I had this very bizarre idea on my mind.

Let's say you have a girlfriend, and your relationship is good, or so-so. And when you talk with somebody else anonymously in some platform about relationships, sex, or start a sexting, does that counts as a cheating? I mean, for me, if this isn't continuing after you've done talking, technically you just talk and enjoy with somebody else. Maybe you could say you wish to continue that in his/hers room, which could be in the border of cheating, but how could you cheat your lover in your own room, with just texting? Is there some regulation for talking about it?

I will put some obligatory ga's in the morning, so please enlighten me.

edit: Hi! so, uh, i didn't know this topic was gonna go up like that. This was originally a bet with one of my friend, and this giveaways are his little presents for you :) All giveaways are gonna end in 9 hours, and there are 2 more because of my giveaway limit, so enjoy and good luck :)

https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/KkrBh/fault-milestone-one
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/tXJHc/karakara
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/4X3V7/nekopara-vol-0
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/8mZJ1/ame-no-marginal-rain-marginal
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/2ecnp/nekopara-vol-1
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/xOvxL/idol-magical-girl-chiru-chiru-michiru-part-1
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/qOkzY/narcissu-10th-anniversary-anthology-project
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/gr880/narcissu-10th-anniversary-anthology-project-season-pass
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/XsLax/fault-milestone-two-sideabove
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/DgHLV/sound-of-drop-fall-into-poison
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/Ife6d/highway-blossoms
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/hbu4z/japanese-school-life
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/At68X/nekopara-vol-2
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/Rhxyn/world-end-economica-episode01
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/YAjZV/world-end-economica-episode02
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/rIZOB/world-end-economica-episode03
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/3cgSU/idol-magical-girl-chiru-chiru-michiru-part-2
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/iaVRh/memorys-dogma-code01

ps: i luv you guys :3
ps ps: guys, i'm a poor soul with only have some waifus... yeah....

6 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

Is it?

View Results
Yes.
No.
Sex? Where?

Just talking about relationships and sex with someone is alright, sexting would be kinda cheating in my book. I'd say talk with your significant other about it and how they would possibly feel about it, if you don't and you just hide it from them, you obviously know why.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Pretty much what I'd say on the topic.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Zareh couldn't be more right

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

10/10

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

approved

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yes!
also: Treat others how you want to be treated.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

plus infinity.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This. Talking about a topic, asking for help, helping someone else, explaining something... not cheating. Sexting of any kind, any duration, any level of emotions... yes cheating.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

^this pretty much.

Talking about sex in an informative way is not cheating, sexting or phone sex is something emotionally charged thus can be considered cheating even if physical contact is not involved.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes, yes, yes. A million times: Yes.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A relationship is nothing more than a sentimental agreement between two (or more?) persons. "Sexting" is also nothing more than the sentimental agreement of two persons to have sex over the phone. So, I would say it is cheating.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you have to hide it then there's probably something wrong with it :P
Sexting is harmless as long as your other half has agreed to you doing it. Cheating isn't necessarily physical, it's a betrayal of trust.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This this and this. And applies to sexting and everything else. If you have to hide it IS WRONG. If you don't have to hide it, you can do it.

What's the thing you may have to hide varies a lot among people. But if you get caught, it will be consequences. Some could be harmless, some could be devastating for the relationship. So check the risks and the priorities.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sexting is cheating unless you're in a poly relationship. Then have fun.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

...theres a big difference between talking about sex and relationships and sexting...or even ERP or whatever considering a friend of mine left every single media outlet he shared with all of us (Discord etc) or blocked us all considering his girlfrend gave him a whole "Its me or them" sort of ultimatum because he was flirting with people online.

Sexting/ERP is completely different than just talking about sex.
and yeah I think it counts as cheating but I think its fine to talk about stuff with people.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Setting with someone you know is cheating. Cyber with a random stranger is just augmented porn

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So what am I going to do now with all my sets?

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just because it's a stranger doesn't mean it's not cheating. By that logic, I could have a one night stand with a stranger I met in a bar, or go find a prostitute. It doesn't change the fact that it would be considered cheating on your significant other. The method of interaction does not matter.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If it feels like you're cheating, guess what.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you have the need to hide it from your partner, then it's cheating

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The act is in the abstract. Cheating is an emotional act- it is the act of receiving/taking from others what one has agreed to receive from someone in a monogamous relationship.

Simply ask yourself- is your s/o ok with it? Would you be ok with them doing the same thing? If you have to do it behind their back, then you already know the answer.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Cheating isn't just a physical thing, so If you feel like you have to hide the sexting, then you're pretty much admitting that you're doing something wrong (or you wouldn't be hiding it to begin with and you know it).
The way I see it, unless your significant other gives you the ok to do it, it's a betrayal of trust and therefore, a form of cheating.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Everybody has posted great responses to this, for explaining why. I'll just add to the chorus of absolutely yes it is, unless you've previously cleared with your partner that it's okay.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, it's considered "emotional cheating", but hey, it could help a relatioship work well.
You're treading a fine line, so be aware of your actions.
If you are worried, maybe you could try bringing what you're looking in these chat inside the couple. You might be surprised of the results. New spark? Who knows. :)
In the end though, every couple should really just find their own way to be happy.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't think there's a right answer to that one. It's really dependent on the couple. If you are in a relationship, you MUST be able to talk with your significant other about literally anything. So bring that up, ask her what she thinks the borders are. I mean, what's the worse that can happen? If she breaks up with you because you asked, you should have dumped her ass anyways. Hope this helps :)

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wording can be important to capture what you are actually doing. its common to see "cheating" used int this way but really betraying is the correct term.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cheating
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/betrayal

You cheat at a game of cards, you betray people.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Cheating:

7.
Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on):
Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

For me it sounds very much like cheating and I would consider it being so, but when it comes to things like these, it depends on your relationship. Different people consider different things cheating (watching porn, sexting, physical contact with someone else or sometimes even speaking with someone), while others don't. You need to clear this up with your girlfriend and ask if she's okay with it. If she's not, then yes, in her eyes this will be cheating even if you didn't have the intention to do so.

Oh, and by the way, also consider if you would be completely okay with your gf doing the same thing. If you are - there is a place for discussion. If not, then you need to change your behavior.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Can't vote on poll.

Talking about sex and sexting are very different things.
Its like comparing a casual conversation about the weather with a monologue or poem or a entire essay on cumulus clouds in tropical climates changing as outcome to global warming or gods message after Trump.
The subject or part of it is somewhat the same. That hardly put both together.

Theres also layers and layes of sexting or degrees so to say: to the obviously cheating to the 'everybody but a few' would call it cheating to the grayish area closer to fapping.

Now go look up for any definitive answer or social norm on fapping being cheating- theres none. Its fuzzy. It varies.
The 'less-cheating' (if we can say that) possible way of sexting is closer to fapping but even that is one step ahead- because it objectively involve someone else. Not recorded, not passively, directly with you- wich by itself includes a risk or potential of something more. So its hard to argue how its different from any kind of flirting. 'Oh the distance' 'I had no intention of anything beyond...'

Yeah right. Good luck with that.

Im not saying YOU were actively planing on 'cheating' or turning said sexting in anything else but

-Most cheating comes from opportunity + build up. You don't need to plan but keep at it long enought and temptation increases- and if opportunity arises... thats where many of 'it was an accident' argument comes when its just not a pre-planed excuse.
Its very common actually- not consciously wanting but then 'it was the moment'.
But any psycho[insert type here] would tell you that, unless it was completely by chance (wich generally only happens in porn), then you were looking for it even if consciously you were telling yourself otherwise.

-Why do it with other alternatives available (including the aforementioned fapping)?

-Anything sex related is relationship related to some degree when you're in a relationship, the only exceptions one could say otherwise involve you and your body and no one else (so its personal). Unless you were sexting with a bot (idn, they can enter GAs so who knows) thats not the case.

-Any kind of secretive, forbidden and non-agreed beforehand act involving any degree of sex is considered cheating. Heck in serious relationships many if not most people consider any form of secrets cheating. Because...

-Cheating doesn't means body parts touching and fluids flowing. It means breaking from a trust that was formed. That trust is mostly around sexual fidelity but not only. Relationships are social contracts with unspoken and spoken rules- heck, it even include those when you marry with actual contracts. Fgs it needs witnesses!

-Cheatings broad appliance is related to trust and meaning of relationship- wich is subjective. Don't hold onto the term and general opnion but on the other parts understanding of it.

So lets see... summoning some 'lawer' side of me:
-You're in a relationship you're in a contract
-If you ever talked about anything like that as a no-go then game is over before it started. Thats breach in the contract
-Unspoken rules however are the main-way of relationships and considering normal rules...
-Yeah, the deed was done and a call for break of contract is feasible.

Fact: contract was broken. No doubt.
Undetermined: clauses of breach in contract. I suppose the parts never written down nor spoken about limits or gray areas on the subject

Meaning that per chance theres hope of some agreement between the parts on how to retain and restore the contract, probably re-written as to make sure some unspoken clauses are well understood, with a negotiable fine or further contract changes regarding the wrongly done breach commited.

Wether or not said breach constitutes 'cheating' is of no relevance because what means a term or anything to anyone beyond the parts invoveld in a realionship is of no relevance in a relationship.

Now if the agreement will be made or even if it will be amicable are highly unsure. Trying to reach said agreement may even start other disputes and causes such as personal injury or damage to property(hopefully owned goods).

But im afraid this is as far as you can get o help; Unless theres a written contract and equity to be divided (a divorce) no one will ever want to enter on this dispute. You're alone from now on to handle that.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nice post.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wish I could whitelist you again and again and again...
Everytime I read a thread, there's an answer from you, and everytime it's well explained and so interesting.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No need, this comment made my day and is well more worth then 10 wl! \o/

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wow, just wow man. You need to think to be a teacher :)

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

people tell me that all the time lol

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You never cease to amaze me with your wisdom and the kindness to share it with the rest of us. Even though I was not the one to write the original post, I'm very grateful that you would take the time to analyze every bit of it and respond in a very knowledgeable and helpful manner. You are such a kind soul to go around and write all these thoughtful lengthy responses. I wish I had the ability to send you virtual hugs because I just can't express enough through words how happy I am that such kind people in this world exist. I apologize for going off topic a bit there, wonderful explanations and examples in your writing. It clears up very much with even the addition of lending helpful words that can be passed down onto others. I apologize for all this writing, I'm not good at expressing when I'm appreciative, I'm a socially awkward mess haha

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hah, im a social awkward too \o/
I only speak as much as i write with a couple of people. Online i feel more free to speak my mind.

I wish im alive to see the day digital sent hugs are invented but none needed- reading this didn't made my day it made my week! \o/
Usually i just like to think that somebody read and found help or enjoyment - now thats the one major thing internet lacks, passive reactions - so its amazing to see reactions and even more so when they resonate \o/

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Depends on the sort of relationship you're in. If your GF is the traditionalist type and expects you to be 100% devoted to her during the entirety of your relationship, then yes, it's cheating. If she's more reasonable and merely expects you to make a serious, but not total, commitment to the relationship, then it's not cheating. You have to talk to her to find out how she feels about it.

I say 'more reasonable' because the traditionalist sort of relationship is almost always unsustainable. People become bored with each other over time and eventually seek new partners. If total devotion is expected, this will either end the relationship or cause lingering mistrust and resentment. But if non-commitment relationships outside the primary one are allowed, people can maintain their serious relationship without struggling to suppress their strong natural desire for new sexual partners.

At the risk, of course, of finding out that one of the non-commitment partners is a better match for a serious relationship. So it takes people who are very confident in their relationship to allow their partner to have sex with someone else without being overwhelmed by jealousy. While the most insecure will throw a fit at even the slightest hint of flirting, never mind sexting.

Edit: One of the other comments reminded me - This obviously needs to go both ways. It's unreasonable to expect your partner to allow you to do what you won't allow them to do.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It depends entirely on what boundaries two people who are dating have set. A lot of people (most, even) would say that flirting, making sexual comments and/or sexting with another over chat programs, forums, PM/DMs, and texts counts as cheating. If you are ever about to engage in something and you aren't sure if you're about to cross a line, bring it up with your SO. My SO has no problems with me flirting with people over chat, and likewise I don't have a problem with him doing the same. If I were with someone else and they didn't feel comfortable about it, I would respect that. At the end of the day you want the opinion of whoever you're dating.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you are not married, there is no obligation to the relationship, nor to each other. Either person can simply choose to walk away if he or she doesn't like the behavior of the other. This strange notion that simply spending time with a person saddles you with the responsibilities and obligations of marriage is a by-product of people "shacking up." They desire the benefits of marriage without shouldering its burdens, and that is bad for both those involved and for society at large. There is no "cheating" where there is no marriage.

If you are actually married, however, then yes, sexting would be a violation of your partner's trust. If you wouldn't do it with your partner watching, you shouldn't do it when he or she is absent.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 5 years ago.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What an ingenuous deflection that statement is. Sex outside marriage has only recently (1960's) become "acceptable" within the U.S., and you know it. My "archaic" beliefs go as far back as the history of marriage, and they continue to dominate within human society in most parts of the world.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

lol so its ok to cheat as long as you arent married? xD i cringed at that haha

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"Cheating" is a pseudonym for adultery. It means "to be sexually unfaithful." In order to be unfaithful, there must necessarily be a pledge or contract, and that is what marriage is. (Do not confuse marriage with the legal status many governments use within civil law. That is a legal by-product of the social contract which is marriage.) If there is no social contract (marriage), there can be no exceeding of its boundaries ("cheating").

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's also what a committed relationship is. A legal status of a relationship has nothing to do with what is fundamentally a question about ethics and trust in a relationship.. I can only assume you come from a certain background/culture where such things are completely irrelevant, and a compliant wife that "knows her place" is the extent that you expect from a relationship.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your response would seem to indicate that you have not read the comment to which you are responding.

A legal status of a relationship has nothing to do with what is fundamentally a question about ethics and trust in a relationship.

Here, you are paraphrasing what I just wrote, yet your manner of presentation suggests a rebuttal. Perhaps my meaning was not clear? I will try using your own words and perhaps that will help.

A committed relationship is the very definition of marriage. Both partners have committed themselves to each other, and they have made a social contract, witnessed by society, the government (if there is one), and God (if they acknowledge Him). A legal status of a relationship has nothing to do with what is fundamentally a question about ethics and trust in a [committed] relationship. To be more specific, "legal status" has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a social contract, whereas its "legal status" is a matter of civil law and something else entirely. Societies incorporate civil laws regarding marriage because marriage exists as part of human life. There is nothing to prevent you from getting married without government involvement, and acquiring the government's "permission" to marry does not necessitate that you actually go ahead and get married.

In the case of partners, they are either married, or they are not. If they are not married (e.g. boyfriend/girlfriend), then they have not made the commitment to each other and there is no social contract. As in any other noncommittal relationship, a failure to meet expectations and/or breaking of trust is not considered "cheating" by virtue of there being no commitment. By contrast, if two partners have made a commitment to each other, then they are married and it is possible to exceed the boundaries of that commitment (i.e. "cheat")..

Regarding your assumptions about my background, they have apparently been made without any knowledge of my education, culture, or belief system..

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's not actually true. I know at least three people who have an open marriage, I also know someone who regularly cheats on his wife and is a cocaine addict, but she stays with him anyway. A marriage is anything you define it to be within the contexts of the law. As is any relationship. I know people who have been together for forty odd years, and they never got married. They are in a committed relationship by any stretch of the imagination, they didn't need to do some silly religious ceremony or go in front of a judge. A social contract between two people is just that, that between two people. Calling each other girlfriend/boyfriend/partner slash whatever fucking term you want to call your significant other implies to society that you two are in a committed relationship (social contract). Thus breaking it by seeing someone else implies that you are betraying your partner and the social contract that you made.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A marriage is anything you define it to be within the contexts of the law.

No. Marriage exists outside "the Law." It is "the Law" that must adapt itself to the reality which is marriage. Were it not for the fact that some countries grant civil rights to those whom the government acknowledges as being married, there would be no need for a legal definition of marriage. Marriage is a contract, and it may be adjudicated like any other contract.

Calling each other girlfriend/boyfriend/partner slash whatever fucking term you want to call your significant other implies to society that you two are in a committed relationship (social contract).

You know that's not true. A friend introducing his partner to you as his "sweetie" is nowhere near the same as him introducing his partner as his "wife." Marriage comes with a contract. A social contract, yes, but still a contract, defined and agreed upon by the partners. Whether they agree that the relationship will be "open" or not is immaterial, it is still an agreement, and stepping outside its boundaries is still considered a breech of that contract (i.e. "cheating"), or, as you put it, betraying your partner and the social contract that you made.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

honestly though. you should really treat your girlfriend like a wife. you should still love your girlfriend and want to take care of her. cheating on her would be super disgusting. and depressing. she deserves better then that

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'd go so far as to say that you should treat everyone with respect. Not everyone does, though. P

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm calling BS, on this one Khalaq, sorry. A committed relationship whether or not you have some a piece of paper or some legal status by the government is a social contract. Two people either agreeing to be with one another is a social contract, I mean by your odd definition of what a social contract is someone who is engaged can't 'cheat' because they aren't married. Bullshit, this is about betrayal pure and simple. If you expect your partner to not sleep with someone else and you've had that conversation with them. Then they cheat, it hurts just as much as if you're in a marriage with them and they cheat.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Marriage isn't always on paper or government related as he kind of mention. I don't know how things on Khalaq's side but you can take up to 4 wifes in some parts of our culture. But i understand him as he sees marriage a real relationship. I had friends like that.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, pretending that other types of relationships don't exist or aren't real is being completely apathetic to reality. I hear there are some people who think that adopting children means that they aren't your real children. Or hell not having a vaginal birth means that you didn't really bond with your child properly. I also know people who think that vaccines aren't a good thing. The same goes with women who can't breastfeed. Other people's opinions on your life are stupid. If that what works for Khalaq then that's what works for Khalaq. Everyone else is going to live there lives and pretending that your relationship is better for whatever reason is stupid, or pretending that other relationships aren't as committed as yours is not leaving in a fact based reality. There are terrible marriages out there, there are people who really shouldn't be married. And as I've stated there are people who have been together for 40-50 years without getting married. I mean for a long time black and white people couldn't get married in the states, or in other parts of the world and yet they were in committed relationships till they could. Same with gay people who couldn't get married or make that commitment that Khalaq is going on about.

People can have opinions, that doesn't mean that their opinion is correct.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, pretending that other types of relationships don't exist or aren't real is being completely apathetic to reality.

Only I don't see anyone here doing that.

...pretending that other relationships aren't as committed as yours is not leaving in a fact based reality.

As far as I know, the level of commitment in any relationship is up to the people involved. If two partners commit to each other, then they are committed, are they not? Or are you saying something different?

You seem to be confusing the legal status of "marriage" with the commitment which actually is marriage. They are not the same thing. The first is a legal status granted by civil law. The second is a social contract made between two people (with or without the government's involvement).

Disclaimer: As I have said on previous occasions, I do not believe that government should be involved in marriage at all.. (<--- This is actually an opinion.) Marriage was never a civil phenomenon, nor is it now, nor will it ever be. Marriage is a contractual relationship between two people. Period.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You're the one that's suggesting that you can't cheat unless it's a marriage. So the problem lies with you. Actually this requires more from me and it's probably the last I'm going to say about it. Because you're very selective in your knowledge and having this argument with you probably means that you're not going to see my point.

My argument is this, cheating happens whether you are married or not. Any body who makes any sort of pledge to the other person is in a relationship. Being girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever implies that you are in a committed relationship. You are the one suggesting that "shacking up". If someone introduces someone as a girlfriend or a boyfriend I do not blink but assume that they are in a committed relationship. No one introduces someone as their sweetie (Actually they can, but there is something else as well). There's a possessiveness there. "This is John, he's my boyfriend." "This is Suzy, she's my girlfriend." "Harry, my husband." Which implies to anyone with half of a brain that there is a commitment. I do not personally see a difference with someone saying that this is my wife, or this is my fiancee, or this is my girlfriend because you know what. Girlfriend/boyfriend -> Engaged -> Marriage. They're all in a form of a committed relationship. The amount of time someone is together indicates what level of commitment I think they're at. If they got together two days ago, I might not be well that's going to last. If they've been together for six years, I might be oh yeah that's a committed relationship. Either way it's none of my business.

Marriages dissolve, relationships dissolve. One commitment isn't greater than the other. Inferring that oh well they just called him a sweetie is a disservice. My aunt calls her husband Honey bear, which I personally cringe at. They are married. He calls her his sweetie, again I cringe at pet names, but they happen. If I didn't know anything about them and they introduced each other. This is my sweetie, and this is my honey bear. I'd be cringing in disgust at the sickly sweetness of it all, but that doesn't invalidate what they are, or who they are. (They've been together for maybe 10 years I dunno I don't care) A marriage, can dissolve. They are no more committed to each other than anyone else, and this isn't a legal thing. They literally aren't. Some people can be married until they die others will not. Some people will be together until they die, others will not.

Adultery has religious connotations and lets face it even if it didn't it also harkens back to a time when women were property. It was outright ignored when men did it, but if a woman did it. Bad shit. Which again you seem to be ignoring in your whole shacking up is the worst thing in the world. People have always had mental illness, the rates of child rape, and physical and mental abuse were incredibly high way back then. It just wasn't talked about. Sigmund Freud basically rewrote his entire thesis because it offended Victorian sensibilities. Hysteria was a thing, mental illness has always existed, we just realized that it's a thing. You can make the argument that it's worse now because of the breakdown of marriage, my argument it was always this bad and social media, and general human apathy have made it more pronounced.

If you personally think someone introducing someone as their partner is not as committed to that person as someone introducing them as their wife then that's on you. The problem lies with you not society and perhaps you need to stop judging everything. My two cents about it.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I fail to see "the problem" as you put it. If there are no defined rules, it is not possible to break them. Are you saying otherwise?

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Usually partners talk about something alike. Also there are moral and ethical commonplaces in every society.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

True. Committing to a long-term relationship with clearly defined rules and calling upon others to bear witness to that commitment is an entirely different matter, however. It is like the difference between agreeing to meet your friend for lunch next Friday and agreeing with your boss that your shift starts at 8:00 am.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When I date someone we sit down and we talk about the expectations of the relationship. I've been in a poly situation, I've been monogamous, I've been in some weird bdsm shit, communication is key to any relationship and if you personally do not communicate with your SO, then that's on you.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

True.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I understand you. I wasn't taking sides here. Just saying there are people out there with same opinion and i kind of understand them as i see some of similarities in my culture. I don't like that either. But correct or false is a matter of perspective. Even if i find a little extreme khalaq to put it this way, he really doesn't have bad intentions from where i look.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

[T]his is about betrayal pure and simple. If you expect your partner to not sleep with someone else and you've had that conversation with them. Then they cheat, it hurts just as much as if you're in a marriage with them and they cheat.

So, you are defining "cheating" as hurting someone's feelings???

Betrayal always hurts, whether it is by your partner, your friend, or your boss. The question posed in the OP, however, was about "cheating," not betrayal. "Cheating" is betrayal within the confines of a committed relationship, something specific, whereas betrayal is general and a possibility within any relationship in which there is trust. "Cheating" is betrayal, but not all betrayal is "cheating."

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"Cheating" is betrayal within the confines of a committed relationship

Agreed.

There is no "cheating" where there is no marriage.

But yes, there is. Not all betrayal is "cheating.", yes. But that refers to friends, relatives, colleagues etc. or to non-sexual/emotional topics even to partners.
Betrayal (sexually/emotionally) on a partner - whether married or not - is cheating. You might see the marriage as perfect committment for a relationship (and that's fine to me), but that doesn't mean that other people who don't use this contract for w/e reasons can't love the same way and get hurt the same way.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I never said that they can't love the same way or get hurt the same way. I merely said they have not received the commitment from their partners that comes with marriage. The person who says, "I'm willing to do everything except marry you," is effectively saying "I'm willing to do everything except commit myself to this relationship in a binding way." That is like making a deal but refusing to shake on it, write it down, or sign the agreement. What recourse do you have when the other person fails to fulfill your expectations? Answer: none. The other person has chosen not to be held responsible, and you have agreed to that (if you dare enter such an agreement).

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm not that young anymore, but even back when I was 20 noone was talking about marriage yet, yet the majority wanted a serious long-term relationship. I'd even say that you should wait with plans for marriage and children for a few years to verify that the partner matches to you and therefore have a solid base for marriage and - even more important - children (to avoid them to be victims of a divorce).

What recourse do you have when the other person fails to fulfill your expectations? Answer: none.

Which recourse do you have when you're officially engaged? Only get parts of already ordered items or services for the planned marriage ceremony.
Which recourse do you have when you're married? Getting divorced and maybe a sharing of the gained wealth while being married (depends on laws and contracts).

Both are only materialistic recourses. A broken heart is a broken heart - if it was married before or not.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Which recourse do you have when you're officially engaged? ... Which recourse do you have when you're married?

That would depend upon the contract, wouldn't it? Getting married not only involves clearly defined rules and expectations, it also involves a very real commitment to adherence of those rules and expectations. Marriage is not derisively labeled as "the ball and chain" for nothing, yet the trade-off is in the stability and security that comes with it. You know that your husband or wife has committed him or herself to you for the foreseeable future. Engagement is a promise of that while still offering a grace period in which one or both may back out.

...back when I was 20 no one was talking about marriage yet, yet the majority wanted a serious long-term relationship.

Yes, I mentioned that in my original response. People want the privileges without shouldering the responsibility. That is the hallmark of immaturity.

I'd even say that you should wait with plans for marriage and children for a few years to verify that the partner matches to you and therefore have a solid base for marriage and - even more important - children.

Most commonly, it takes about two years of social interaction with a person before you can be fairly certain you know him or her. You may feel you know the person before that ("love at first sight"), but you risk being mistaken. Making a marriage successful, however, relies upon both partners working to ensure it happens.

Divorce rates are not high because people "don't know" their spouse. Divorce rates are high because most people do not know the characteristics and responsibilities of a good spouse. Not only do they end up choosing someone poorly suited to being their spouse, they do not know their own role in the marriage and how to fulfill it properly. Even so, many people refuse to give up and keep trying until they eventually figure it out. Unfortunately, many more do not.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Getting married not only involves clearly defined rules and expectations, it also involves a very real commitment to adherence of those rules and expectations.

Which rules? Legal ones? Clerical ones?
Both have some requirements for getting married, but not for being married. I only see two situations in which the behaviour within the marriage is important and it is judged on by society: divorce and custody lawsuits.
Privileges?
Yes, there are a few benefits for married couples like a different tax calculation, but that doesn't change anything regarding the relationship itself. But what else?
Expectations?
At these high divorce rates a marriage isn't that trustable as decades ago. And I expect every partner to be faithful, unless it was agreed on something else. I don't know anyone who wouldn't expect faithfulness from a serious relationship.

Don't get me wrong, I know what marriage meant earlier, but that has changed. And for me personally it's okay, because I think you can achieve happiness of love with or without marriage. I'd love to get married some day, but I just don't need it.

Regarding divorces: I've experienced two in my childhood. My parents married, when I was already working on my world domination plans. At that time they barely knew each other. Was it good that their marriage was based on a crush and/or the moralic pressure (illegitimate child)? Nope. And that happened way more often back then than now. Some of these enforced marriages might still work more or less, but they barely developed love in its original sense.
But I agree with you that today most people are giving up too fast when faced with issues. But that doesn't only end marriages, but also relationships. Again, no difference.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

[...]that is bad for both those involved and for society at large.

Now you've really piqued my curiosity. Care to elaborate on that part?

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I wish I could, but that's a long lecture series. I doubt I could condense so many years of sociological and psychological study into a single paragraph. Suffice it to say that many of the ills afflicting today's societies are a result of the dissolution of marriage and the breakdown in family structure over the past 60 years. We have created countless human time-bombs, ready to explode at any moment, and mental health services cannot keep up with the demand.

If you have a stable and loving family, feel blessed.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh wow, just wow.
So according to those 4 lines we can blame divorce and any kind of deviation from a same race, opposite gender and patriarchal family model as a primary culprit for mental illness?

View attached image.
6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not even. Where, in this conversation, have I ever specified gender, race, or family model?

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"breakdown of family structure". That's the most common use for it nowadays. If that's not how you meant it then I just misinterpreted it and I'm clueless on what you meant by it :P

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

From a sociological and psychological perspective, "the family structure" includes at least one parent (preferably two) and children (possibly adult). If that is unstable and/or endangered, it will affect the relationships of the entire family unit negatively, especially those of any growing kids. That, in turn, sows the seeds for all kinds of future difficulties.

Then there is also the predilection of passing on any dysfunction to the next generation....

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yeah, the confusion isn't on the "family structure" part, it's on the "breakdown" part which you're not entirely specifying what you mean. Unstable/endangered are not self explanatory

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Unstable/endangered are not self explanatory

Quite right. To use a gross oversimplification, growing children do best when they have two parents of opposite genders and a safe, stable family environment. Failing that, two adults who will act as parents in a safe and stable home. Failing that, one parent who can provide a stable home along with the other parent supporting and helping. If that cannot be accomplished, a single parent will have to do the best he or she can to fulfill the roles of two (usually done with outside help), but now we are getting into difficulty. And I haven't even mentioned the problems that arise when the home life is lacking in either safety or stability (or both).

I believe you can extrapolate further from there, and you are probably well aware that not all people who have children make good parents.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ok, I think I have an okay grasp of what you're saying now. Nothing further from me :)

disclaimer: I cannot disagree more with most of what you're saying in all of your posts here( I only agree in how the social contract and the legal counterpart are two very separate things and how not all parents are good parents) but I have absolutely no desire to get into this cause it's just not gonna go anywhere. Let's just agree to disagree and enjoy our day :P

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Suffice it to say that many of the ills afflicting today's societies are a result of the dissolution of marriage and the breakdown in family structure over the past 60 years. We have created countless human time-bombs, ready to explode at any moment, and mental health services cannot keep up with the demand.

What the... I don't even...

The 20th century called. It wants its reactionary scaremongering back.

There's a minimal possibility I might be underestimating you, but after reading everything you wrote here, I just don't see how you could possibly make a coherent defence of that statement.

I mean, really, go back and read what you wrote. You're (correctly) decrying dysfunctional families and the damage they cause to children, and at the same time you're decrying the change from marriage for life, regardless of how dysfunctional, to a system where dysfunctional relationships can be ended comparatively painlessly. Which is it? Or are you saying being brought up by a single parent is a more dysfunctional family structure than a couple who can't stand each other?

And where's your evidence that the changes in family structure have caused an increase in mental illness? Because I'm willing to bet the opposite is true.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You seem to be reading something into my words that isn't there. That could be because I did not explain myself fully in the comment you cite here. Have you had a chance to read this?

By the way, not all people who need the services of mental health professionals are "mentally ill." It is that kind of attitude and the fear of being stigmatized that scares fully functional people away from seeking help.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes, I read that one too. It's a big part of what I based my comment on. Either you're blind to the contradictions in your comments or you're absurdly terrible at explaining yourself.

Regarding the second paragraph, you're right in general, but that's not relevant to the discussion. Cases where non mentally ill people need mental health help are mostly based on neurological disorders. In contrast, psychological trauma caused by a stressful/abusive/neglectful upbringing definitely counts as "mental illness".

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Either you're blind to the contradictions in your comments or you're absurdly terrible at explaining yourself.

Or both.

I would like to acknowledge that my use of "mental illness" is probably not in line with the psychological definition. You may indeed be correct, and any inappropriate use of the phrase would be entirely my fault. My studies in psychology were mostly done in the 80's and 90's, and much has changed since then. Back then, there was some distinction between "poor mental health," "mental illness," and "mental disorder." Of course, there was some overlap, too. I have no idea how they are delineated these days (if at all).

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wait so are you saying you had sexual relations with other women between the times you began dating your wife and when you got married?

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I am saying nothing of the sort. Way back in the beginning, however, I did say that "boyfriend/girlfriend" (as understood in "the West") is not a committed relationship.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it is considered a commited relationship in the west. i can't think of a western country in which they wouldn't consider that a commited relationship.

unless you are talking about 'open relationships'.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it is considered a commited relationship in the west

I had thought that you lived in "the West," but that last statement makes me wonder. If you have truly had experience living in "the West," then you should know that's not true. There are no binding rules in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, nor do adults consider such relationships to be "serious." (Children don't know any better, but they like using the term because it makes them feel more mature.) Being a boyfriend or girlfriend simply means you are considered to be "dating," at most. The words "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" are used even outside the context of dating to refer to people who are simply acquaintances. There is even the qualifier of being a "steady" boyfriend or girlfriend, denoting someone about whom you are "more serious."

The expectations between people who are dating is wide-open. None of the above approaches the commitment of marriage, however.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

'nor do adults consider such relationships to be "serious." ' looking at the other comments i'm pretty sure you don't speak for the majority of adults. (no matter how many quotation marks you use :P)

Without all the technical stuff and what words should or shouldnt mean, isn't dating essentially a trail period before marriage anyway?

if i'm dating someone and he/she bangs everything within a ten mile radius they they probably are not good marriage material. :P

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Without all the technical stuff and what words should or shouldnt mean, isn't dating essentially a trail period before marriage anyway?

That is what most people would understand, although some of those responding to my comments appear to think otherwise.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wow. Canadian here. No one uses steady anymore. What are we in the 60s? I understand where we differ now, you're just an old man. It's okay. I understand now. We're never going to agree.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh, I dunno.... It seems to be a matter of exposure, really. Depending upon your continuing education and life experience, you may or may not come to understand just how small a percentage of the earth's population shares your perspective. I will concede one point, however; the manner in which relationships are defined has been changing rapidly in Western countries over the past 20 years.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you are, I am afraid, entirely wrong on that facet of your understanding of relationships in "the west" - and saying such just perpetuates biased stereotypes thrown about by people uneducated on different cultures - very sad

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you are, I am afraid, entirely wrong on that facet of your understanding of relationships in "the west"

Well, it seems we must agree to disagree on that point. I know for a fact, however, that I am somewhat educated about quite a few different cultures, both contemporaneously and throughout history. The perspective which you put forth as "normal" is something which has only been adopted by a minority of the world's population, and that only recently. I freely admit, however, that I am much less familiar with the Balkans and the former-Soviet Union than I am with the rest of "the West."

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

okay - let me rephrase that - in my opinion only (although others in the thread suggest that your understanding might be lacking on "the west" - whatever that means I do not know), your understanding of relationships in "the west" is entirely obtuse and sadly appears to be mired in a historical dogma and understanding of a subject that has long since been superceded by more enlightened minds - that coming from someone who is in a commited relationship without marriage for many many years, and who believes that your comment that "The expectations between people who are dating is wide-open..." appears entirely falatious at the very least...
This coming from at least two people here who have at least a degree education on history and archaeology :) - as such, it is not so much that we agree to disagree, more that I do not agree at all with your position and understanding of the subject matter, but respect your right to your opinion and your right to postulate it wherever you want :P

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

your comment that "The expectations between people who are dating is wide-open..." appears entirely falatious at the very least...

So, you are saying that the "rules of dating" are well-defined and everyone is in agreement about them? That has not been my experience. Far from it, every dating couple I have ever met has had different expectations and understandings of what "dating" means to them, sometimes even differing between the two people involved. If there is a limitation on what expectations people can have in a casual relationship, I am unaware of it.

...that coming from someone who is in a commited relationship without marriage for many many years.

If you and your partner are that committed to each other, what is preventing you from taking the final step and formalizing it? Do not answer this question if you feel it is too personal.

Regarding your opinion and/or point of view, it is your right to have one and I have no problem with that. My disagreement with the other people in this thread has been almost entirely based on semantics. (See here for details.)

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

what final step would that be? What is your idea of formalisation? - From what I can see you are trying to suggest, although I may be wrong, that a marriage contract is the final step!

It should be noted, from a historical perspectic, that this is simply not the case and that marriage is a modern construct (by modern please note that I use the term historical modern and not post industrial revolution modern) - please be aware that history is not confined to the last few hundred years - and our history (including written documentation of relationships) goes back for much longer - ibn fadlans writings on relationships and the final rights of loved ones burials are well noted and have nothing to do with a contract of marriage through their lives - merely an understanding of either ownership (slavery not being confined to the nasty practice of selling workers to pick cotton) or a deep understanding and mutual respect as a couple - or perhaps a blood bond, as has been noted in earlier documentation - and a fact that has has also been documented in both viking and roman texts.

In our opinion the final step of our commited relationship would be dying old and happy together, after perhaps another couple of decades together (by that point we will be a little too old to care I should imagine) - an opinion we both share - and as such we have no need of a piece of paper to bind us to any one institution or another (be it the state or church).

having lived in Japan, Germany, France, Bulgaria, the UK, and for a short while in the USA, I can assure you our understanding is quite well formed on commited relationships; and based upon the comments many have left in this thread, semantics or not, they appear to share similar views to our own - although a very unscientific method, this should at least suggest to yourself that your suggestions, whilst your own, are not held by the majorty of people - as you suggested throughout many of your comments

as a final point, it should be noted that just because you are "unaware of it", does not mean that it does not exist - we were always taught that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - have a great week and I have added some new giveaways for all as it has been a while :)

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

what final step would that be? What is your idea of formalisation? - From what I can see you are trying to suggest, although I may be wrong, that a marriage contract is the final step!

You would be correct. My understanding is that the final step of committal (not of the relationship) would be formalizing it through marriage. What would that entail? It would involve making some kind of vow of commitment in front of witnesses and letting it be known throughout the community in which you live that you are henceforth a couple. Any "piece of paper" (as you put it) would be a formality, used as evidence for those outside your community to show that such a bond has indeed been made, and acting as a recourse in the event that either or both partners wish the vows to be actionable in court. (The issue of whether or not "the State" recognizes a particular marriage is another topic, entirely.)

It is that socially binding promise, made to each other and upheld by witnesses, which distinguishes the formal relationship that is marriage.

...please be aware that history is not confined to the last few hundred years

Quite. Marriage has been around for as long as written history. Long, before either the Vikings or the Romans. It is reasonable to assume that marriage existed even before that, but we lack evidence. Societies are considerably varied, so there is no way to know how any particular group formalized the spousal bond without documentation I believe you already know this.

this should at least suggest to yourself that your suggestions, whilst your own, are not held by the majorty of people

As I am fairly certain you know, t is difficult to determine how widely spread any social practice may be. Doing so requires extensive research, and personal experience is little help due to the fact that people tend to gravitate toward those who share similar beliefs and practices. Please do not misunderstand me. I have noticed the changes that have been happening over the past fifty years, both the change in society's view of "dating" and marriage, and also the attempt to redefine vocabulary so as to blur the distinction between the two. What the future holds, we will have to see, but there is no arguing that your "views" (as you put it) are not only shared by some of the people who have commented, they are shared by a sizeable percentage of the population. (In "the West," at minimum.) However, I have also noticed that the point of view held by many civilizations over the course of human history continues to be the norm in the majority of places I have visited or studied. Whether you go to Venezuela, Togo, or Kazakhstan, people still bond themselves to each other.

as a final point, it should be noted that just because you are "unaware of it", does not mean that it does not exist

That is true, of course, but you are simply deflecting, here. You took exception to a statement I made, apparently because you misunderstood my meaning, and I challenged you on it. As it seems to once again be an issue of semantics, I doubt it is worth hashing out.

What is more important is that I have maintained that there is a distinction between marriage and non-marriage. I have also maintained that a violation of the strictures of marriage can only occur within the confines of marriage (e.g. adultery). That is a matter of definition, not opinion. Even so, my statements have been attacked with accusations that I have no compassion (untrue), no sense of commitment (also untrue), and no respect for others (laughably untrue).. In short, some people seem to think I am claiming that infidelity is acceptable. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like everyone else who has posted in this thread, I do not tolerate infidelity, nor do I take betrayal lightly. Where I differ from them is in my refusal to lump non-marriage relationships in with marriage itself, and my refusal to redefine the meaning of the word "cheating."

I believe I have belabored my point a sufficient number of times. Feel free to have the last word, and no hard feelings. )

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Why are you guys writing such long complicated messgaes to each other.

OP wants to show his PeePee to strange women , not negotiate world peace :P

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

true - it is clear that they only consider marriage to be a relationship that is binding and that it is okay to mess around outside the confines of marriage as it is not a binding agreement - which is at best morally wrong :) - having a degree in hist/arch I can assure them that marriage as he knows it was not around for as long as written records - if he is deeming it marriage in a church - as that is a relatively modern construction and bears little relationship to what partnerships were considered historically - they are simply mired in the dogma that marriage is the be all and end all it appears :) - ho hum, never mind, I guess I will stick with my poorly defined relationship and live a quiet life :)

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hahaha!

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So, you are saying that the "rules of dating" are well-defined and everyone is in agreement about them? That has not been my experience. Far from it, every dating couple I have ever met has had different expectations and understandings of what "dating" means to them, sometimes even differing between the two people involved. If there is a limitation on what expectations people can have in a casual relationship, I am unaware of it.

Again you're contradicting yourself. Most of what you've written here is focused on arguing that anything besides marriage is completely non-committed and thus it's impossible to cheat. But that's completely incompatible with the idea of couples deciding on whatever rules they like for their relationship. What if they decide to have a committed relationship with similar rules to whatever you think marriage means? Are you still going to claim "there is no obligation to the relationship, nor to each other", just because they haven't gone through some ritual or whatever?

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Most of what you've written here is focused on arguing that anything besides marriage is completely non-committed and thus it's impossible to cheat.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "cheating" is a term that is defined within the context of marriage, just as "adultery" is defined by the context of marriage. This does not, of course, prevent people from using the term out of context, and that is basically what most of the arguing has been about.

As for "anything besides marriage [being] completely non-committed," that is both extreme and absurd. What I said was that there is no binding commitment in a casual relationship because no vows have been exchanged and no witnesses used. How can there be a violation of the vows made and witnessed (i.e. "cheating") if no vows have been made and witnessed?

It seems to me that your understanding of the differences between marriage and non-marriage are other than mine, and your understanding of the word "cheating" is other than mine. So be it. I have already repeated myself multiple times, so I don't know what it would take to reach the mutual understanding I have been seeking. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You crack me up you spent all this time replying trying to defend your view while throwing out other people's views at the same time.You can not have your cake and eat it.

I guess you live in a world where if it has no contract then I have no duty to full-fill it.So do share with me then how do children work?Do you have no commitment to them since you do not sign a contract when they are born?

I am fine if that is how you see it but do not try and tell others there views are not right because they do not align with yours.If you tell someone you want to be with them you should respect that and not cheat on them.That has nothing to do with being married that is just having respect for another person.A verbal commitment may not hold up in a court but that does not give you a pass to do as you wish without consequences weather you care about them or not is a different story but they still exist.

I have no commitment to not kill but I choose not to do so not because of some stupid law or contract not to do so but because I have moral's and I have the same when it comes to relationship married or not.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You crack me up you spent all this time replying trying to defend your view while throwing out other people's views at the same time.

No, I spent all that time and effort clarifying what I wrote because some people have insisted that particular words mean something other than how they have been defined for nigh on the past 100 years. (Granted, in another 100 years, the definitions may have changed, again.)

I guess you live in a world where if it has no contract then I have no duty to full-fill it.

Now, you're just being absurd.

My disagreement with "other people" has been mostly to do with the definition of words. Specifically, there is no binding commitment in a casual (boyfriend/girlfriend) relationship, and any pairing/bonding of two people that is not casual is, by definition, marriage. As "cheating" is defined as the betrayal of the marriage vows, you need to be in a marriage for it to be defined as "cheating." If you aren't, then it's just plain old betrayal. For whatever reason, "other people" wanted to argue the point. I don't care whether or not you like cake, but don't expect me to agree that your doughnut is a birthday cake simply because they are both cake.

A verbal commitment may not hold up in a court but that does not give you a pass to do as you wish without consequences weather you care about them or not is a different story but they still exist.

Agreed. I never said otherwise. I simply said that betrayal in that context doesn't qualify as "cheating" any more than does your friend telling everyone a closely-guarded secret. "Cheating" is a form of betrayal, but not all betrayal is cheating.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

but...but.... this it's really simple....

if you are whit another girl/boy (in any aspect---> sex / talk sex / camera sex / or just one time date, etc..... etc... etc... ) when you actually have a girl/boy whit you.

it's cheating. here, in mars and in all the universe.

you, whit your comments only show how bad person you are.

it's true that centuries ago this don't was like now, but time and culture progress and now this it's considered cheating by 99.9% of population of the world when you already have a girl/boy whit you.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The only question here is whether your girlfriend will think it is cheating. What we think isn't really relevant because we are not the ones who will be throwing your clothes out of the window.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Defenestration for the win!

"The term was coined around the time of an incident in Prague Castle in the year 1618, which became the spark that started the Thirty Years' War." Isn't history just fucking awesome?:)

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"The angle of trajectory suggests that he was defenestrated rather than trying to flee."

xD

View attached image.
6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hey my dad watches that show:P

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And he's right to do so, I learned a lot from the expertise of the likes of Dr. Sloane, Matlock and MacGyver. Actually, my whole general education is based upon stuff like building a rocket launcher with just a tube, some tape and a swiss army knife, always being mistaken for Peter Graves while helping my son (an incompetent police detective) with my impeccable knowledge and having an actual detective as best friend, who solves all my cases to a point where my dementia doesn't get in the way too much.
Hmm... kinda miss series likes that running in the afternoon :>.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Don't forget Jessica Fletcher! (Murder She Wrote).

I used to watch the Masterpiece Mystery series with him, especially Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. Excellent shows with brilliant writing and acting.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Man, now I want to go and download all those shows and watch them again!

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

defenestrated

It sounds so kinky.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Indeed!

View attached image.
6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

also..
During the Polish-Lithuanian January Uprising of 1863, Russian soldiers dumped Frederic Chopin’s grand piano out of a second story apartment window in Warsaw. Chopin wasn’t around to mourn the loss, though – he had left Poland in 1830, and was dead from pulmonary tuberculosis by 1849.

The Polish poet and artist Cyprian Norwid was inspired to write a poem about the instrumental defenestration, which was appropriately titled “Chopin’s Piano.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Russian soldiers dumped Frederic Chopin’s grand piano

:(

View attached image.
6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

if you've got into doing this, than you're probably not happy in your current state with her. Think about it, and make the right decision rather than wasting eachother's time. :)

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yea, you are not being loyal to your partner when sexting

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Cheating has a lot to do with the kind of relationship and how you communicate what happens to you.

If it would bother you if it was your partner doing the same thing, then yes it is cheating.

6 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's definitely more delicate than cheating or not cheating.

If you talk about sex with a stranger, then most healthy relationships would have both parties allow it.
If you sext them though... I'd say that's cheating. In the end, you're showing yourself off to someone else and usually for sexual pleasure.

6 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.