Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Cheating:   Doing something that would hurt the other person's feelings
    as discussed during the relationship. If it was not discussed
    and the other person's feelings were hurt, then it is not cheating.
    If, however, I KNEW that it would hurt the other person and 
    I did it anyway under the pretense that it was not discussed, then
    I am a slimeball.


    Oh, and that guy in .0 at the end has his head up his ass.

        If there really are differences between how men define cheating
        and how women define it then, at least in a heterosexual
        relationship, it is cheating to violate either. If you do what
        you feel is cheating then you are cheating. If you do what the
        other person feels it would be cheating for you to do, then you
        are cheating. I would say that either secret intimacy or sex
        outside the relationship is cheating.
        
        JimB.

    I agree with Michael in .2 90%.  If you do something which you
    KNOW would hurt your partner if he/she knew, you're cheating AND
    you're a slimeball, whether or not it was "discussed".
    
    				Steve

	Funny you should ask...I was just wondering about some similar
    stuff in Close Encounters of the Terminal Kind; when does a relationship
    become emotional?  And does a network relationship count?

	Applying my own similar curiosity to this note, I suppose I would
    have to ask myself exactly how secure I felt about the relationship and
    whether any rules (such as "no going to bed with anyone else", or "no
    emotional relationships with any other peers/friends") of the current
    relationship existed out of insecurity.

	My case would appear to have very few clear-cut "rules" but some
    very basic "understandings" in place with my wife.  I feel very at ease
    with her and her friends because I feel I can trust her (even with her
    emotional ties), unlike another female I almost married (who I felt I
    couldn't trust with her emotional ties whatsoever).

	In the case of Becky (my ex-fiance'e), she was not exactly having
    affairs behind my back or anything, but her boss seemed to be putting the
    moves on her (to her approval) until it got to the point of him calling
    her at home almost every night (and she would take the phone into the
    bedroom for a private conversation).  I'm not sure whether she was actually
    going to bed with him or not, but emotionally, my relationship with Becky
    began to suffer the minute I realized that I was no longer her sole con-
    fidant, and had always teetered on the brink of similar mistrust to begin
    with.

	The point of my little expose' here is that I had already begun to
    feel hurt the minute I found out about the interest of the other man, but
    I think this was based on the fact that I never felt totally secure with
    the relationship to begin with (the way I do now with Karin).  Had Becky
    had a one-night affair with the guy as opposed to carrying on an emotional
    relationship, I'm not sure that I would've reacted any differently.  Alot
    of this has to do with my fear of disease more than anything, but I'm sure
    that the thought of her making love with another guy would've produced the
    same results as secretly dating.

								-davo

    I believe cheating starts when the rules of the relationship gets
    changed to benefit one of the partners.  Why can't a woman have
    an open emotion relationship with another man?  And visa versa.
    
    But when the relationship invades the trust, especially physical,
    and knows the act will cause pain, that's very insensitive, selfish
    and cheating.  Those kind of games signal a serious problem.  Someone
    in the relationship is not totally committed.
    
    Remains me of the saying "the grass is always greener on the other
    side", until you get there.
                               
    
    Karen
    

    
    	You can choose your own friends!
    
    		But honestly, tell me about your intentions with
    		this new person...
    
    	If you lie to me, or tell me that you will bring them within
    	the scope of *our* relationship's agreements, well...
    
    		
    		Joe Jas
    

    This is a tough one -- I'm naturally suspicious.
    
    Others have referred to the agreements on which a relationship is
    based, and I have to lend my support to that concept.  Trying to
    apply absolutes to something like this is silly.  People are too
    different.
    
    If a woman I cared about wanted to have other male friends, I think
    it would be ridiculous of me to try and tell her not to.  After
    all, you can never really have problems with someone you don't care
    about, can you?  If the someone is me, where is she supposed to
    go if she wants another male viewpoint.
    
    If she were to say she loves him the same way she loves me, however,
    I don't know how well I'd cope with that.  Of course, that's never
    happened to me.
    
    Dave W.

    just to add to the confusion ......   suppose my wife and I go to
    a "swap" party together with every intention of having sex with 
    someone esle,  are we cheating ? 
    S_Rat
    

    
    Re .0, I dare you to introduce this as a topic in Womannotes!  Have
    you ever been crucified before?
    
    Lorna
    

re: .12,

	...If the Dark Ages are in fact over, then how could he be crucified?


	I think people play roles when in public (such as the party mentioned
    in .0) which they might not ordinarily play in private.  The fact that
    the women sided against the men for the disscussion merely means that the
    women at this party decided to all play one role and the men were forced
    to play the other.  It does not mean that these features neccessarily apply
    to the sexes - only perhaps to the sex-roles.

	Thinking in terms of sex-roles (while also misleading), I suppose I can
    imagine this scenario taking place fairly easily.  Let's face it, we are all
    born with the same bodily needs and desires, but the sex-roles we choose to
    adopt influence which bodily needs we focus in upon.

	As a man, with a somewhat typical male sex-role adopted, I seem to be
    programmed more towards striving for a sexual relationship than emotional.
    Fortunately, however, I was never much for behavior modification, so I find 
    it easy to reprogram myself for an emotional relationship as well.

	As far as CHEATING (the topic), I still have problems with this term.
    To cheat at something, you have to be playing by certain defineable RULES.
    I often heard it said that "All's fair in Love and War", so how can Love
    have any rules?  I think Love has rules in high school (i.e. first you ask
    her out to a dance, then you can go steady with a friendship ring, then you 
    do this, then you do that...etc.), but the real world is alot different if
    you take a close enough look.

	I prefer to think of it as "destroying" (or "risking") the relationship
    as opposed to "cheating".  It's hard to know ahead of time what is a poten-
    tial risk in a relationship, but communication is the only way to find out
    ahead of time so that most risks can be avoided if so desired.

							-davo

    re .2 - I had to reread my .0 to understand your oh-so-gentle closing
    remark, Michael.  I was careful not to include my own personal feelings
    on the topic in .0, but rather tried to summarize the (at times
    *heated*) feelings at Sunday's party.  So I was a little stunned
    when I read your response, and then confused.  Somehow, Mike, I
    think you missed the point.  Anyway, what goes around comes around,
    and your words may come back to haunt you someday.
    
    re .12 - Lorna!!!!  How are you?!!!   It's been so long!  I don't
    have to ask you how *you* feel about this topic, do I?  But why
    don't you tell the rest of us?  I would feel a little uncomfortable
    in Womannotes - sort of walking into a ladies bathroom by mistake,
    you know?
    
    re .0 - My own thoughts:  What I found interesting about the
    conversation at the party was the sexist split.  By in large, females
    thought cheating was sexual, males thought it was emotional, but
    - when pressed - didn't want their wives/girlfriends going to bed
    with anyone either because, the women, by in large, wouldn't go
    to bed with a man unless she cared about him.
    
    One of the responses mentioned motivation, and I think that's the
    crux of it.  I was raised Catholic, and went to parochial school
    up in my home town of Leominster, Mass.  "Mortal sin" was a hot
    topic in those days, especially, what is and what isn't "mortal".
    What it came down to was:  "If you think it's mortal, it's mortal."
    
    Cheating is like that, too.  If you think you're cheating, you are.

    "Cheating" is a betrayal of trust.  If a couple goes to a
    "Swap" party, each of them knows what is happening.  But in most
    cases, the partner has no idea what is going on and you KNOW he
    or she would be hurt if they found out.  If you go ahead and
    do whatever (which may or may not include sex - that is, to me,
    irrelevant), then you have betrayed your partner's trust in you
    and you have cheated.  Attempting rationalizations such as "My 
    wife doesn't understand me", "He'd do it too", etc. don't hold.
    
    Maybe I'm wierd - I was intensely and absolutely faithful to my
    wife.  Sure, I'd look from time to time (rarely - I was perfectly
    happy with my wife, and didn't feel the need to ogle other girls),
    and we all have fantasies.  However, there were times, especially
    when I was away on business, when I'd ask myself - what would I
    do if some beautiful woman came up to me and asked me to make love
    to her - my wife would never have to know.  (I said we all have
    fantasies!)  Each time I played this game with myself, I always
    came up with the same result - no, I would refuse.  Even AFTER
    I found out my wife wanted to leave me, and I played this game
    out again, I got the same answer - because I still believed in
    our marriage and I didn't want to do anything I might regret later.
    If I cheated once, even if it seemed fully justified, I'd have to
    live with it the rest of my life.  (Thankfully, perhaps (?), this
    little fantasy never came true..)
    
    I trusted my wife absolutely, and she trusted me (at least she said
    so).  Betrayal of this kind of trust is what I call cheating, and
    to me, it is a very serious matter.
    
    					Steve

    
    Re .13, when people act like it's still the dark ages (such as thinking
    that extra-relationship sex is okay for a man but not for a woman)
    then we can revive the punishments of the dark ages such as
    crucifixion.  (I just invented that rule.)
    
    Re .14, do I know you?  Do you know me??  I guess it *has* been
    a long time! 
    
    I basically believe that people should try to treat others the way
    they'd like to be treated themselves.  If you know you wouldn't
    want your Significant Other to go to bed with someone else then
    you shouldn't be doing it either.  On the other hand, if you really
    don't give a darn if they do, maybe you should get out of the
    relationship or discuss having an open relationship.  I think if
    more men were only interested in having sex when emotions are involved,
    it would be a happier and simpler life for most women.  (But, now
    I'm really dreaming.)
    
    As far as the Womannotes file goes, .14, there are a number of men
    who write in that file frequently.  I don't know if they also frequent
    ladies rooms but I kinda doubt it!
    
    Lorna
    

    I am finding this all so confusing.
    
    	Are the men in this file contending that MEN need emotional
    	committment before sex can be initiated....
    		and the women don't?
    
    Seems to me it's been the opposite for a millinea hasn't it?
    
    

    Re .17:
       I don't know what others contend, but I need emotional commitment
    first.  I would probably say that some men do and some women do
    and some men don't and some women don't.
    					Steve

re:
>    re .2 - I had to reread my .0 to understand your oh-so-gentle closing
>    remark, Michael.  I was careful not to include my own personal feelings
>    on the topic in .0, but rather tried to summarize the (at times
>    *heated*) feelings at Sunday's party.  So I was a little stunned
>    when I read your response, and then confused.  Somehow, Mike, I
>    think you missed the point.  Anyway, what goes around comes around,
>    and your words may come back to haunt you someday.


    Peter, I am sorry if I offended YOU I was referring to the guy
    at the party at the end of your note, not you.

    
    
    
    
    
                      "A Rose by any other name is still
    
                                 a Rose"!
    

	Carefully re-reading note .0 should clear-up what the "typical" con-
    sensus of opinion seems to be: that men strive for sexual relationships,
    and that women strive for emotional relationships.

	The fact that this consensus seemed to have been taken at a gathering
    in which peer-pressure may have had some influence would lead me to believe 
    that possibly these people were choosing roles, as opposed to actually
    stating their own personal needs.

	If I were at the party, I probably would have felt compelled to "vote-
    ticket" with the popular male needs as well, but I'm not so sure that such
    an easy definition is either realistic or desirable.

	I would imagine that there are many more emotional relationships which
    are both fostered by, and perpetuated by men than men (as a group) would
    have you believe.
								-davo

    Yeah Dave, I have to agree with you; its been my experience that
    us men are the emotional suckers, and that its the women that have
    a level head on what a relationship is really about.  Usually, they
    have a better idea of when its the right time to bail out too...

    
    -1  BULL!!
    
    later, gailann
    

    
    Re -2, you must not think much of yourself if you think that any
    woman who would "do it" with you would "do it" with anybody.
    
    Lorna
    

Question:  Is a person cheating, if they give to a person other then their SO, a
part of them, which their SO does not want?  How about if the SO does not want
that part given to anyone else? (sort of dog in the manger...)

Jim. 

    Re .26, others:
    
    I'd go back to my earlier comment that it is cheating if you hurt
    your partner.  If your partner doesn't care, it's not cheating.
    If your partner would be hurt by your doing something with another
    that your partner doesn't want to do with you, you've got a big
    problem, and I'd still say that you'd be cheating.  Cheating is
    a betrayal of trust, and cannot be tied to any specific physical
    act.
    					Steve

    RE:  Emotional Cheating
    
    Why do some of you seem to think that having a confidant other than
    one's SO is cheating?  I have several people who I can tell most of my
    life to, and feel safe doing so.  Most of them I have no intention of
    ever going to bed with.  I could never stay with an SO, no matter how
    perfect he was, if I were denied these other close friendships. 
    
    RE: .26
    
    I feel that an SO who does not want to share an interest, activity,
    etc. that is important to you should allow you you to have it with
    others, if that's what you desire.  In fact, if too many things are
    being denied for the relationship, the relationship should probably be
    reevaluated.  If you want to do something without your SO, I don't see
    any reason not to, or any reason why your SO should object. I've been
    on both sides of this, and I don't object either way, until almost
    nothing is being shared.  I don't see why this necessarily detracts
    from the relationship.  In fact, I suspect a relationship where
    *everything* is shared would be rather boring.  I think some kind of
    balance is the key here. 
    
    Kathleen
    

    Having a confidant, to me, is not cheating.  In fact, I'd say it's
    a necessity.  As long as what you do with that confidant doesn't
    hurt your partner.
    
    I agree - if your SO objects to your activities with others that
    he/she doesn't want to share with you, the relationship should be
    "audited".
    				Steve

    One specific comment to Lorna (.12): Why do you say that? Just
    because .0 is introducing this subject and asking for opinions
    doesn't mean he supports the male position. Why should he be
    crucified?
    
    As for the topic at hand, I would side with the women. I'd be
    hurt and feel cheated on if my SO had sex with someone else (and
    I'd feel I was cheating if I had sex with someone else), but
    certain emotional attachments are perfectly fine by me. I have
    strong relationships with a number of women that do not impinge
    upon my relationship with my SO. By the same token, my SO has
    similar relationships with other men. It doesn't bother either
    of us. Sex, though? Nope. That's cheating. It doesn't mean I'd
    never do it (:-)), but it'd certainly be cheating, and I'd feel
    guilty as hell.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .19 - Thanks, Mike.  I *did* take your comment personnaly, and
    I'm glad you took the time to let me know I was wrong.
    
    Peter

    This reply was prompted by .6 (Grass is greener). It just took
    a while to write.

    Maybe - just maybe, it may help a relationship.  I didn't cheat
    on my ex,  but I will admit to thinking about it.

    Prior to marrying, I was involved with a married woman for a beautiful
    4 month relationship.  We were friends for about two years and
    were at a get together with other friends.  It sort of just happened
    and the time together always brings back fond memories.  She and her
    husband ended up going thru a trial separation. Before we broke off the
    relationship, I begged her to get a divorce, but then let her go.
    She went back to her husband and family as the ties were too strong.
    About a month or two later (I don't remember the actual time lag),
    I received a very nice short letter from her husband (I never had
    the chance to meet him).

    Did the affair help their relationship?  I can only guess and try
    to read between the lines of his letter.  I don't know what all she
    told her husband, as there were no real juicy tales to tell.
    At most, some love petting on the beach.

    Has their marriage survived over the last 8 years since?  I don't
    know.  They lived in the mid west and I've not been back there since.
    I'ld like to think it might have.  Is this considered cheating?  I was 
    too close to this situation to be a judge.

    I do feel an affair by either partner might possibly be helpful
    but only under a special set of circumstances.  Definitely not in
    the everyday relationship.  My definition of an affair - strong
    emotional ties, does not need to include intercourse.  If my ex
    wife had had an affair during the last year of our marriage I
    don't think I could have held it against her.

    As for myself, I turned down an affair during the first month
    of our separation.  I know I couldn't have handled it emotionally.

    Just some outer skin thoughts on the subject.

"Tomorrow may rain, so - I'll follow the sun"
    Lee

    I know I've had several replies in this note already, and I want
    to avoid repeating myself, but I do have some strong feelings on
    the subject.
    
    As the last couple of replies have indicated, there is an almost
    invisible "line" between confidant and lover - where the former
    may help a relationship and the latter which almost certainly harms
    it.  What's worse is that two people who start out in a strictly
    "platonic" friendship can drift slowly but surely into a damaging
    affair, without being aware that it is happening.  This is especially
    true if you think your marriage is in trouble (or have convinced
    yourself that it is).
    
    I believe that if you are in this kind of situation, where your
    "friendship" with another can escalate into something more, that
    you should stop and think for a long time, and realize that if you continue
    on the current course that you are in essence abandoning your marriage
    - choosing escape rather than trying to solve your problems.  If
    this is what you want to do, then admit it - to yourself AND your
    spouse.  You're not doing ANYONE a favor by pretending that "what
    he doesn't know won't hurt him", or that things will work out by
    themselves.  Without you there to attack the problems and solve
    them, your marriage is down the tubes.
    
    I'd also like to echo Suzanne's comment regarding breaking up a
    marriage with children involved.  This is an incredibly selfish
    thing to do, and can be extremely damaging to your children.  If
    you are serious about it, ask for a divorce now, or work with your
    spouse to try and solve your problems.  Don't abandon your children
    too.
    					Steve

    Set Reply/Devil's Advocate
    
    You folks with your altrustic ideals are very amusing to me.  I
    am old enough to feel the cold coming to my bones; I remember when
    I too, had ideals.  Do you think that, in the end, anyone cares
    if you have an affair -- if you and another love?  Who will really
    loose for your ideals?  The SO?  The kids?  Only the fire in your
    hearts, that you let die, that's what is lost.  All for some stupid
    ingrained social ideals, artificial creations of your minds, that
    you confuse for reality.  Life is to live, it's brief enough, let
    the experience of living consume you, don't be cheated by some stupid
    ideal.  Remember, the pain in your bones will be creeping in soon
    enough...after that there's nothing.

        Old doesn't have to mean cynical.
        
        In answer to you question, I do not *think* someone cares
        whether I have an affair, I *know* someone does--my wife. I also
        know that I care that she cares about it. I'm sorry you feel you
        cheated yourself in the way you lived your life. So far at the
        tender young age of 35, after 17 years with my wife (13 of them
        married), there's still plenty of fire in our hearts and in our
        lives. (If you don't believe it you should see the sparks fly
        when we fight!)
        
        I agree with you that when we're young we should live our lives
        as they come, and not live solely for the future. In our age
        though, we must continue to live in the present and not dwell
        with bitterness on the might-have-beens of the past. 
        
        JimB. 

    
    Re .30, I was referring to the topic at hand when I referred to
    being crucified, not the person who wrote .0, who really didn't
    state his own views in .0.  Actually, I guess it was sort of a joke.
    
    Re all the people who think marriages should be saved because of
    children.  My mother recently asked my 12 yr. old daughter if she
    wished her parents (me & my ex) were still married and all living
    together.  She said Melissa looked at her incredulously and said,
    "Are you kidding?  And have to listen to them fighting again!  No
    way!"
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .37:
       If you were talking about me in your second paragraph, I guess
    I didn't make myself clear.  A marriage should not be saved "for
    the children".  But if the marriage COULD be saved on its own
    merits, and you choose not to do so, you are doing your children
    no favors.
    					Steve

    I can't believe that anyone *wants* to cheat on a spouse
    or SO.  I believe it's actually an outlet for pent-up
    feelings, frustrations, lack of communication, a need to
    reach out for something from someone else that you're
    not receiving from spouse or SO and can't seem to get
    them to give or to realize a need to give.  It 's crying
    out for a human need that's not being satisfied.  I'm not
    condoning it, mind you, I believe it's wrong.  So do a lot
    of people who cheat.  They feel like "slimeballs" when 
    they're cheating.  But I believe in many cases they've
    banged their heads against the wall so many times they
    don't know what else to do.  Sometimes they've made life-long
    mistakes they don't want to rectify.  
    
    I also believe that if you're marriage is strong and solid
    you won't feel the need to cheat.  I'm not saying you won't
    feel the desire or you won't be tempted.  I'm saying that 
    what you already have will mean far too much to you to risk.
    
    Just an alternative opinion.....
    
    MM

    Sometimes the words we use tell us a lot about our views.
    Fer instance, "cheating" suggests (to me, at least) the existence
    of rules.  Many on the preceding replies suggest that each
    person can state what the rules are for them.  What if the rules
    exist in each person but are incongruent and haven't been agreed
    upon.  Well, I don't think this should be called having rules,
    and without rules, cheating is a nebulous concept.

re: -1,

	I agree.  Rules in a relationship are about as defined as the
    relationship is insecure.  The more tested the relationship becomes,
    the more defined the rules become.  Likewise, the more experienced the
    people involved become, the more they would attempt to define rules from
    the start.  As such, legally binding documents as "prenuptual-agreements"
    are now common-place, and divorce laws have never been so sophisticated.

	True love never usually requires any rules.  But then true love is
    sometimes a fleeting concept tarnished by the undercurrents of reality,
    and by the friction of new aquaintances and friendships.  What is truth?
    Isn't it something which requires a constant search to achieve?  I would
    argue that you never actually achieve "true love", but that you can come
    pretty darn close.

	To say that something is "true love" simply to perpetuate itself is
    also cheating, but this is where you cheat yourself and your partner into
    accepting your relationship for face value without continuing the search
    for the "truth" in the phrase "true love".  Rules which force a relationship
    to accept itself at face value would fall into this category.

	BTW, judging from your personal name (in -1), I'd guess your name
    was Bob?
								-davo

    The older you get,
    And closer to the tomb,
    The less it matters,
    Who sleeps with whom.
    
    So, .35, let's hear it for age and cynicism!  I love it!
    
    Sandy

    Re: -1 - closer to the tomb
    
    I don't have anyone to cheat on or to cheat on me but I expect that
    my fear of a cheating wife would be based on the potential of having
    to bring up another man's child or loosing potential children of
    my own along with the relationship.
    
    I expect when wife is to old to have children, who she sleeps with
    would not matter too much any more.
    
    I can't imagine being tempted myself.  I might think differently
    after being married for a number of years.
    
    					MJC

    rep -.1
    
    Could it be that humans are fundamentally monogamous creatures,
    and we need words to label violations of our fundamental nature.
    "cheating" - "adultery" - "sin" are 3 of the words that we seem
    to have picked for violations of our monogamous nature.  These words
    don't seem to illuminate my feelings, and I wonder if a new word
    could be discovered that connotes the violation of human nature.
    

re: .45,

	I disagree that humans are fundamentally monogamous by nature.  If this
    were true, then our instinctual desires (Id) would be trying to ignore all
    of the beautiful distractions that are presented to us each day, and the
    fact that such digressions do occasionally take place would have to be
    attributed to societal pressure (our superegos)?

	While I'll admit that sexy television ads and/or provocative societal
    influences do exist, these temptations are merely posed to feed on one's
    inner desires in order to sell tooth-paste, etc., and are not presented to
    balance any sort of instinctual urges to ignore these elements.

	Most societal pressures have traditionally been of the opposite influ-
    ence in an effort to promote monogamous relationships.  The reasons for this
    would revolve around the societal need for order and accountability when it
    comes to the propagation of the species, as well as the prevention of the
    various venerial diseases which plague society.

	Concepts such as "sin", "decadence", and "morality" merely exist to
    instill fear in the minds of those who might ordinarily consider a poly-
    gamous sex life, and who would not also have the common sense to be very
    selective in such a situation.  The concept of "cheating" would fall under
    this category, as it refers to a mandatory standard of monogyny.

							-davo

re: -1,

>    I would expect that if people were basically monogomous, such a
>    certain birds, whales, porpoises, and I believe baboons, then you
>    would see no need of "marriage" as practiced because "people" would
>    form a solitary bond, and deviate from it IF AND ONLY IFF one
>    party were to pass away (die), rather than just "step out" (as
>    in "messing around with others").

	Interesting to note that all three of these species are very intell-
    igent relative to other species.  It makes you wonder just how instinctual
    their monagomous "nature" is, or whether it is also learned through the
    influence of their family as well.  Judging from the differences in behavior
    of these animals found in their natural habitat, from that found in an
    artificial environment (such as an isolated cage in a zoo, or a lab), might
    indicate that it is also learned.

								-davo


    p.s.  How many people have ever witnessed a monkey mastubate at the zoo? 

    re: - humans are basically monogamous
    
    I somehow got the idea that poligamy is scarce enough that sociologists
    have studied all the societies that practice or even sanction it,
    but I certainly can't footnote that belief.  I've been wrong before.
    
    I suspect that you could have "cheating" even in a poligamous society,
    since they have rules too.
    
    On the other hand, I can footnote the notion that over 70% of married
    males in US society today have "cheated", defined as extramarital
    sex.  Footnote is Masters and Johnson's latest book.  That would
    suggest that doubting that humans are completely monogamous is a
    reasonable thing to do.  Maybe we tend to believe what we want to
    be true.

re: .49,

>	Maybe we tend to believe what we want to be true.

	Yes, and we also tend to want what we believe to be true BECAUSE we
    believe it (.i.e to justify our actions in life).

							-davo

    Davo - whaddya mean there are no more genes to pass on?  Genes are
    the only life there really is!  We are merely their temporary
    homes.  It's their crying out for immortality that gives us our sex
    drive.  They "know" we're going to wear out and they want a new
    body to take our place.  
    
    That's the story behind reincarnation, behind human "immortality"
    behind the desire to be a parent and even behind "seeing forever" 
    in someone else's eyes.  We don't see forever, but those genes
    egg us on because they know that if we reproduce, THEY will!
    
    And the little "closer to the tomb" ditty succinctly illustrates
    that monogamy and it's partner, cheating, are intensely reproductive,
    (gene), related.  I didn't write it, and I'm not close enough to
    the tomb to know if it's really so, but I suspect it is.
    
    Cold view of human nature, I suppose, but ignoring the truth doesn't
    necessarily keep me warm.
    
    Sandy
    

Re: .52

     Yes, it was baboons.  Yes, they acquire the rudiments of the 
skill by observations.  I find it fascinating that "cheating" could be 
regarded as an acquired skill.  I would have suspected that fidelity 
would be the acquired skill.

Re:  others

     I must agree with those who say that cheating is a violation of 
the trust implicit or explicit in the relationship, and disagree with 
those who say that cheating is violating cultural norms.  While these 
two are often the same (as the cultural norms will often be assumed in 
a relationship), it clearly is not cheating for an otherwise 
monogamous pair to go to a swap party.  Although this violates 
cultural norms, it does not violate the relationship between the two 
people in the pair.

     "Cheating" is breaking the rules.  The players get to make up the 
rules.

Re:  yet others     

     There are naturally monogamous creatures.  Homo sapiens is not 
one of these.

     The idea of monogamy is relatively recent in Western culture, 
basically stemming from the Christian ethos.

     My understanding is that in the base Jewish ethos, marriage 
derived from and retained many of the legal forms of a property 
transaction between the father of the bride and the husband.  [It was 
in fact not treated as such:  women weren't THAT repressed, at least 
in the immediate pre-Christian era, but the husband's legal rights 
were those of a property owner.  The legal forms failed to keep up 
with the social actuality, as they always do.]  The prehistorical 
ethos outlawed adultery on the woman's part because the woman's 
husband's property rights were infringed.  Later, but still 
pre-Christian era, adultery on the man's part was outlawed, but the 
penalties were substantially less severe.  In the halakah [the law], a 
wife could not divorce her husband, but a husband could easily divorce 
one of his wives and have no further obligation to support her;  
however, the haggadah [essentially the application of the law] was 
less one-sided.

     Note that in the Jewish ethos, adultery was forbidden but 
fornication between unmarried persons was not.  In the absense of a 
spouse, there were no property rights to be violated.

     The early Christian church fathers greatly expanded on Jesus's 
rejection of divorce, promoting marriage into a sacrament with 
permanent vows, which included monogamy.  One could argue that this 
was for sociological reasons, to ease the repression of women.  One 
could, but I won't:  I've learned that arguing that this or that 
religious laws is for this or that secular reason is a rich source of 
flames.

     As for monogamy being the natural state of mankind (which here 
clearly includes womankind, thank you), I will note only that the 
Christian ethos is the only major ethos observed to date which 
requires monogamy, although several others encourage it.

			    Brian Hetrick

    I've already written on "marriage" in other societies, so I'll just
    refer you to that note, wherever it is.  I will also tell an apocryphal
    story about Aldous Huxley: once, while he was experimenting with
    mescalin, he had a revelation.  Forwarned by previous experiences
    when he would forget the universal truths the drug brought him,
    he wrote it down.  The next day he read:
    
    	Hogamus higamis,
    	Men are polygamous.
    
    	Higamis hogamus,
    	Woman monogamous.
    
    As for .52, I belive that learning of "mothering" has been shown
    in macaques and gorillas.  I did't hear about the baboons, but can
    well believe it.  Note that all of these are social animals, as
    are humans.
    
    As for .54, and Judism's attitude to fornication: a man who lies
    with an unmarried girl is commiting rape (even if she consents).
    A marriage will wipe out the crime, but otherwise he has done a
    great wrong.  I refer you to the "Rape of Tamar" incident.
    
    Please, it's not "I for I", but "eye for eye", the "law of talion".
    This law was a step forward in ethics: it means "no more harm can
    be done in punishment than was done already".  Compare with hanging
    for stealing goods worth more than sixpence!

    			-John Bishop

re: .53,

	I don't remember bringing "genes" into this, but your idea is
    certainly an interesting way to explain reincarnation (which I con-
    sider to be very possible).  By the same token, I suppose the common
    cold (etc.) might also subliminally influence a person to come into close
    contact with other people so as to spread their germs.

	Widespread belief in these theories might lead to a whole new plea
    system in the divorce courts in which adulterers might claim that "my
    genes and my cold made me love her", etc.  Of course, an electron mic-
    roscope would have to be placed on the witness stand so that the various
    genes and germs could be questioned. ;^)

re: .54,

	I suppose you're right that there's a difference between sexual
    promiscuity and cheating, but I think we already decided long ago (in
    my note "Wild Office Parties: Fact or Fiction?", that swap parties,
    and other such cooperative ventures never existed beyond the wild imag-
    inations of those *Playboy* cartoonists and writers.

	This would leave only one probable circumstance to explain the seem-
    ingly high rates of sexual promiscuity among married couples in society,
    and this would be that which is commonly refered to as "cheating".  

	If there is anyone who can honestly say that they have a relationship
    with someone which can withstand the emotional torment of involving yet
    another member into the relationship (i.e. not monogamous) without the
    advent of "cheating", then I would like to hear how it works.

							-davo



    p.s.  Of course, many would argue that we are talking about a no-win
	situation here (myself included).

Re: .55

     Thank you for the correction.  Back to Everyman's Talmud to learn
some more....

			   Brian Hetrick

Re: .56

     I personally have never been to a swap party, so I cannot from 
personal knowledge attest to their existence.  The point I was trying 
to make was that it is at least imaginable for the parties to a 
marriage to agree to forgo the usual fidelity -- and in such a case, 
there is no "cheating," at least under my definition.  If one defines 
"cheating" as any extra-relational involvement (either emotional or 
physical, dealer's choice), then, under that definition, forgoing the 
usual fidelity even by arrangement is "cheating."

     One marriage that I know of that definitely involved physical 
extra-relational involvement (an affair) broke up;  another that I 
know of that similarly involved physical extra-relational involvement 
was not harmed in the least.  The first marriage was in trouble 
anyway, and the extra-relational involvement was more or less the last 
straw;  the second was a very strong marriage, and the extra-
relational involvement was treated as simply irrelevant to the 
marriage.  Neither of these was a "marriage of convenience," where the 
spouses supposedly expect one another to have extra-relational 
involvements.  [Having never personally observed a "marriage of 
convenience," I cannot attest as to whether they exist, or as to 
whether this is indeed one of their attributes.]

     How it worked in the second case seems to be that the spouses 
acknowledged that there is more to the marriage than sex -- and in 
that case, sexual fidelity became unimportant.  As the extra-
relational involvement did not threaten the love of the spouses for 
one another, it posed no threat to the marriage, and thereby was 
irrelevant.  There simply was no "emotional torment:"  the marriage 
was not perceived to be threatened.  I hypothesize that the only 
threat to the stability of that particular marriage would be the 
perception of a threat:  "there is nothing to fear but fear itself." 
How universal that might be, I an unable to guess.

			    Brian Hetrick

re: .58,

	Ok, we've covered the physical features of cheating well enough for
    now, what about the emotional?

	I've devised the following "truth-table" to use in our disscussion.
    

                    +---------------------------+--------------------------+
                    |  Emotional Involvement    |  Physical Involvement    |
                    |  (with a third person)    |  (with a third person)   |
+-------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
|  Strong existing  |            ?              |  Existing relationship   |
|  relationship     |                           |  Probably would survive  |
+-------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+
|  Weak existing    |            ?              |  Probably the last straw |
|  relationship     |                           |  and the end to existing |
+-------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------+

							-davo

    	I was asked to put this into this note for a noter who
	wishes to remain anonymous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I have never liked the word "Open Relationship" (it makes things seem
 towdry) -- but it makes it easier to explain things if I just call it that.
 I guess my SO and I have one.

 This will probably seem trivial to all you, but what bothers me is a form
 of breaking the ground rules. A few months ago my SO flew off to spend a
 few days with her lover. We have a rule that when we leave town on junkets
 that we should call at least every two days. Nothing much, just a "Hello,
 I'm still alive" call. The last time she went, she called me when she got
 got there, but I had messed up the modem on the phone and the call didn't
 get through. I didn't hear from her again until a few hours before she flew
 home, so she could tell me what airline to pick her up from. I was a bit
 upset with her for not calling. She said she'd tried calling the night
 before, but I'm out of the house 95% of the time on that night, and she
 knows it.

 I come from a long line of worry-warts. I know I'm not being rationale, but
 if I don't hear from her every so often I start to worry. She says that I
 can always call her where she is. But if I were away, I wouldn't want to be
 called. Besides, if I call and no one is there, then I'm going to REALLY
 start worrying. I can keep telling myself that I'm being irrationale if I
 don't call, but if I do and she's not there then I'll really go crazy ---
 We've talked about this, and she always says she's going to call, but she
 keeps forgetting about it. I really don't know what to say next. I don't
 want to nag and I don't want to make it sound like I object to the guy
 she's seeing but I don't want to talk about it so I'm complaining about the
 phone calls instead. I really don't mind, I just want a phone call every so
 often. Anyone have a suggestion? She is thinking about going off again in a
 couple months or so.
    
    

Re: .60

     Breaking the ground rules is cheating.  If the arrangement is a 
telephone call every other day, then that's the arrangement.  I see 
three major alternatives explaining this situation:

  1. Your SO wants to change the ground rule, and is choosing to do so 
     unilaterally (by ignoring it in the hope that it will go away or 
     be substantially modified);

  2. It simply slipped your SO's mind;

  3. Your and your SO have differing interpretations of the ground 
     rule.

     In the first case, it would seem that the value of the 
relationship to your SO is substantially less than its value to you.  
The failure of your SO to abide by the explicit ground rules for the 
relationship, in the face of your reaction to this continued failure 
("she *keeps* forgetting about it", emphasis mine), is clearly risking 
the relationship for a nominally trivial cause.  I would in this case 
strongly suspect either a hidden agenda or a substantial difference in 
values:  either she wants the relationship at risk, or the cause is 
indeed not trivial.  If she wants the relationship at risk, the most 
likely cause would be that she tires of it;  if the telephone call 
every other day is a non-trivial bone of contention, the most likely 
cause would be a desire for more openness.  Her continued agreement to 
the terms of the ground rule seems to argue against the second 
interpretation.

     In the second case, it could simply that your SO is forgetful 
and/or thoughtless.  Forgetfulness and thoughtlessness are, luckily, 
no crime:  were it one, I would have been hung for it long ago.  In 
this case, perhaps the best thing to do is to adapt to the character 
of your SO, rather than insist upon a change of character, and drop 
the ground rule.  If the ground rule is essential to your continued 
interest in the relationship, then there is a fundamental 
incompatability which can be resolved only by at least one of you
changing -- and good luck.

     In the third case, it might be that your SO and you have 
different ideas as to what satisfies the ground rule.  In the 
particular example cited, your SO was gone for "a few days", twice 
failed to establish telephone contact, and once succeeded.  If "a few 
days" was, say, five days, then the failed call on the first day, a 
failed call on the third day, and a successful call on the fifth day 
(a few hours before she flew home) could be interpreted as meeting the 
every other day rule -- she tried in good faith to establish contact, 
and simply did not succeed twice.  This clearly is the most desirable
alternative, as simply clarifying the terms of the agreement will make 
both of you as happy as possible.

     From the limited information in the note, the third alternative, 
that of different interpretations of the ground rule, seems the most 
likely:  one needn't hypothesize either bad faith on your SO's part, 
or a fundamental incompatability with such limited manifestation.

     Are your sure you and your SO agree on what a "phone call" is?

			   Brian Hetrick

re: 60,61,

	These are two very interesting topics, but I'm afraid we're beginning
    to diverge from the subject of "cheating".  .60 refers to what I would
    consider an honest "arrangement" (hardly cheating) set-up between himself
    and his SO, .61 refers to a swap party which, again, we have defined as
    not being in the same category as "cheating", in the sense that both
    members of the relationship presumably enter into the situation knowing
    full well what the rules are going to potentially involve.

	Please start up new topics on these and other related subjects (like
    babboons, etc.) in another note so that we can focus in on the topic at
    hand (and hopefully resolve some of the "cheating" related issues).
    Thanks,

							-davo


    p.s.  Eagerly awaiting more info to complete my truth table (see .59).

    re 59:
    
    Hmm, emotional closeness with others.  I'm very close to two people
    besides Don.  One a woman, one a man.  My friendship with the woman
    dates back almost seven years, the friendship with the man about
    three.  Neither, so far, has been a big problem and I'm fairly sure
    I know why.  First is the commitment Don & I have to each other:
    we are primary people to each other and when the chips are down each
    will do our very, very best to be there for the other.  Second is
    the habit we have of reserving words that, when used between us, have
    very explicit meanings.
    
    Early on in his and my relationship we reserved the word 'need' (as 
    in 'honey, I need you to - fill in the blank:  be here, hold me, go 
    away, etc') as some thing that on a scale of one to ten meant at least 
    twelve.  In all these years (almost 9) I don't think the both of us 
    have used the word need more than a dozen times.  In the times it 
    was used there has only been once for each of us where the other
    person said 'I just can't be there right now'.  We both accept the
    fact that if you are hurting badly it is almost impossible to help 
    the other, although we both would try to find the inner resources to 
    do so.
    
    Is our relationship threatened by emotional closeness to others?
    No, if anything it is enhanced.  It gives us each people we can
    bounce things off, that we trust to respect our relationship, when
    we are in conflict (as in ... am I being relistic?!? or am I putting
    my crap on him/her?).  It brings additional warmth and love that
    close fiends can't help to have for any person close to someone
    you love.  
    
    Don't get me wrong, things have not been smooth all these years.
    We both work hard to ensure that we play fair with each other but 
    we are different as night and day.  This may actually help because
    it has been critical that we balance our differences and that has
    taken on going dialogue, compromise, and a willingness to try more
    than one solution when our wants/needs/personalities conflict.  
    
    An aside:  one of the things that this conference makes me do is
    sit back and analyze myself and our relationship.  The joy has 
    been that I've gotten some ideas for things I would like to change
    about myself and some insight into how Don and I mesh.
    
    Many warm fuzzies to a number of you,
    					   Audrey

    re .60:
    
    If this were an Ann Landers column, she'd probably suggest showing that
    column to your SO. It might be reasonable to print a copy of .60 and
    tape it to your SO's suitcase or some other place where it's likely to
    be found so that she'll get a subtle reminder. 
    
    	Jon

    Re .60:
         Personally, I couldn't deal with that kind of a relationship.
    I wonder what it is you get out of it.  It sounds to me like she
    has little consideration for you or your feelings, and that you
    should reevaluate the whole relationship.
    					Steve

    I have to agree with Steve.  I couldn't tolerate that kind
    of relationship.  I can understand possibly someone going 
    out and forming a secondary relationship if there's a need
    that for one reason or another I won't/refuse to provide,
    and then re-evaluating our relationship, but staying in
    this situation would seem to hurt more than help you.
    
    I would tend to interpret the lack of attention to calling
    as a signal to you that she wants the relationship over, possibly
    by forcing you to use her thoughtlessness as a lever to break it
    off, so that she doesn't have to be the heavy.  It's a nasty way
    to end a relationship, but I've seen it before.
    
    Mary-Michael

    re .60
    
    My suspicion is that you are not as comfortable with your "open
    relationship" as you let on, in which case you should discuss *THAT*
    with your SO.  However, if you can honestly say the only problem you
    are having is with your SO not calling, I believe you should just write
    the incident off as unintentional on her part.  You said that some
    difficulty with a modem prevented her from calling, did you not? 
    
    re .some_responses_to.60:
    
    Can those who say there's no way they could understand or tolerate
    the arrangement .60 has with his SO genuinely answer objectively?
    
    - M

    Um, boy, have I thought long and hard about this subject.

    I am in an open relationship. It doesn't bother either of us, if
    we "fool around". Those are our ground rules. We're polite and let
    each other know what's going on, but it causes no pain or dissension
    if we are sexually involved with someone else other than our primary
    partner.
    
    What follows below is part of a response I put in SEXCETERA (that
    "other" file).           
    
                   <<< CADZOO::HSC003$DUA2:[NOTES]SEXCETERA.NOTE;2 >>>
                       -< The world's favorite pastime >-
================================================================================
Note 28.20                   Promiscuity Vs. Needs                      20 of 27
WILLIE::CANNOY                                       75 lines   1-NOV-1985 10:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    This is something I have thought about long and hard. I also was in a
    long term relationship in which the other partner demanded that I find
    no one else interesting at all, ever, in any way shape or form. This
    was the main reason why I ended that relationship. He didn't want me to
    have any other friendships of any significance with people of either
    sex.
    
    
    I am not monogamous by nature. This doesn't mean I will fall into bed
    with just anyone. It means that I have come to grips with the fact that
    over a long period of time, there will be several people in my life who
    mean a lot to me, with whom I may or may not "Fall in love", and with
    whom I may or may not have a sexual relationship. 

    Falling in love with someone doesn't have to have a negative affect on
    your primary relationship. The partner I am with now is my lifemate.
    There can be no one else that I would want to spend the rest of my life
    with. This doesn't mean that I won't become infatuated with other
    people, it simply means I have made the commitment to THIS man and will
    not allow anything to keep me from returning to his side, if I
    occasionally stray away for a little while. And this works both ways in
    our relationship. I made sure _he_ knew I felt OK about his wanting to
    spend time with and have sex with a lovely lady of mutual acquaintance.
     
    _________________________________________________________________________

    Now, as far as Davo's chart--
    
    I personnally think that a strong relationship has to be able to
    stand the strain of other emotional committments. No one can be
    the sole emotional support of *any* other human being (infants under
    6 months excluded). 
    
    To varying degrees, everyone has some emotional ties to other people
    than their SO. I foresee a time when I will love another person
    and have to deal with it. Anton is emotionally monogamous to a much
    stronger degree than I am. But I think, that a strong relationship
    with good communications *can* handle this.
   
    And, if your rules say that's wrong, then to you, that's cheating.
    To me it is not. If I did the same thing but snuck around behind
    his back, that would be cheating. (But as another note addresses,
    I don't advocate ruthless honesty that hurts someone, just so you
    can say you're not cheating, because you're being honest.)
    
    Tamzen

re: ruthless honesty,

	I am a firm believer in honesty.  That's why I think I would have alot
    of trouble actually cheating on Karin.  On the other hand, I know that
    she "wouldn't want to know about it" if I were to ever become involved
    with someone else.

	When I first started dating Karin, she made me promise her two things:

	(1) That I would never leave her.

	(2) That I would hug her when she was feeling bad.


	So far, I have only broken one of the two rules (i.e. I sometimes
    fail to distinguish "feeling bad" from anger or frustration, and have
    missed my queue a few times when I should have hugged her), but aside
    from that, I have lived up to my promise.

	As far as cheating, we don't really have any "rules" set-up to deal
    with this situation (should it arise).  I feel that if either of us were
    to have a purely physical relationship with someone else, that our rela-
    tionship would probably survive.  However, if there was a heavy emotional
    tie involved, then I'm not sure what would happen.

	We both have come to rely on each other being there emotionally in
    an exclusive sort-of way, with no other ties to anyone (other than family,
    etc.).  If one of us were to develop another emotional tie which extended
    beyond the level of "close friend", then I would think there would be a
    major need for some sort of adjustment in the relationship (although I'm
    not real sure how this adjustment would occur - since, at least in Karin's
    case, she "wouldn't want to know").

								-davo

What a wonderful topic -- over 70 replies in 10 days.  I seem to recall
that this generated a lot of interest in the late, lamented sexcetera too. 

I am curious about the statistic cited in .49 that over 70% of married men
have had extramarital sex.  That sounds extraordinarily high.  One study I
saw recently put the figure at around 25% (and somewhat lower for women).
Of course, even if the truth is toward the lower end of that range, we can
play the old army game: "look to your left, look to your right, one of you
has cheated!!" :-) 

The term "cheating" of course prejudges the issue, presuming that the issue
is extramarital sex.  One book on relationships that I read recently used
the term "non-monogamy" in an attempt to refer to the behavior without the
moral implications of "cheating", "infidelity", etc.  Clearly, there exist
couple relationships where outside sexual contact occurs with the explicit
permission of the partners, and we seem to have a consensus that this is
not "cheating".  There remains a considerable degree of skepticism about
such relationship however. 

Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in many comments is the marriage ideal: a
good marriage (or SO relationship) means that the partners only desire each
other, and outside emotional or sexual interests indicate a problem in the
relationship.  I rather suspect that the ideal exists in only a small
minority of relationships.  The problem with the ideal is that it sets
people up for dissatisfaction and hurt when reality proves to be otherwise.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good", we say, and if someone breaks up a
good relationship because it doesn't meet the ideal of perfection, then the
ideal has not served us well. 

We seem to agree that, if the partners agree on the rules, then all is
well.  However, it has also been noted that people change and grow over
time, and a committment made in good faith at one time may not prove viable
forever.  The test of a relationship is whether it can be flexible enough
to evolve with the growth of the partners.  It may be that the partners
have to "agree to disagree" on certain points or terminate the
relationship.  And whereas it may be difficult to adjust to some change
(e.g. an outside relationship), it may well be better to make the
adjustment than to lose the entire primary relationship. Ultimately, the
individual has to make the judgement as to whether the substance and value
of the relationship remain intact with the change, or if the change is
merely a symptom of a greater lack.  It can be either. 

Here and elsewhere, I have heard the foundation of a relationship referred
to as "being there", and that kind of captures the essence.  A person can
follow all the usual rules, but just not be committed to "being there" when
needed, and the relationship is weak.  If that committment is present, and
the partners understand it, then each will have much flexibility in dealing
with their individual needs, desires, and differences.

    re 70% of men (and in the same survey, 60% of women cheating):
    
    The survey didn't refer only to sex, it referred to cheating. In the
    same survey, 24% of the respondents said that thinking about cheating
    constituted cheating. Another 21% said that meeting someone for drinks
    constituted cheating. If you subtract off the 24% who only thought
    about it and the 21% who only had drinks, we get rather close the 25%
    you mentioned. 
    
    	Jon

Depending on the wording of the original writing, just because 24% said thinking
of cheating is cheating, does not mean that 24% were only thinking about it.

Jim. 

    One must also keep in mind that it depends on how the questions
    were worded. If the phrase "extramarital sex" was used, for
    instance. A number of people take "extramarital" to mean exactly
    that --- outside of marriage. This would include *pre*-marital
    sex as well.
    
    --- jerry

    Actually, I find the concept of "emotional cheating" almost
    incomprehensible.  Unless you happen to be looking for a way out of
    your current relationship, or there is something in your relationship
    that you are avoiding, then sharing your deeper self with someone other
    than your lifemate is not cheating.  If you are avoiding something in 
    yourself, something in your lifemate, or something in your relationship, 
    you are cheating, or looking for it.  I consider "physical cheating" a mere 
    extension of, or a prelude to "emotional cheating."
    
    Intimacy is hard to find (and keep!).  There are casual relationships and 
    there are intimate relationships.  I don't think I could have an intimate 
    relationship with more than one person at a time, and I don't really
    think anyone else could, either.  If my significant other decided to
    move into an intimate relationship with another, I would feel that our
    relationship had become casual, maybe even over, and would probably seek 
    another intimate relationship.  
    
    I think about lovemaking in a similar fashion.  There is casual sex
    and intimate sex.  Intimate lovemaking, like an intimate relationship,
    comes only over time, and with the commitment of both partners.  I find
    that I resent the assumption of either physical or emotional intimacy from 
    a partner merely because we have had sex together, or even just shared
    some serious thoughts/feelings together.  For me, intimacy comes over
    time.
    
    In a sense, building an new intimate relationship might indicate a growing
    away from your previous relationship and might mean that it's time to
    move on.  As I said, intimate relationships take time, and therefore
    require a conscious decision to continue a transition from a casual
    relationship to an intimate one.  Or, building a new relationship might
    mean growth for you in other ways that you might bring back into your 
    original relationship which might allow the two of you (in the "old" 
    relationship) to deepen it, not move away.  I mean, sharing some new
    things with another person does not preclude you from sharing things with
    your significant other.  Of course, I'm starting to be idealistic here,
    and things like this could certainly be twisted around.  As was mentioned
    before, if you're looking to cheat, you will.  And you will find someone
    willing to either support you, or do it with you.
    
    (I would certainly never put "swapping" into an intimate relationship.
    I abhor the idea.  Sex is not that casual.  I don't equate casual sex with 
    free sex.  Free sex is with just anybody, casual sex is with a friend.  
    Friendship and casual sex may or may not increase in intimacy over time.)
                                                                     
    In reading back over this, I see some contradictions.  Which means that
    I can't see this as a black and white issue.  In fact, I rather think
    that Dave's table should be all question marks... It's that individual.
    
    
    							Terza
             

        RE: Terza Zane's 57.77
        
        You're probably right that these things are individual. Your
        statement that you "resent the assumption of either physical or
        emotional intimacy from a partner merely because we have had sex
        together" is just about totally incomprehensable to me.
        (And I can understand, although I don't condone, "emotional
        cheating", which you say you find incomprehensible.)
        
        I fully recognize that sex has several natures or purposes--
        reproduction, pair bonding, and recreation--but even at the
        recreational level it's pretty darned intimate. I certainly
        assume that there's a significant amount of physical intimacy
        between me and any sexual partner (not to imply that I've had
        all that many.)
        
        In fact, given the pair-bonding aspect of sex, I would say
        that you are in gross danger of misleading your partner or
        yourself if you have sex on a "casual non-intimate" level.
        The chance that your partner will feel that this is intimate
        sex or that you will after the fact seems awfully high.
        
        Just getting old-fashioned in my dottage, I suppose.
        
        JimB.

	I'm back!  Tanned and toned from the Florida sun & surf.

	Bear with me while I do a little catch-up reading here, but it seems
    that this issue has become even more hazy than ever!  Maybe it's the fact
    that the term "Cheating" implies so many different things in the context
    of a relationship.

	We could probably all agree on what "cheating" means in the context of
    taking a test in school, but when it comes to relationships, the "rules"
    become very fuzzy.  One could argue that ANY new relationship constitutes
    some form of cheating (either against your current SO, or your religious
    beliefs, or even your own ideals).  In this sense, we are all cheaters to
    some degree or another - whether or not we think we are.

	I think that a new note is in order here, but I'm not real sure what
    the title should be...how about "Managing Relationships"?

							-davo

    re: .61
    
    Are you saying that because the men weren't bodybuilders and the
    women weren't playboy pinups that the "party" was *unacceptable*
    and that if they were it would be *acceptable*.  
    
    Doesn't that say anything to you????  
    

    
    
    To Bob "the hiker" --
    
    	You've been in the woods too long!
    
    

    re: .81
    
    Hmm more likely I've been in MKO1 long enough to fully appreciate
    the "apparent truth" in my words. ;^)
    
    If you don't agree with my personal observations perhaps you need
    a better view of "truth" as it really exists, instead of the way
    you'd "like it" to exist.
    
    Many other young folk have this same problem with the "real world".
    
    .bob.

    Cheating: Doing something that would in essence betray the trust
    your partner has placed in you, and hurting your partner emotionally
    in the process...

Cheating: Doing something that you shouldn't have had to agree to not do
in the first place, because it's not in your nature to not do it.

Think about it.  Both trains of thought have their merits.

Jim.

    Re .84 (Jim)
    
    That's an aweful lot of negatives.
    
    My idea of cheating is breaking agreements with your SO without
    renegotiating the agreements.  It doesn't matter what the agreements
    are.  An extramarital affair may or may not be cheating - it depends
    on the relationship.  Having a confidante outside of the marriage
    to whom you tell *everything* about your life, your self, your dreams,
    may be cheating in some relationships.  For example, in one
    relationship I was in, we openly agreed that we could see other
    people, and love other people any way we chose, but would remain each 
    other's primary relationship.  We both exercised this freedom that
    we had verbally given each other.  Then he found someone with whom
    he intended to *replace* our relationship.  I maintain that I was
    faithful to him, and he was unfaithful to me.  Other people don't
    seem to understand - from the outside it looked like we were both
    being unfaithful.  I kind of viewed it like going to a dance. You
    come with your date/spouse, you may dance with other people at the
    dance, and at the end of the evening you go home with your SO. 
    Going home with someone else is considered a pretty gauche thing
    to do.  Same with relationships.  Of course, you may have other
    agreements - such as having a friend that you play music with 3
    times a week is ok - falling in love with her and going to bed with
    her is not.  Failure to meet the agreement - whatever it is, is
    cheating.

    If you can't live with an agreement that someone's asking you to make,
    don't do it. If you don't feel that you can live with the agreements
    you've already made, it's up to you to renegotiate them.  And the other
    person may not want to change them.  It's possible that you will "fail
    to come to a meeting of minds" on some issue.  If the issue is
    sufficiently important to your or your SO's happiness, you may need to
    end or modify the relationship.  But you will know that you did it
    fairly and honestly. 
    
    Elizabeth

Well, I just read all of the previous replies and I'd like to add my own 
thoughts... 

First of all, some people seem to think that there can't be such a thing as
"emotional cheating;" they argue that outside emotional relationships are 
healthy and in fact necessary.  True, but that doesn't mean that there can't
be certain kinds of emotional relationships which are *not* healthy to *your*
relationship---for instance, if your girlfriend (Note:  I *hate* the 
abbreviation "SO;" I will use girlfriend, since that's the only kind of serious
relationship I've had---feel free to substitute wife, husband, etc...) falls in
love with someone else.  

To me, this would necessarily mean the end of my relationship with her.  To tell
the truth, though, I tend to think of cheating as meaning something sexual, 
though I have used it in other contexts.

I find cheating completely unacceptable and it means the end of a relationship 
if it occurs.  Last year I was seeing someone and I had told her that the only 
reason I would break up with her is if she cheated on me.  Turned out I had to
call her at the summer and tell her that I was wrong---there *was* another 
reason that I would break up with her:  if *I* had cheated.

I knew that my cheating meant that my relationship with her was not as strong as
I had thought it was.  Though my cheating was physical, I only let it get 
physical because of the emotional ties I felt with the new woman in my life...

Getting back to generalities, I think one reason that physical acts are more
widely thought of as cheating than emotional acts is that physical acts are more
definite---if someone has sex with another person, that's that---you can't lie
to yourself and say that it didn't happen (well, it's very difficult).  With
emotional relationships, you can tell yourself that you don't really care about
this new person that much and that the feeling is just a good friendship, 
nothing more...

Well, enough for now...I'll give someone else a chance to comment...

T?

	Cheating is what you wouldn't do if your SO were watching you.

	Stephen

    What?  Talk your SO into watching?
    
    - M

    
    Hmmm?
    
    I thought having your SO watching was half the fun???
    
    M_