, the offspring gets the best of both worlds, a father who helps provide for them and knockout genes.

On the male in of the spectrum, it really is as simple as him getting the opportunity to spread his wold oats; because males biologically can produce more offspring and don't have such a huge investment in each one, it's ideal for them to knock up as many females as possible, good genes or not. 

That is perhaps why we've never evolved truly monogamous behavior patterns, simply because staying faithful provides no real evolutionary advantage. I'd take that one step further and say the ideal that we marry one person and stay faithful to one person is a societal standard, most likely created during the rise of agriculture to ensure the fields men farmed didn't go to another mans child.

At the end of the day, we cheat because we're still animals. It's in our nature; only the more intelligent of us can see this behavior for what it really is and rise above it.


----------



## Random User (Apr 5, 2013)

^Hence why I don't often bother with relationships. Love is a concept so skewed in this society that I think it doesn't really have much meaning as opposed to before. That said, I've been in an open relationship before, and it was a rather nice one that lasted a long while. I don't think sex should be a lover-restricted ritual, because it's natural we get sexually attracted to more than one person (well, unless you're demisexual). I think it's perfectly plausible to love someone and still have recreational sex with others when the other partner isn't available.


----------



## CrystallineSheep (Jul 8, 2012)

But is it fair for someone who has been faithful and expected love and faithfulness from someone else, only to have them cheated on? That is the main issue. Open relationships are what they are. It is consensual that they will be seeing other people. A person who find themselves sticking with one person hard will go out and say, "This won't work. I need an open relationship". A person who cheats is a different case altogether in my book.


----------



## Ruru (Mar 9, 2013)

Lack of discipline most probably, Though I know some people who do it just for fun. That's just how humans are I guess.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> Because well, we don't? Did you not read the article? Cheating is as high as 70% in some sample populations.
> I'm not saying everyone should go cheating, because that's dishonest.
> I am saying to imply that monogamy is the ideal we should strive for when in practice it's not happening is quite silly. I don't like the idea that people should enforce absolutist rules, it's an ideal we infallible humans will never reach.
> 
> I'm in favour of serial monogamy because that's much more realistic. We should accept that people change partners and divorce a lot, because well, that's what happens.


Well by all means, if someone is ready to leave a relationship because they find it unfulfilling, I am fully for them departing. I did read the article; however, I still maintain that monogamy is my preference. I fail to see any absolute justification for it within our 'genes'. The article fails to establish cause, however. I am under the assumption that A LOT of these marriages are forced societally--you're pregnant? Get married. Been together for longer than a year? Get married. Have good sex? Get married. Have good financial reward? Get married. A lot of people get married/engage for the wrong reasons; why engage in something inherently monogamous if they are that ambivalent to begin with..


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Well by all means, if someone is ready to leave a relationship because they find it unfulfilling, I am fully for them departing. I did read the article; however, I still maintain that monogamy is my preference. I fail to see any absolute justification for it within our 'genes'. The article fails to establish cause, however. I am under the assumption that A LOT of these marriages are forced societally--you're pregnant? Get married. Been together for longer than a year? Get married. Have good sex? Get married. Have good financial reward? Get married. A lot of people get married/engage for the wrong reasons; why engage in something inherently monogamous if they are that ambivalent to begin with..


Probably because of societal pressure like you mentioned. I don't know what life would be like if we lived in a world that didn't enforce marriage... I presume some sort of commitment ceremony would still take place.

I'm not against marriage. It's the idea that cheating is "bad" therefore cheaters are "bad" also because I disagree with the idea that people really can overcome emotions as easily as you are trying to make out.

There is a whole body of research across many domains that would disagree with you too. The first one I can think of at the top of my head is ego depletion - the theory that self control resources are limited and having to exert a lot of self control over long periods of time makes people more likely to engage in all sorts of risky behaviour as a result (because they are less able to exert self control later on).


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Some of the quotes here; a lot are implying that justification is found as an inherent human trait through our genetic ancestry, going as far as saying monogamy isn't neurologically 'wired' to be. I didn't direct quote anyone on it because there's more than 2 people with the argument.
> 
> It is; however, to some degree, I think it's damaging to the ego. We are losing part of what we invested in (the sanctitude of our bonds--be it through marriage or otherwise), which in turn hurts us. I don't see many people "proud" of cheating; it seems to be something done is shame as a transgression.


I think this is a big problem that keeps this kind of discussion from moving beyond the stage of finger pointing v.s. biology.

Firstly, there's nothing sacred about any of our relationships, in fact nothing is inherently sacred about anything. The only thing that gives any kind of value to any of our relationships is what a person is able to and willing to devote to them. When you realize that you can see there are a plethora of reasons why a person would cheat and just as many different ways for a person to react to it.


----------



## Trinidad (Apr 16, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> There is a whole body of research across many domains that would disagree with you too. The first one I can think of at the top of my head is *ego depletion* - the theory that self control resources are limited and having to exert a lot of self control over long periods of time makes people more likely to engage in all sorts of risky behaviour as a result (because they are less able to exert self control later on).


I'll just leave this link here. It's an interesting, well researched article about ego depletion.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

android654 said:


> I think this is a big problem that keeps this kind of discussion from moving beyond the stage of finger pointing v.s. biology.
> 
> Firstly, there's nothing sacred about any of our relationships, in fact nothing is inherently sacred about anything. The only thing that gives any kind of value to any of our relationships is what a person is able to and willing to devote to them. When you realize that you can see there are a plethora of reasons why a person would cheat and just as many different ways for a person to react to it.


Couldn't it be argued that everything aside from what is edible and can immediately clothe is inherently valueless? 

I wouldn't contend that. However, I do believe we have placed a value on things to begin with. By allowing one to enter a social pact (e.g. marriage), that DOES place a value on something, only to later injure the pact seems like the err here. If the person is upfront about desiring their polygamy and enters into a relationship on such a stipulation, I see no issue at all. It's not something of which I would partake, but it certainly is not 'unreasonable' because they already stated they stance/reason.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Trinidad said:


> I'll just leave this link here. It's an interesting, well researched article about ego depletion.


Shit got real.

Bill Burr was right. 

(from 7:35)


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Shit got real.


You mean presenting actual facts instead of speculation about random values that not everyone holds anyway?

Bring it.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> Probably because of societal pressure like you mentioned. I don't know what life would be like if we lived in a world that didn't enforce marriage... I presume some sort of commitment ceremony would still take place.
> 
> I'm not against marriage. It's the idea that cheating is "bad" therefore cheaters are "bad" also because I disagree with the idea that people really can overcome emotions as easily as you are trying to make out.
> 
> *There is a whole body of research across many domains that would disagree with you too. The first one I can think of at the top of my head is ego depletion - the theory that self control resources are limited and having to exert a lot of self control over long periods of time makes people more likely to engage in all sorts of risky behaviour as a result (because they are less able to exert self control later on).*


I'm sure there is, but I don't see how that would be 'disagreeing' with me. 

I am not saying the urge isn't there; I am saying that to adhere to the urge is a choice no less, as just it is a choice of whether or not I use a gun I just bought to blow my enemy's dome off because he has been provoking me for quite sometime. I think we can both agree that not suppressing an urge to kill/maim in the sight of egregious behavior is 'wrong'. Why?--because we've, as a society, engaged in a social pact, be it through religion/laws/etc, that says we will not act in such a fashion. 

Similarly, when we engage other social pacts (marriage) with God (for those that believe) and others, we are agreeing to these 'rules'. As just I would not expect someone who was gravely annoyed to kill someone, I wouldn't expect them to cheat because they have engaged in a social pact. If no social pact existed (e.g. they SAY they want polygamy and cannot handle commitment) then there's no issue whatsoever.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I'm sure there is, but I don't see how that would be 'disagreeing' with me.
> 
> I am not saying the urge isn't there; I am saying that to adhere to the urge *is a choice no less*, as just it is a choice of whether or not I use a gun I just bought to blow my enemy's dome off because he has been provoking me for quite sometime. I think we can both agree that not suppressing an urge to kill/maim in the sight of egregious behavior is 'wrong'. Why?--because we've, as a society, engaged in a social pact, be it through religion/laws/etc, that says we will not act in such a fashion.
> 
> Similarly, when we engage other social pacts (marriage) with God (for those that believe) and others, we are agreeing to these 'rules'. As just I would not expect someone who was gravely annoyed to kill someone, I wouldn't expect them to cheat because they have engaged in a social pact. *If no social pact existed (e.g. they SAY they want polygamy and cannot handle commitment)* then there's no issue whatsoever.


I knew you were religious the second I read your "higher" comment. Sigh.

The whole point of ego depletion is that the ability to make choices is impaired.

Polygamy is still social pact, it's just not as "legitimate" to some people.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> I knew you were religious the second I read your "higher" comment. Sigh.
> 
> The whole point of ego depletion is that the ability to make choices is impaired.
> 
> Polygamy is still social pact, it's just not as "legitimate" to some people.


Actually, I'm not. I have a whole thread in the debate section against organized religion in which I proverbially annoy the shit of of our religious denizens with my doubting and opining. The use of the word 'higher' was not in that vein whatsoever. I'm also homosexual. So yeah...

The point: I didn't say it wasn't legitimate. I said I don't agree with it. If the person is open about their polygamous desires and engages another who agrees to it, then there's no injury done. As such, I would see no reason to chide them. However, when people enter social pacts of monogamy with a person, then yes, it is 'illegitimate/wrong' on the grounds of breaching the pact.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Well, if they are acting rationally within the framework of their already existing relationship, then because they _can_ and because they think they can either hide it from their partner or get away with it if their partner finds out. It is really a matter of cost-benefit analysis in that case.

Or, if they are not acting rationally within that very same framework, then maybe because they reject the relationship framework or do not care about it. People may also be very pre-reflective about it and not think about the consequences of their actions, which, I think, happens more often than some people are willing to believe. 

As to the actual, emotional motivation to cheat, that could be anything: from a strong sex drive to emotional issues and from a sudden infatuation to Machiavellian social manipulation. It could be calculated and cold, but also loving and warm; this really depends on the person and the situation.

Cheating is very particular and even personal. So, I do not really think you can find one ultimate answer to the question as to _why_ people in general cheat.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Actually, I'm not. I have a whole thread in the debate section against organized religion in which I proverbially annoy the shit of of our religious denizens with my doubting and opining. The use of the word 'higher' was not in that vein whatsoever. I'm also homosexual. So yeah...
> 
> The point: I didn't say it wasn't legitimate. I said I don't agree with it. If the person is open about their polygamous desires and engages another who agrees to it, then there's no injury done. As such, I would see no reason to chide them. However, when people enter social pacts of monogamy with a person, then yes, it is 'illegitimate/wrong' on the grounds of breaching the pact.


So the issue is of disrespecting the pact and not the cheating itself? In which case, we've already addressed that issue; I'm pretty sure people are going to engage in some form of commitment ceremony be it marriage or another alternative.

However, breaking pacts is something people do all the time. Is that a sign of weakness/ego/whatever or is that a sign we are placing value on the wrong things?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> So the issue is of disrespecting the pact and not the cheating itself? In which case, we've already addressed that issue; I'm pretty sure people are going to engage in some form of commitment ceremony be it marriage or another alternative.
> 
> *However, breaking pacts is something people do all the time. Is that a sign of weakness/ego/whatever or is that a sign we are placing value on the wrong things?*


Yes, and just like our murder example, there are consequences. We don't immediately absolve the person of consequences because "people do it sometimes...". Likewise, as another social construct (monogamous relations), I see no reason to just say "well, shit happens". Don't engage in the social construct to begin with IMO. As to the later question, I can see it going either way, but it has no real bearing on the core issue which is: Don't engage in what you don't actually believe/cannot agree to.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

- Some just lack empathy and see sex as a sport. Combine those two things and you have the serial cheater.

- Some are cheaters of opportunity; something presents itself and a very -selfish- and -weak- person gives in, because apparently an ego boost is more important than romantic integrity.

- There are cheaters who have empathy but have lost a connection with their partner, which leaves them open to other people. (I think that as long as that bond is maintained, people don't even have the -desire- for others). What are some ways to assure this: abuse, lying about the important things, withholding sex. Why do people "stay together" after the bond is shattered and they start wanting others? Well, love isn't so black and white. You spend years with a person, and though you may feel like something has been lost between you two, the love isn't completely dead, or hell, maybe you're just used to them in your life and you don't like change.

I find the third more interesting, because I have experienced it myself. I'm no player, and if I'm happy with someone, I don't notice anyone else in that way.. but break the bond and its like, suddenly I -see- other guys again, as potentials. I don't consider myself amoral, or hurtful, or weak.. selfish in ways but not tremendously. 

Add withholding of sex, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Cheating is awful, people get hurt, but its not as black and white as a lot of people have made it out to be, and not every cheater is evil.

My personal story: At first, the sex was regular, and it was good. I think that sex plays a role in making you feel closeness with someone. Theres some science to back that up (oxytocin bonding). About a year into it, it slowed down, then at some point the novelty of sex for him had worn off, and I was noticing weeks going by - no sex. A friend of mine suggested porn addiction. My response was, he doesn't us- Ah. Perhaps he does. Indeed he did. The excuse all along was "low sex-drive" but then he eventually confessed that the relationship did have a sex-life, its just that I wasn't involved in it anymore. It was all about porn. 

I considered leaving. I'd actually been in the process of making plans to.. but then I remembered the time I'd spent apart from him one month, and started thinking a lot, realized I would just miss him too much. There was still some kind of love there even though I mostly wanted to rip his spine out. I asked him what I'm supposed to do, and he was so resentful of me even trying to communicate the sex issue with him, that he said he doesn't care what I do as long as I never bring any of this up again. 

So basically, no sex, no communication about sex. Now, I was privy to his intimacy issues in the beginning, but I have dated people with intimacy issues before, and we eventually just work it out. (I'm pretty good at this.) But this was a special case, and I won't really go into detail. 

I asked why porn over sex, and basically he said he doesn't have to put as much energy into it, so, laziness and selfishness. People will say that porn isn't cheating, but clearly in this case thats exactly what it felt like. It was being chosen over me. I'd never dealt with that before. I'd dated mostly guys who actually like putting the effort into sex, and some who can't get enough. 

For a long time I tried different things to see if I could get him interested in sex instead of porn again, but in all the information I'd read, getting over a porn addiction requires abstaining from porn for a few months and resuming regular sexual activity. He said that he was completely unwilling to ever give up porn, so that didn't work. In essence, he chose it over me.

Now, you can imagine I was feeling really awesome about myself at this point.

I was becoming closer to a male friend, and a playful flirtation started. It felt good. I found him attractive, and it just snowballed so quickly and unpredictably, that I found myself in the throes of an intense lust. For 2ish years, I'd never come close to stepping outside an increasingly sexless relationship, for sex - but after everything, his resignation; lack of intimacy, lack of willingness to fix it - I said, fuck it, and fuck me. 

I think its great when people find that person who fulfills them in such a way that they feel like they don't even need anyone else. I think its beautiful when that lasts. Unfortunately that doesn't happen for everyone. So many things go into having it actually work. Sometimes you fall in love with someone whos not perfect, and you still have emotional needs, physical needs. I think that people want to tie it up neatly as: either you do this, or this; you aren't getting what you want, just leave -- but its not always that simple, because emotions are messy and people become entangled. At some point, many people stop holding out, waiting for a soulmate, or some perfect match. 

And well, so, I am a cheater. I'm not without morals, and I'm not without empathy.. my point is that sometimes you just find yourself in a FUBARed situation.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Yes, and just like our murder example, there are consequences. We don't immediately absolve the person of consequences because "people do it sometimes...". Likewise, as another social construct (monogamous relations), I see no reason to just say "well, shit happens". Don't engage in the social construct to begin with IMO. As to the later question, I can see it going either way, but it has no real bearing on the core issue which is: *Don't engage in what you don't actually believe/cannot agree to.*


Well... most people do believe in monogamy, but a lot of people also cheat. For a multitude of reasons.

See above.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

@_Promethea_ 

Interesting; however, in that case (if I were the guy), I'd actually say it was Okay for you to go out and about as long as you didn't involve 'cheating' on an emotional level--if that makes sense. Why? Obviously he had porn addiction; he admitted to not wanting to have sex because of it--how else are you supposed to be satisfied? I am not him, so I can't say if he would've agreed to this. But in an example such as this, my only "critique" of the "cheater" is that you ask. Once you get permission, it really isn't "cheating".
@_JungleDisco_ 

I am not saying people are without their reasons; I just don't condone the lying/deceit. If you want to do something, ask. I know of a Gay couple in which, similar to @_Promethea_'s issue, had a partner who was currently not able to get 'erect' or 'aroused' due to medication for depression. He knew full and well (had permitted) that I sleep with his boyfriend but: they both clearly represented the issue as something that was permitted/not to be confused for emotional bonding. I still talk to them, but ever since their sex life rejuvenated, my sexual presence is no longer needed/requested. I don't view this as cheating.. In the OP, the wife is oblivious to this.

Stealing a Buggati Veyeron (because it's oh so magical) from a person is wrong, but if they give it to you :crazy:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> @_Promethea_
> 
> Interesting; however, in that case (if I were the guy), I'd actually say it was Okay for you to go out and about as long as you didn't involve 'cheating' on an emotional level--if that makes sense. Why? Obviously he had porn addiction; he admitted to not wanting to have sex because of it--how else are you supposed to be satisfied? I am not him, so I can't say if he would've agreed to this. But in an example such as this, my only "critique" of the "cheater" is that you ask. Once you get permission, it really isn't "cheating".
> @_JungleDisco_
> ...


It wouldn't be cheating if one asked beforehand. The reason it's cheating is because they didn't ask. And there is a lot of reasons why asking beforehand is impractical, namely, what if the opportunity presented itself right there and then?

In that situation someone not in the state of ego depletion, could turn it down, but what if they were in the state of ego depletion? Is this person bad also? They didn't technically lie, because they didn't know.

I'm not condoning the act, it's just I think to say that cheaters should ask before they do it, is well, unrealistic.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Couldn't it be argued that everything aside from what is edible and can immediately clothe is inherently valueless?
> 
> I wouldn't contend that. However, I do believe we have placed a value on things to begin with. By allowing one to enter a social pact (e.g. marriage), that DOES place a value on something, only to later injure the pact seems like the err here. If the person is upfront about desiring their polygamy and enters into a relationship on such a stipulation, I see no issue at all. It's not something of which I would partake, but it certainly is not 'unreasonable' because they already stated they stance/reason.


Ignoring that physical needs are different than social or emotional one; food rots and fibers tear. Just like all things value and its worth to the individual shifts over time.

What I think you're trying to say only serves to complicate the issue. While social norms and conventions call out to people, they do not define nor rule a person. Simply because someone enters into something it does not mean that they will always feel beholden to it's original agreements. Many people can be insincere with their emotions or intentions for benign or malicious reasons and find themselves in relationships where the other person is much more involved. This is more commonly the case than people are willing to admit.

A billion different things could transpire in the course of a relationship that will make someone feel compelled to do something, either at the expense of others or with no thought to them at all. Monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, are all rather static when compared to the dynamic nature of a single person. Just because you have a boyfriend or a wife who whispers sweet nothings into your ear it doesn't mean that it holds any true significance to them. 

I'm not excusing nor condoning what people choose to do in this area, but I think your position distorts reality because takes what could be a discussion and turns it into a soapbox to talk about an act where your personal values my not even apply. In other words, value can't really be something used to justify or demonize someone in this area because the concept of value you try to apply simply does not fit on a grand scale.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> It wouldn't be cheating if one asked beforehand. The reason it's cheating is because they didn't ask. And there is a lot of reasons why asking beforehand is impractical, namely, what if the opportunity presented itself right there and then?
> 
> In that situation someone not in the state of ego depletion, could turn it down, but what if they were in the state of ego depletion? Is this person bad also? They didn't technically lie, because they didn't know.
> 
> I'm not condoning the act, it's just I think to say that cheaters should ask before they do it, is well, unrealistic.


This would be up to the person in which they entered the pact with. As they did break the pact (as just a person breaks a law), it is up to the person to make the decision of whether to forgive or not (as just one can decide to press or not press charges). This is presented very differently in the OP's post: in the OPs post, the person has a very premeditated (they clearly have intentions and no problem with them) and almost lack of scruples in what they are about to do. It's 'planned'--it's aggravated. 



android654 said:


> Ignoring that physical needs are different than social or emotional one; food rots and fibers tear. Just like all things value and its worth to the individual shifts over time.
> 
> What I think you're trying to say only serves to complicate the issue. While social norms and conventions call out to people, they do not define nor rule a person. Simply because someone enters into something it does not mean that they will always feel beholden to it's original agreements. Many people can be insincere with their emotions or intentions for benign or malicious reasons and find themselves in relationships where the other person is much more involved. This is more commonly the case than people are willing to admit.
> 
> ...


But we do enter social contracts with people all the time; if we do not intend on keeping them or need to breach them, most have clauses for handling such occasions. Similarly, I think a social pact of a relationship is due the same respect. As I said, I believe in monogamy (as I've made a thread about it), but I am fully and able to comprehend that others do not. I am also willing and able to believe that people assume this to sometimes be what they want only to later reconsider. In these situations, it would be best to consult the partner. If you're at a point where you cannot consult the person, feel the desire to cheat, etc, then I don't really see much of a purpose for the relationship anymore--communication AND sexual desire is broken. 

The OP is a case of the latter: the wife is not privy to the information; it is NOT some mistake (in fact, the person takes a condom and premeditates it). Putting empathy aside, if it were of any other type of contract, this breach would have dire consequences. I see no reason to treat it differently.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> This would be up to the person in which they entered the pact with. As they did break the pact (as just a person breaks a law), it is up to the person to make the decision of whether to forgive or not (as just one can decide to press or not press charges). This is presented very differently in the OP's post: in the OPs post, the person has a very premeditated (they clearly have intentions and no problem with them) and almost lack of scruples in what they are about to do. It's 'planned'--it's aggravated.


What I am debating with you at the minute isn't the act itself - I do not agree with cheating - but moreso how incoherent these values are.

If someone plans to cheat in advance, or someone cheats because the opportunity was there, is one really worse than the other? The pact is still broken either way.

Therefore, is it not better to suggest that cheating happens, for a multitude of reasons and instead of demonising cheaters, we should accept that lifetime monogamy isn't something we are built for...

Murder is different, the consequences of taking one's life carries A LOT more weight than breaking their heart and/or breaking a pact.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> But we do enter social contracts with people all the time; if we do not intend on keeping them or need to breach them, most have clauses for handling such occasions. Similarly, I think a social pact of a relationship is due the same respect. As I said, I believe in monogamy (as I've made a thread about it), but I am fully and able to comprehend that others do not. I am also willing and able to believe that people assume this to sometimes be what they want only to later reconsider. In these situations, it would be best to consult the partner. If you're at a point where you cannot consult the person, feel the desire to cheat, etc, then I don't really see much of a purpose for the relationship anymore--communication AND sexual desire is broken.
> 
> The OP is a case of the latter: the wife is not privy to the information; it is NOT some mistake (in fact, the person takes a condom and premeditates it). Putting empathy aside, if it were of any other type of contract, this breach would have dire consequences. I see no reason to treat it differently.



The very fact that we all can and do break social contracts with people all the time displays that it has no value on its own but the value people are willing to give it. The concept of that value and the desires linked to these acts shift all of the time in various directions. By believing that there's some ever-present significance to the relationship simply because it's a relationship is how people get blindsided by infidelity or an unhappy partner. Having some kind of title doesn't protect you from anything and I think acknowledging that allows you to see this clearer rather than being incensed by an act.

The only reason business and legal contracts have consequences that social contracts don't is because there are institutions dedicated to keeping people in line. If you go back, before these institutions policed people's behavior, you'd see that even legal contracts only hold the value people put into them. A persons word is only worth the faith you're willing to extend to that person, and words of affirmation are just that. They're only just words.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> This would be up to the person in which they entered the pact with. As they did break the pact (as just a person breaks a law), it is up to the person to make the decision of whether to forgive or not (as just one can decide to press or not press charges). This is presented very differently in the OP's post: in the OPs post, the person has a very premeditated (they clearly have intentions and no problem with them) and almost lack of scruples in what they are about to do. It's 'planned'--it's aggravated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that theres some kind of I guess, unspoken contract of sorts in a relationship, and people assume "we're in love, and don't want anyone else.." and I think that if a person feels like they might want others, they should let their partner know so that they don't keep assuming wrong. It seems to me that a lot of relationships just end up this trap where someone doesn't even realize they're living some illusion. Their partner wants them to believe a happy lie, while they ride it out for as long as they can, just using the other person. 

I have often thought, why do people want to screw around but not permit their partner to do so (one of those relationship illusions). Why can't they be forthcoming and agree just to have an open relationship. But, its all about selfishness. I remember feeling like some shelved toy at times, in the situation I described. He didn't care to play with it anymore but "its mine, don't touch it."

Anyway, yeah, the dishonesty hurts as much as the cheating, makes it more impactful and you feel like you don't even really know them as a result.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I agree that theres some kind of I guess, unspoken contract of sorts in a relationship...


What? Am I exceptional in that I spell out the rules of a relationship when entering it? In that I do not agree to enter a relationship without getting the other to agree with me about the meaning of the relationship status? I mean, it seems so natural to me that you would do that when deciding that you are "in a relationship". My first question would always be "And what does that mean - being in a relationship?". 

Why would one use meaningless or ambiguous terms?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> What I am debating with you at the minute isn't the act itself - I do not agree with cheating - but moreso how incoherent these values are.
> 
> If someone plans to cheat in advance, or someone cheats because the opportunity was there, is one really worse than the other? The pact is still broken either way.
> 
> ...


I am using murder because it grabs attention, not because it is the only social pact that we adhere. I could go with stealing, maiming, extortion, and a bunch of other social contracts of which we adhere. Don't get too hung up on the examples. 

The question: is that different? Yes. Very. One is a spur of 'ego depletion' or lapse of reason/indiscretion; the other is a a premeditated, almost callous disregard, of a contract. If I go out, drive about, and accidentally hit you with my car vs. going out and cracking your hip along my trans-am at just the right angle to keep you from walking for a few months (I calculated it on my whiteboard at home or something), there'd be a huge difference in deliberation. Likewise, there's a huge difference in sheerly not giving a fuck about a pact and having a moment of indiscretion. As just every case will be different (as with all pacts), it is impossible to say where the line is drawn, hence we have lawyers. But more egregious attempts (e.g. I get a condom and laugh about how I'm going to cheat on my wife) is probably going to get as much defense as me slamming you in the hip on purpose. 

As to your "we are not built for X"; I wasn't built to fly, but that certainly won't stop me from getting on a plane. I am not going to entertain the nature appeals.



android654 said:


> The very fact that we all can and do break social contracts with people all the time displays that it has no value on its own but the value people are willing to give it. The concept of that value and the desires linked to these acts shift all of the time in various directions. By believing that there's some ever-present significance to the relationship simply because it's a relationship is how people get blindsided by infidelity or an unhappy partner. Having some kind of title doesn't protect you from anything and I think acknowledging that allows you to see this clearer rather than being incensed by an act.
> 
> The only reason business and legal contracts have consequences that social contracts don't is because there are institutions dedicated to keeping people in line. If you go back, before these institutions policed people's behavior, you'd see that even legal contracts only hold the value people put into them. A persons word is only worth the faith you're willing to extend to that person, and words of affirmation are just that. They're only just words.


Perhaps I have stated my claim to stiffly: I am not saying that the title in and of itself bars infidelity; I am saying that communication is vital and that what is communicated should be true. As I said, if a party or parties express their desire for other ventures, and both agree with that, then there is no problem. By entering into marriage, people DO agree to this. It's the fact that they stated that they agree, not the fact that its titled "marriage". I would say the same for anything a person says as a pact. And for society to exist, there has to be social pacts that all follow in order for progress. Society is built upon these pacts, despite them sometimes being breached. We have adapted many consequences for breaches, and most follow these rules (not just laws).

I don't wish to change the opinions of those that want polygamous relations. I don't agree, but you are setting yourself up for and accepting it from the get go--there is no lie. My only issue is the lying within cheating, folks--lies that have severe consequences.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Protagoras said:


> What? Am I exceptional in that I spell out the rules of a relationship when entering it? In that I do not agree to enter a relationship without getting the other to agree to a certain meaning of the relationship status? I mean, it seems so natural to me that you would do that when deciding that you are "in a relationship". My first question would always be "And what does that mean - being in a relationship?".
> 
> Why would one use meaningless or ambiguous terms?


I fully support that. Its been my experience though that many people just assume. I have been a bit confused at times at the responses I have gotten from a guy I'm dating, once I start to get into that whole discussion. One of them even flipped out on me during it. I was trying to explain how a relationship has a foundation and how that foundation has certain values built into it. Apparently that was too 'hard-line' for him to handle, like I was some relationship rules nazi. To me it was simple, but to him it wasn't.. and I ended up thinking, seriously glad we had this talk.. because now I know that he doesn't think anything but intercourse counts as an infidelity. O_O


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Protagoras said:


> What? Am I exceptional in that I spell out the rules of a relationship when entering it? In that I do not agree to enter a relationship without getting the other to agree to a certain meaning of the relationship status? I mean, it seems so natural to me that you would do that when deciding that you are "in a relationship". My first question would always be "And what does that mean - being in a relationship?".
> 
> Why would one use meaningless or ambiguous terms?


You know what's really sexy and romantic? When you get that little mix of excitement and anxiety from meeting someone you really like, sit them down and go, "hey, lets draft the rules and regulations for our relationship and how we're allowed to interact with strangers and each other!" It kills the excitement of it all to take something that should be dynamic and organic and turn it into a business discussion. Most people like to feel their way through and hope their wishes will be fulfilled. It's just how people are.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

android654 said:


> You know what's really sexy and romantic? When you get that little mix of excitement and anxiety from meeting someone you really like, sit them down and go, "hey, lets draft the rules and regulations for our relationship and how we're allowed to interact with strangers and each other!" It kills the excitement of it all to take something that should be dynamic and organic and turn it into a business discussion. Most people like to feel their way through and hope their wishes will be fulfilled. It's just how people are.


That is a pretty normal response I have experienced. I have to say though, there are certain things you don't wanna "just find out" several months into it. D:


----------



## Trinidad (Apr 16, 2010)

Protagoras said:


> What? Am I exceptional in that I spell out the rules of a relationship when entering it? In that I do not agree to enter a relationship without getting the other to agree with me about the meaning of the relationship status? I mean, it seems so natural to me that you would do that when deciding that you are "in a relationship". My first question would always be "And what does that mean - being in a relationship?".
> 
> Why would one use meaningless or ambiguous terms?


No, I do this too. People are always surprised when I bring up defining the rules and intention of 'the relationship', it baffles me.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I am using murder because it grabs attention, not because it is the only social pact that we adhere. I could go with stealing, maiming, extortion, and a bunch of other social contracts of which we adhere. Don't get too hung up on the examples.
> 
> The question: is that different? Yes. Very. One is a spur of 'ego depletion' or lapse of reason/indiscretion; the other is a a premeditated, almost callous disregard, of a contract. If I go out, drive about, and accidentally hit you with my car vs. going out and cracking your hip along my trans-am at just the right angle to keep you from walking for a few months (I calculated it on my whiteboard at home or something), there'd be a huge difference in deliberation. Likewise, there's a huge difference in sheerly not giving a fuck about a pact and having a moment of indiscretion. As just every case will be different (as with all pacts), it is impossible to say where the line is drawn, hence we have lawyers. But more egregious attempts (e.g. I get a condom and laugh about how I'm going to cheat on my wife) is probably going to get as much defense as me slamming you in the hip on purpose.
> 
> As to your "we are not built for X"; I wasn't built to fly, but that certainly won't stop me from getting on a plane. *I am not going to entertain the nature appeals.*


Appeals to nature are fallacies, humans not being built for monogamy is pretty much fact. Not just because other animals do it but because it's in our biology.

For example, men after ejaculation experience a decrease in their attraction to women, we were wired this way so that men are tempted to seek out multiples partners to then increase chances of producing offspring.

Also, when women orgasm they release oxytocins to create emotional bonds between themselves and their partners... It's not a stretch to say that a relationship in which there is no sex is likely to result in cheating because well there is less of an emotional bond now that oxytocins are no longer being produced. @_Promethea_ gave an excellent example.

If mother nature wanted us to be in relationships to honour a pact, our oxytocin levels would remain high independent of the amount of sex we are getting, but this is not the case.

Do you want me to go on?




> Perhaps I have stated my claim to stiffly: I am not saying that the title in and of itself bars infidelity; I am saying that communication is vital and that what is communicated should be true. As I said, if a party or parties express their desire for other ventures, and both agree with that, then there is no problem. *By entering into marriage, people DO agree to this*. It's the fact that they stated that they agree, not the fact that its titled "marriage". I would say the same for anything a person says as a pact. And for society to exist, there has to be social pacts that all follow in order for progress. Society is built upon these pacts, despite them sometimes being breached. We have adapted many consequences for breaches, and most follow these rules (not just laws).
> 
> I don't wish to change the opinions of those that want polygamous relations. I don't agree, but you are setting yourself up for and accepting it from the get go--there is no lie. My only issue is the lying within cheating, folks--lies that have severe consequences.


We are going round in circles at this point. @android654 said it beautifully, I could promise to love someone forever and sign a contract that says I promise this, but will this be the reality? Probably not, no.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I fully support that. Its been my experience though that many people just assume. I have been a bit confused at times at the responses I have gotten from a guy I'm dating, once I start to get into that whole discussion. One of them even flipped out on me during it. I was trying to explain how a relationship has a foundation and how that foundation has certain values built into it. Apparently that was too 'hard-line' for him to handle, like I was some relationship rules nazi. To me it was simple, but to him it wasn't.. and I ended up thinking, seriously glad we had this talk.. because now I know that he doesn't think anything but intercourse counts as an infidelity. O_O


Indeed, my girlfriend and I have made these rules very clear to one another; and we keep reassessing the rules when the need arises or when we feel like discussing it. It is very important to understand where each other's limits are, because these may not be obvious to the other. Assuming that the other has the exact same values as you have and translates these values into similar norms as you do is a form of naivety; and assuming that you do not need rules at all is making yourself vulnerable to the whim of the other. People should, at the very least, discuss what matters most generally to them, which probably includes intercourse with others, kissing others, certain sexual or sexually arousing acts performed for others, pornograpy, etc. Rules should probably be made with regard to all of these and the participants in the relationship should always be open to reassessing the previously established rules. But you need a clear and elaborated permission from the other to actually change the rules, of course. It's very difficult for me to understand why people would not be concerned with this.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Protagoras said:


> What? Am I exceptional in that I spell out the rules of a relationship when entering it? In that I do not agree to enter a relationship without getting the other to agree with me about the meaning of the relationship status? I mean, it seems so natural to me that you would do that when deciding that you are "in a relationship". My first question would always be "And what does that mean - being in a relationship?".
> 
> Why would one use meaningless or ambiguous terms?


This x1000. I do the same. I am not here for games and shit; if I wanted that, I have a computer that's much better at it, and, once frustrated, can be turned off, reformatted, and disposed of in the most creative of ways :crazy:



JungleDisco said:


> Appeals to nature are fallacies, humans not being built for monogamy is pretty much fact. Not just because other animals do it but because it's in our biology.
> 
> For example, men after ejaculation experience a decrease in their attraction to women, we were wired this way so that men are tempted to seek out multiples partners to then increase chances of producing offspring.
> 
> ...


I think you're still not getting the point: we aren't wired for a lot in which we do in society, yet do it anyway. When I am angered, I should have the right to kill/maim/engage in a fight with you. I have a rush of adrenaline that gives me an enhanced ability to act in that moment. Why not? My biology says so. This was my first retort. And it isn't 'proven'; there's a few studies that say that 70% of X do this (I didn't see the causes), but that still leaves 30%. Statistics aren't proof. Furthermore, if 99% of people want to beat the shit out of someone because our biology allows it, it is still wrong socially and has consequences. 

Lastly, I am not saying that you have to enter a contract forever, just communicate your desires/dislikes. How is that so hard? And yes, we are going in circles at this point; it is best to just agree that we don't agree.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Perhaps I have stated my claim to stiffly: I am not saying that the title in and of itself bars infidelity; I am saying that communication is vital and that what is communicated should be true. As I said, if a party or parties express their desire for other ventures, and both agree with that, then there is no problem. By entering into marriage, people DO agree to this. It's the fact that they stated that they agree, not the fact that its titled "marriage". I would say the same for anything a person says as a pact. And for society to exist, there has to be social pacts that all follow in order for progress. Society is built upon these pacts, despite them sometimes being breached. We have adapted many consequences for breaches, and most follow these rules (not just laws).
> 
> I don't wish to change the opinions of those that want polygamous relations. I don't agree, but you are setting yourself up for and accepting it from the get go--there is no lie. My only issue is the lying within cheating, folks--lies that have severe consequences.


You say you don't but you turn around and think a marital clause makes the relationship valued by both parties. People marry for status, say "I do" for money, or simply get married not to be alone. Saying something doesn't give an act worth to the person taking part in it nor are promises so airtight that they can predict a person's feelings down the road.

Who said cheating is fundamentally about sex? I don't know what poly want but I don't think having that as your preferred relationship style makes you more prone to cheating than a monogamous person. Some people seek attention from others, acceptance or inclusion that's denied by whomever they're with.



Promethea said:


> That is a pretty normal response I have experienced. I have to say though, there are certain things you don't wanna "just find out" several months into it. D:


True, but nasty surprises are a part of life and we can't hide from all of them. Even by having some kind of interview beforehand, you're still relying on somoene's honesty and their faith in you which are things that can always be feigned in the moment.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

JungleDisco said:


> If someone plans to cheat in advance, or someone cheats because the opportunity was there, is one really worse than the other? The pact is still broken either way.


I think it is. One requires deliberate planning and sustained motivation, the other is a circumstantial thing.

If I'm in an argument with a friend and they say deeply hurtful things, if I thought it was a caused by the emotional situation then I'll eventually forgive them, but if I think it was a spiteful 'plan' then I would end the friendship. (I actually have been in that scenario)


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I think you're still not getting the point: we aren't wired for a lot in which we do in society, yet do it anyway. When I am angered, I should *have the right to* kill/maim/engage in a fight with you. I have a rush of adrenaline that gives me an enhanced ability to act in that moment. Why not? My biology says so. This was my first retort. And it isn't 'proven'; there's a few studies that say that 70% of X do this (I didn't see the causes), but that still leaves 30%. *Statistics aren't proof.* Furthermore, if 99% of people want to beat the shit out of someone because our biology allows it, it is still wrong socially and has consequences.
> 
> Lastly, I am not saying that you have to enter a contract forever, just communicate your desires/dislikes. How is that so hard? And yes, we are going in circles at this point; it is best to just agree that we don't agree.


Wow, there is a lot in the post that ur...?

I understand you very clearly, your values are incredibly idealistic. And that's been proven several times, in the face of facts you keep dismissing because "statistics isn't real", great. Okay, we've put statistics away, but the biology still remains in tact.

- Having the right to do something is different to whether or not you actually do something, so that point is moot.

- I have shown you that communication isn't always possible before the act.

What's keeping this argument in circles is you keep bringing up the same points.
- I have given many counter examples to your claims so instead of accept it, you just revert back to previous ones.

Fact is, ego depletion exists, and in a state of ego depletion people do a lot of stupid things, murder included that's why we have second-degree murder.

I'm not trying to say cheating is right, I'm just saying your values concerning this issue is incoherent, and i have demonstrated that many, many times already.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I think it is. One requires deliberate planning and sustained motivation, the other is a circumstantial thing.
> 
> If I'm in an argument with a friend and they say deeply hurtful things, if I thought it was a caused by the emotional situation then I'll eventually forgive them, but if I think it was a spiteful 'plan' then I would end the friendship. (I actually have been in that scenario)


So planning to cheat is worse than not planning to cheat? Okay, try telling that to someone who's been cheated on because the opportunity presented itself to their partner.

Good luck with that conversation.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> Wow, there is a lot in the post that ur...?
> 
> I understand you very clearly, your values are incredibly idealistic. And that's been proven several times, in the face of facts you keep dismissing because "statistics isn't real", great. Okay, we've put statistics away, but the biology still remains in tact.
> 
> ...


Ok, now you just want an argument. Your biological fallacy is that because we are 'wired' to have certain biological function (e.g. lost interest after shooting a wad) then it's sound that we just aren't built and should not adhere to something. Then, on the same token, my biology dictates that when I am angered/threatened, I get angry and beat the shit out of you. Trying to establish things in 'biological' function always presents this problem because we do a lot of which we are not biologically framed to do. If you think my ideals are X, Z, whatever, and that you have demonstrated them to be, then we further have no reason for this conversation and I will cease here. Thank you for the engagement.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

JungleDisco said:


> So planning to cheat is worse than not planning to cheat? Okay, try telling that to someone who's been cheated on because the opportunity presented itself to their partner.


LOL. What makes you think I believe everyone should adopt my value judgement on this matter? I was sharing my perspective.

But FWIW I do believe that the context generally does matter to people when making a judgement, ie. drunk or sober, the state of the relationship, sexless relationship, etc.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> So planning to cheat is worse than not planning to cheat? Okay, try telling that to someone who's been cheated on because the opportunity presented itself to their partner.
> 
> Good luck with that conversation.


That's exactly what this all boils down to. Someone wants to do something and if they're given the opportunity they will do so gladly. Even planning to cheat is nothing more than acting on an opportunity. In order to cheat on someone you have to have the opportunity to meet someone will to cheat with you. Opportunity.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> LOL. What makes you think I believe everyone should adopt my value judgement on this matter? I was sharing my perspective.
> 
> *But FWIW I do believe that the context generally does matter to people when making a judgement*, ie. drunk or sober, the state of the relationship, sexless relationship, etc.


This is not fact though.... The fact is.... ego depletion impairs the ability to make decisions in ANY context... this is the point I'm trying to drive home.

The idea that everyone who cheats made the choice to cheat and knowingly did so with their free will is just not true. And trying to judge the level of transgression in light of this is an incredibly murky topic to deal with.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Ok, now you just want an argument. Your biological fallacy is that because we are 'wired' to have certain biological function (e.g. lost interest after shooting a wad) then it's sound that we just aren't built and should not adhere to something. Then, on the same token, my biology dictates that when I am angered/threatened, I get angry and beat the shit out of you. Trying to establish things in 'biological' function always presents this problem because we do a lot of which we are not biologically framed to do. If you think my ideals are X, Z, whatever, and that you have demonstrated them to be, then we further have no reason for this conversation and I will cease here. Thank you for the engagement.


If you think I want an argument, this is where I respectfully walk away.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

android654 said:


> You know what's really sexy and romantic? When you get that little mix of excitement and anxiety from meeting someone you really like, sit them down and go, "hey, lets draft the rules and regulations for our relationship and how we're allowed to interact with strangers and each other!" It kills the excitement of it all to take something that should be dynamic and organic and turn it into a business discussion. Most people like to feel their way through and hope their wishes will be fulfilled. It's just how people are.


Well, if that works for them, then they are free to just 'feel their way through' a relationship. But communication is essential to any serious relationship I'd be involved in. I have seen too much heartbreak and unnecessary fighting over very simple differences in values and norms to accept that one's own feelings are enough to function properly in a relationship. My idea is that you are in a relationship with the other and not just in a relationship with yourself and your own feelings; you agree to be in a relationship _together_. Being open to the wishes of the other and being able to commit yourself to their wishes is deeply romantic if you do it with a certain joy and curiosity, I believe. To think of this ideal as oppressive to the organic flow of a relationship is to not understand this ideal. There is, in fact, not much organic about socially defined relationships to begin with. That is exactly where solid exclusive romantic relationships are good for: bringing structure and principles to the execution of one's animal urges in order to regulate one's social life. Why would you be in a socially defined relationship if you only care about your own experience of fluctuating feelings? You do not need such a relationship to experience that.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

JungleDisco said:


> This is not fact though.... The fact is.... ego depletion impairs the ability to make decisions in ANY context... this is the point I'm trying to drive home.
> 
> The idea that everyone who cheats made the choice to cheat and knowingly did so with their free will is just not true. And trying to judge the level of transgression is incredibly an incredibly murky topic.


Making the claim that ego depletion is the *only* reason why people cheat is a big claim, and I don't think you have a enough evidence to back that up.

To be quite frank if you don't think that people cheat for reasons other than ego depletion... I think you are incredibly naive. Or you're trying to overly simplify human motivation.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Making the claim that ego depletion is the *only* reason why people cheat is a big claim, and I don't think you have a enough evidence to back that up.
> 
> To be quite frank if you don't think that people cheat for reasons other than ego depletion... I think you are incredibly naive. Or you trying to simplify human motivation.


That was an example. Should have made it clearer. My bad. But no that is NOT my only claim. 
I have made many other claims throughout this thread....

You misreading my post doesn't make me in any naive dude, just sayin' I mean to be quite frank with you there...


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

I'm getting the feeling certain people here have been cheated on and feel as though they can 'absolve' their partners by finding some biological roots. I wonder if I can prove that a wife-beater had a surge of adrenaline at the time of his beating that it would let him off the hook because of biological dispositions :wink:; I am so going to be Chris Brown's new attorney.

Either way, I think we've all come to the conclusion that it depends on the person. Some people here like the free-style "if it happens, it happens and it's okay"/nihilistic view in which words are meaningless. Others are more rigid and prefer it to be communicated. It depends; let's just hope those two pairings find similar matches and those of the other view.


----------



## quixoticcrush (Mar 15, 2013)

I think cheaters are trying to fill an unfillable void in their lives. I don't think most cheaters are introspective enough to acknowledge that it's there so they just fill it with whatever feels good in the moment without really thinking of the consequences of their actions.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I'm getting the feeling certain people here have been cheated on and feel as though they can 'absolve' their partners by finding some biological roots. *I wonder if I can prove that a murderer had a surge of adrenaline at the time of his killings that it would let him off the hook because of biological dispositions* :wink:
> 
> Either way, I think we've all come to the conclusion that it depends on the person. Some people here like the free-style "if it happens, it happens and it's okay"/nihilistic view in which words are meaningless. Others are more rigid and prefer it to be communicated. It depends; let's just hope those two pairings find similar matches and those of the other view.


To be perfectly honest with you, this is actually being discussed in court at the minute. So yeah, biological roots is actually serious... and it's actually a legitimate claim


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

JungleDisco said:


> You misreading my post doesn't make me in any naive dude, just sayin' I mean to be quite frank with you there...


You're a fireball... And quite interesting.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> You're a fireball... And quite interesting.


Hang on, need to check what kind of fallacy this is...
I believe it's called appeal to soften me up


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

JungleDisco said:


> To be perfectly honest with you, this is actually being discussed in court at the minute. So yeah, biological roots is actually serious... and it's actually a legitimate claim


Yeah biological influence seems to be a reality that many in the 'everything is a conscious choice' crowd don't want to face.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> To be perfectly honest with you, this is actually being discussed in court at the minute. So yeah, biological roots is actually serious... and it's actually a legitimate claim


Sure it is, hence the insanity plea. But it's intensely hard to prove. The fact of the matter is, without some severe deficit/brain abnormality that would almost halt higher cognitive function, this boat sinks. This idea is nothing new; there's been questions as to if Antisocial Personalities should be tried because they are "built" with certain brain abnormalities; however, they can reason--which hurts their case. We have tons of which we are biologically designed to to in which we do not because of reason/higher consciousness superseding. This is a topic in and of itself, perhaps you should open it in the Debate Forum.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Yeah biological influence seems to be a reality that many in the 'everything is a conscious choice' crowd don't want to face.


I'm really starting to believe free will doesn't exist. The evidence pointing in this direction is astounding. But nothing has been made conclusive yet. Let's just hope I'm alive for the big decision!


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Sure it is, hence the insanity plea. But it's intensely hard to prove. The fact of the matter is, without some severe deficit/brain abnormality that would almost halt higher cognitive function, this boat sinks. This idea is nothing new; there's been questions as to if Antisocial Personalities should be tried because they are "built" with certain brain abnormalities; however, they can reason--which hurts their case. We have tons of which we are biologically designed to to in which we do not because of reason/higher consciousness superseding. This is a topic in and of itself, perhaps you should open it in the Debate Forum.





strangestdude said:


> Yeah biological influence seems to be a reality that many in the 'everything is a conscious choice' crowd don't want to face.


Everything is not a conscious choice; however, it is within us to make conscious decisions of whether or not to manage impulses. Gross inabilities to do so are often mental disorders that need treatment.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Sure it is, hence the insanity plea. *But it's intensely hard to prove*. The fact of the matter is, without some* severe deficit/brain abnormality that would almost halt higher cognitive function*, this boat sinks. This idea is nothing new; there's been questions as to if Antisocial Personalities should be tried because they are "built" with certain brain abnormalities; however, they can reason--which hurts their case. We have tons of which we are biologically designed to to in which we do not because of reason/higher consciousness superseding. This is a topic in and of itself, perhaps you should open it in the Debate Forum.


The whole point of this article is, actually no it's not anymore.... And no this is different to the insansity plea, maybe you should read the post before you say something that really hurts your argument.

Also, to assert that "severe deficit/brain abnormality would halt higher cognitive function" is bordering offensive now.
People who are ADHD, autistic, depressed, bipolar, etc all have mental disorders but they still manage to do most things to the same level as regular people and some things even better than people without these disorders... They can reason yes sure, but that's not really the issue we are addressing, so it really doesn't need to be brought up.

Please don't make such claims... it's really rude dude.

I didn't bring up the claim, you did. I just provided you with something countering that.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> The whole point of this article is, actually no it's not anymore....
> 
> Also, to assert that "severe deficit/brain abnormality would halt higher cognitive function" is bordering offensive now.
> People who are ADHD, autistic, depressed, bipolar, etc all have mental disorders but they still manage to do most things to the same level as regular people and some things even better than people without these disorders...
> ...


I actually am one of those people, but you are mincing my words. 

A gross inability to control impulses is indeed an impulse disorder; it is a malfunctioning. No less, people of this malfunctioning type are still beholden to learning to control their impulses. As I said, what is really the issue with your husband beating the shit out of you after a heated argument? It's biologically triggered by adrenaline etc. Is that 'okay' to you?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I actually am one of those people, but you are mincing my words.
> 
> A gross inability to control impulses is indeed an impulse disorder; it is a malfunctioning. No less, people of this malfunctioning type are still beholden to learning to control their impulses. As I said, what is really the issue with your husband beating the shit out of you after a heated argument? It's biologically triggered by adrenaline etc. Is that 'okay' to you?


Violence and cheating are different things.

Someone's tendency towards violence depends on their anger gene and the environmental factors that led to this gene turning itself "on". There is no cheating gene, it's just hardwired biology.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> Violence and cheating are different things.
> 
> Someone's tendency towards violence depends on their anger gene. There is no cheating gene, it's just biology.


Anger gene? Ok...this is the 2nd time you're mentioning this as if it's encoded in one, isolated gene, but all humans get angry. We all have adrenaline rushes during arguments that causes flushed skin and other visible cues. Unless you're prepared to show me that people engaged in violence all have some anger gene misplacement, we can say that it is the same for biology. We are "built" to engage in violent activities and/or run in the fight/flight mechanism. I don't get how that is different...


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Anger gene? Ok...this is the 2nd time you're mentioning this as if it's encoded in one, isolated gene, but all humans get angry. We all have adrenaline rushes during arguments that causes flushed skin and other visible cues. Unless you're prepared to show me that people engaged in violence all have some anger gene misplacement, we can say that it is the same for biology. We are "built" to engage in violent activities and/or run in the fight/flight mechanism. I don't get how that is different...


:/

It's the classic nature vs nurture argument. The extent to which our genes turn "on" is sometimes dependant on our environments. For example, sons of alcoholic fathers are six times more likely to become alcoholics themselves, but does this mean every son of an alcoholic is also going to become one? Nope. But the chances are increased.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> I'm really starting to believe free will doesn't exist. The evidence pointing in this direction is astounding. But nothing has been made conclusive yet. Let's just hope I'm alive for the big decision!


I personally think that for most people they have compulsions, and based on the risk or reward of acting on those compulsions they decide whether or not to act.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Ugh, so much bad faith in this thread.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

"Hey, you know, I really do understand that you hate me because I cheated on you, but I am not to blame. You see, I am not the one who cheated on you, it's my biology that cheated on you. You really only had a relationship with this body of mine, which is not _really_ me. And I truly feel sorry for your loss, but I cannot identify with this relationship paradigm that our bodies have entered into. I was not really there; in fact, I am not really here and these words are not truly my own. This is simply my biology speaking to your biology."

What a sick and utterly self-defeating way of speaking. Any justification for cheating that is based on the absence of free will is sad, savage and not worth defending; even if you really had no other choice. Having no freedom in the metaphysical sense does not necessarily take away your discursive responsibility.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

SlowPoke68 said:


> When you enter into a relationship you can take it for granted that you will likely cheat or be cheated on at some point--just given the law of averages. You have to decide how much you want to forgive and how much you can tolerate in yourself and in your partner. Taking a hard line will usually mean you're going to spend your later years rather bitter and lonely.


TBH based on my observations of couples throughout my life (I'm 28 though) - accepting your advise will make people happier in the long term. No need to be a doormat, but having leniency for a 'transgression' is wise.

Like you said the law of averages says that it's a situation you will probably face in a long term relationship. And whether people want to accept it or not, you can only approximate monogamous intentions, because you can't predict future circumstance. (That's true for yourself as well as your partner).


----------



## Mr Quippy (Dec 18, 2012)

People cheat because it is in our nature to. Monogamy is a man-made construct which manifested from the wanting to claim rights to private property and appeared in human history at the same time; endorsed by the natural release of endorphins during passionate love during the first 6-12 months of partnership which makes us feel that monogamy is natural. After this passionate period, if people think that monogamy is natural, they wonder why they're losing interest in their partner (or rather, why their love for them is not as intense as it once was) and begin to think that they must simply not be right for each other, leading to cheating and divorce. The real truth is that no one is "right" for anyone...not forever anyway. I don't mean to say that cheating is okay, but rather that if two people truly love each other, they should accept that over their life-time together, they will most likely cheat on one another and embrace the fact that honesty is the most integral part of love, not sex.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Mr Quippy said:


> The real truth is that no one is "right" for anyone...not forever anyway. I don't mean to say that cheating is okay, but rather that if two people truly love each other, they should accept that over their life-time together, they will most likely cheat on one another and embrace the fact that honesty is the most integral part of love, not sex.


qft.


----------



## Kyandigaru (Mar 11, 2012)

people cheat because they want to try something at the time. Some people can make a mistake and others want to be greedy. There are people that don't cheat, but will still fuck up in some ways or another. cheating to me can be forgiven depends on the person and the connection [if it was a strong one].


----------



## Christie42476 (May 25, 2012)

SlowPoke68 said:


> Fun stuff about cheating from an old guy:
> 
> ...You have to decide how much you want to forgive and how much you can tolerate in yourself and in your partner. Taking a hard line will usually mean you're going to spend your later years rather bitter and lonely.


For me, it's NOT taking a hard line and tolerating behavior from my SO that violates my values that has, without fail, made me feel bitter and lonely. I've learned that some needs are just non-negotiable for me, to own that, and then be true to it. I accept that this might mean I'll never find someone with whom to share a relationship again because I'm not willing to trade my integrity for companionship. 

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with non-monogamous relationships. If that is what all parties have agreed to without compromising their own values and needs, then good for them. But it's not right for everyone any more than monogamy is, and that position is just as deserving of being honored by those you trust as any other.

I have friends who would be content to accept the situation you described, probably for the reasons you listed, at least in part. But me? No thanks. It's complete anathema to me. I cannot be physically intimate with someone while committed to someone else (which is why I've been in my current predicament for so long), so to stay in a relationship with someone who would betray me that way would feel degrading and depressing. Plus, they would become immediately and irreversibly unattractive to me, especially if they gave me the bullshit "it just happened" excuse, because I'd see them as dishonest and weak and kind of pathetic, which would ultimately kill my feelings for them and, with them, the relationship. If they took ownership of and responsibility for their choices instead of resorting to cheesy rationalizations and excuses, then I could at least hold on to some respect for them, enough to stay friends, but the romantic aspect of the relationship would still be over. I simply could not be a suitable or fulfilling partner to someone who cheated on me, and that's no better for them than it is for me. 

If all of that means I'll spend the rest of my years "alone", so be it. It might make me sad, but it won't make me bitter. And I've learned the hard way that staying in a relationship with someone who violates the "non-negotiables" is the absolute loneliest experience, far more so than just being alone could ever be. At least this way I'll wake up every day for the foreseeable future respecting myself.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Mr Quippy said:


> People cheat because it is in our nature to. Monogamy is a man-made construct which manifested from the wanting to claim rights to private property and appeared in human history at the same time; endorsed by the natural release of endorphins during passionate love during the first 6-12 months of partnership which makes us feel that monogamy is natural. After this passionate period, if people think that monogamy is natural, they wonder why they're losing interest in their partner (or rather, why their love for them is not as intense as it once was) and begin to think that they must simply not be right for each other, leading to cheating and divorce. The real truth is that no one is "right" for anyone...not forever anyway. I don't mean to say that cheating is okay, but rather that if two people truly love each other, they should accept that over their life-time together, they will most likely cheat on one another and embrace the fact that honesty is the most integral part of love, not sex.


Someone called my a polygamist for this ;_;
Honestly, (life-long) monogamy, _especially_ in cave man times was probably the dumbest thing our ancestors could have decided to do.

I would add that cheating in itself isn't in our nature per se, it's the tendency to get bored/lose sight of the value of things we already possess which leads on cheating.

It goes back to the age old saying, "familiarity breeds contempt".

Tbh, I find it incredibly weird that people are so insistent that they have a right to claim their partners sex/romantic feelings for the duration of their relationship. It seems incredibly absurd to me; "your sex, your love juices and your romantic feelings belong to me because I say so. Even if it means going against your natural desires as a human being."

Yeah.... no thanks. Even if I promise it to you... Nothing lasts forever, sorry. But I prefer to just not get too serious in the first place. Gotta keep movin'!


----------



## adrenaline1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Curiosity, boredom, excitement of getting away with it, drugs/alcohol, jealousy, insecurity, payback, ego, narcissism, selfishness... the list goes on and on.

Its a proven fact that both men and woman often look for someone who they perceive as 'better' than their current partner and sex is kind of the ultimate bond, even with new/temporary partners.


----------



## ablyxa (Mar 3, 2013)

Hypothetical Situation: Couple was married for reasons other than Love (Insurance, Social acceptance in certain circles, etc). Both parties was aware of this going into the marriage. My question is...Can either party ever be guilty of cheating or having an affair? With time each party has needs for emotional and sexual intimacy which cannot me met inside this type of relationship.Honest opinions please with no slanderous remarks.


----------



## Christie42476 (May 25, 2012)

ablyxa said:


> Hypothetical Situation: Couple was married for reasons other than Love (Insurance, Social acceptance in certain circles, etc). Both parties was aware of this going into the marriage. My question is...Can either party ever be guilty of cheating or having an affair? With time each party has needs for emotional and sexual intimacy which cannot me met inside this type of relationship.Honest opinions please with no slanderous remarks.


Cheating isn't having romantic/sexual partners outside of the marriage/relationship....cheating is violating whatever agreement about such things exists between the people in the relationship. So, in this hypothetical situation, if both members of the couple entered into such a marriage with the understanding that seeking fulfillment of emotional and/or sexual intimacy outside the marriage was permissible, then doing so would not constitute cheating. 

It's the betrayal, the violation of the terms set between the two (or more) parties involved in the relationship, that constitutes cheating. 

If I met someone who was either opposed to or just simply unfulfilled by monogamous relationships, I wouldn't get involved with him not because I'd think any less of him, but because his needs would be incompatible with my needs and that would make a romantic relationship between us inevitably unsuccessful and potentially harmful to either or both of us. 

JMHO.


----------



## Obscure (May 20, 2013)

Irresponsibility>Lack of willpower>Dishonesty>Unbalanced>Out of control>Lost and detached of reality.


----------

