Which one do you consider cheating??

[Samadhi]

Wasn't there mention of the people "feeding eachother"? I would ask the question: How would any of you feel if you walked into a room and saw your S.O 'feeding' someone else? The act of feeding eachother can be quite intimate - for instance, if i was with a mate and he wanted to try some of the food on my plate, i'd move the plate over and he could try some. I wouldn't lift my fork and feed him with it... but I would do that with my husband.

Anyway, horses for courses.

 

[Noodle]

This is by far the most interesting thread I have read in this forum in a long time.

*cheers*

 

[cuddly.kittie.too]

I agree with most everything that DD has said in this thread so far. I think that cultivating an intense emotional exchange with someone other than your partner is playing with fire on so many levels, and there is a certain point where anyone who engages in this kind of relationship is acutely aware of what they are doing and where it might very easily lead.

I personally think that both are cheating, and both are a sign that there is a serious lack within the primary relationship and something should be done to address that need before one or both of the people involved become too far disengaged to make that possible.

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

For me, both are cheating but no. 1 is justified.

I'm of the camp that considers emotional more hurtful but there are so many extenuating factors in scenario 1 I really can't blame the poor woman. She should leave her husband, in reality. But I don't blame her for needing and enjoying the validation.

That's a really simplified version of my opinion but I don't have time to go into detail. Some excellent, excellent posts here!

 

[supertrav77]

I'm of the camp that considers emotional more hurtful but there are so many extenuating factors in scenario 1 I really can't blame the poor woman. She should leave her husband, in reality.

What? Leave her faithful, non-abusive , and employed husband? To acheive what exactly?
Did you miss the part about PTA meetings? To suggest that she should leave her husband for entirely selfish reasons is to grossly under-estimate the harm divorce does to children. She might end up happier (with a big emphasis on might) but the kids would pay a dear price.

 

[drugfukkdrockstar]

What? Leave her faithful, non-abusive , and employed husband? To acheive what exactly?

To achieve a much more fulfilling and happy life, really. It's unfortunate that that is too much to ask for in these situations. You only live once... why the hell should we stay in a very unhappy situation because it's the decent thing to do. Many marriages spilt these days. It's not about the actual split that can effect the kids, it's how the parents go about it. I have seen many successful divorces where the kids have remained happy, if not happier. I for one are one of these/were one of these kids. I am not saying all cases, but yeah .. not all divorces are bad.

The two situations are just really a display of the different needs between a man and a women. They are both potentially harmful, but at least with situation 1 - if the husband got his act together they just may be able to save their marriage. I don't agree that once the spark is gone it's gone.... it doesn't say anywhere there that she no longer loves him does it? She is just feeling completely neglected so she is acting on her 'natural' instinct to seek the attention elsewhere. The thing is... she didn't go out looking for it. It came to her... if her husband had of been giving her the emotional support and love that she needed then she would have not even probably seeked to take up a hobby to entertain herself, let alone allow this younger man to 'woo' her. It comes down to the husband being selfish - not her. When he isn't at work he it out with his mates.... hmmmm. Have a think about that one. Women are emotional creatures that need love and support. Men do as well, but in other ways. They like to be taken care of more - their meals cooked, sex when they're horny, a nice tidy house. Where we like security and understanding.

Basically in situation 1, for a long time the wife was doing all her part but the husband wasn't doing his. Where is the fairness in that?

Situation 2 - the husband was supposedly happy with his wife? No issues.... but as soon as he had the opportunity to go and fuck a younger piece of meat he went and did it? Where the hell was the angel on his other shoulder? We all know that angel was there.... but he simply and easily chose to listen to the devil. But that's ok because it was just a quick fuck? Just a once of? So that makes it not as harmful as the first one???? That's crap. Situation 2 is a perfect example of complete and utter disregard and disrespect for his wife. As stated, he was happy - he wasn't being mistreated, or neglected or anything like that so how could something like that be fixed better than the first situation? Situation 2, the husband acted on instant lust, where in the first situation the wife hadn't even done anything... yet. But she was acting on neglect.

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

What? Leave her faithful, non-abusive , and employed husband? To acheive what exactly?
Did you miss the part about PTA meetings? To suggest that she should leave her husband for entirely selfish reasons is to grossly under-estimate the harm divorce does to children. She might end up happier (with a big emphasis on might) but the kids would pay a dear price.

Sorry, I don't agree. I think kids pay a dearer price living with two unhappy, unfulfilled parents than with two happy, co-parenting divorced ones.

And that's coming from a child of divorce.

 

[drugfukkdrockstar]

^ Yep, same here.

 

[supertrav77]

Sorry, I don't agree. I think kids pay a dearer price living with two unhappy, unfulfilled parents than with two happy, co-parenting divorced ones.

Divorce is not a guarantee of happiness. It's a throw of the dice.
Maybe you should ask wether a kid would be happier with two unhappy, unfullfilled parents or alone with their mom as they watch dear old mom constantly degrade herself for the benefit of an endless parade of potential father-figures walking in and out of their life.
Kids need stability far more than happy parents.
Plus this whole happiness business is a fucking farce. Kids don't give a flying fuck wether their parents are happy or not. They don't give a flying fuck if their parents are in love or not. Kids don't give a fuck wether their parents are emotionally fullfilled or not. Kids simply do not give a shit about stuff like that and to say otherwise is patently absurd. Kids are selfish and self-absorbed. But they're adorable so they get away with it.

When the kid is 40 years old, what do you think is going to stand out more in his mind? His parent's emotional well-being? Think again.

To achieve a much more fulfilling and happy life, really. It's unfortunate that that is too much to ask for in these situations. You only live once... why the hell should we stay in a very unhappy situation because it's the decent thing to do. Many marriages spilt these days. It's not about the actual split that can effect the kids, it's how the parents go about it.

Disagree. For one reason. Luck plays a huge factor in how a divorce plays out. Maybe they will be successful in their new romantic endeavors or maybe they will be emotional trainwrecks. Just because "you go about it" the right way is no guarantee that it will be dandy.
Maybe the cooking instructor the mom leaves her husband for turns out to be a psychopath. There's no "going about it the right way" that will have that coming out smelling like rose.

In short, if you're happiness is that important to you, don't have kids. If you have kids and then learn you picked a dud, tough it out and wait until they're 18 to divorce. If there is serious abuse going on, that's a different story. If it's just "ho-hum, where has the fire gone" you need to grow up and get over it.

My parents have been married since 1967 and it's one of the reasons I turned out to be the witty and infinitely charming intellectual titan you see before you. The sanctity of marriage doesn't get a better endorsement than that.

 

[drugfukkdrockstar]

My parents have been married since 1967 and it's one of the reasons I turned out to be the witty and infinitely charming intellectual titan you see before you. The sanctity of marriage doesn't get a better endorsement than that.

Ahhh coming from someone who is indeed very single, and doesn't believe in happiness! Rightio!

I also find it amusing how you constantly like to pick out the points in peoples posts that you don't agree with. I am yet to see you actually admit to agreeing with another person on this board. You act like you have all the answer and knowledge about the place whilst ignoring certain points that were made, and sifting out the ones of which you feel you know more about so therefore you can start dressing them down. What are you trying to prove around here? We all have our own story and experiences and reasons for feeling certain ways about things. No one is really right or wrong here because not every situation is the same.

 

[alasdairm]

Divorce is not a guarantee of happiness.

and 'staying together for the sake of the kids' is not a guarantee of happiness either. as long as you deal only in absolutes, you'll continue to have trouble with many of these issues.

Maybe you should ask wether a kid would be happier with two unhappy, unfullfilled parents or alone with their mom as they watch dear old mom constantly degrade herself for the benefit of an endless parade of potential father-figures walking in and out of their life.

maybe you should stop throwing out logical fallacies like this false dilemma...

Kids simply do not give a shit about stuff like that and to say otherwise is patently absurd.

why is it absurd? because you disagree with it? we've been here before.

are you able to discuss an issue like an adult? if so, why is it absurd? pointers to the sources you use to make your case would be a great start.

alasdair

 

[supertrav77]

Don't sexually harass people in SLR, this is the last time - Beatlebot

 

[drugfukkdrockstar]

^Once again, just brushing other peoples opinions aside because you have no decent argument. Being the character you are, you *have* to say something - and as of which occurs rather regular, you become very smug and immature. Ah well, good luck to ya lol

 

[supertrav77]

and 'staying together for the sake of the kids' is not a guarantee of happiness either.

Never said it was. All I'm saying is that you forfeit your right to happiness the moment you decide to have children. If you have a kid, you have a moral obligation not to fuck up its widdle head.

maybe you should stop throwing out logical fallacies like this false dilemma...

I intentionally made it a false dilemma in response to the false dilemma of "Two unhappy unfullfilled parents or two happy fullfilled parents."

are you able to discuss an issue like an adult? if so, why is it absurd? pointers to the sources you use to make your case would be a great start.

Are you able to discuss an issue without resorting pseudo-intellectual existential hippy mumbo-jumbo ramblings of "Nothing is knowable maaaaaan! We all have different perceptions of reality maaaaaaaaaaan! Just because that is your concept of truth doesn't mean it's true to everyone maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"
For those of us who don't smoke dope while reading Kant, this line of reasoning gets very tedious.

 

[alasdairm]

i'm disappointed that you reject the invitation to set aside the insults and have an adult discussion.



alasdair

 

[Samadhi]

^ Exactly. This has the potential to turn into a really interesting discussion, but i'm hesitant to step into it.

 

[supertrav77]

i'm disappointed that you reject the invitation to set aside the insults and have an adult discussion.

Disappointed? I would have thought your expectations of me would be sufficiently low enough by now to never be disapointed by anything I ever say or do.

^ Exactly. This has the potential to turn into a really interesting discussion, but i'm hesitant to step into it.

Very well then...

I RETIRE FROM THIS THREAD.

Now you may step in without fear

 

[drugfukkdrockstar]

It's not fear dude, it's whether there is any point stepping in with people like yourself (aka as trolls) just trying to belittle and disrupt the whole conversation flow. I hope you retire so the adults can all continue.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Agreed, especially since we have already established that...



They are simply good friends. That is not cheating. If the husband showed more interest and care, she wouldn't be hanging out with this other man. And that's ALL they are doing, hanging out and enjoying each others company. How is this cheating AT ALL ? Is there some rule when you get married that you can only enjoy each others company and no one else ? Fuck that.

Where as #2 is completely cheating, and potentially exposing his wife to STDs from a stripper who gets paid to dance naked or fuck.

I agree with the quoted text written by psychetool.

There are some people who do try to control their BF/GF/spouse/partner and they'd get REALLY angry at the first situation or the person having a life/friends of their own; but I wouldn't call it cheating but I'd consider the 2nd situation cheating since the guy is in a sexually monogamous/closed/exclusive relationship with his wife and they don't have an open relationship.

 

[QuestionEverything]

[*edit: change the avatar!] *DD*, I am in full agreement with you on this one.

There is a point where one of those invisible lines is crossed and #1 goes from friendship to intimacy. Whether the two ever kiss or have sex doesn't matter. The attraction is there, the closeness is there, the intimacy is there. I find it odd that cheating for some people is only a physical act.

I don't control my husband, I don't get jealous of his friends, and we both have our own independent 'lives' apart from each other, but make no mistake - if he were to ever cross that line and develop the sort of intimacy we have for each other with someone else I'd be devastated.