THEDUDEofDestiny
Experimental Member
Never cheated. Never had a relationship either though. unless calling the same girl to meet you in a bar late at night before boning for about two mounths counts.
Anyone find cheating hot?
- Thread starter B_Partryckes Pinque Leviathan
- Start date
Well, in my opinion, "cheating" implies that you're not honest. If not, it's not called cheating. It is, as you're saying, just being in an open relationship.
So, again, I'm saying that a lack of honesty towards your partner is not the same as rape or murder.
We just throw all of these in the same pile because the Church told us to do so.
So... again... social construction.
I personally value honesty at all cost in a relationship. But that doesn't mean it should be everybody else's value.
An honest open relationship shouldn't be called "cheating." In fact, cheating shouldn't be called cheating, it should be called "destroyed trust." Infidelity is a more accurate term to me because it literally means "lost faith" which is what happens if you violate the fundamental basis of that trust. You will lose your partner's faith in you.
You and I surely agree that acts like killing or raping are far more evil than cheating - but the point of my earlier post was not to compare which is more evil. I mentioned acts like theft, lying, raping, killing, etc.. because there are some people who find those acts "hot". They enjoy doing them even though the acts are harmful. The focus of the original post was on the desire to cheat so that what I was getting at.
Oh, I'm not religious or spiritual at all and haven't gone to church in years. Even so, I still think some acts are morally wrong. Some religious folks act like us atheists can believe in morality, but I say atheists can be just as moral as anyone else.
Again... you're putting all those things in the same bag by labelling them "evil". You speak of being "moral" rather than religious... but the moral you're talking about seems quite judeo-christian to me.
I don't believe that cheating is "evil". But it's just not my thing.
Actually... I don't believe in "evil" in itself.
Yes, I consider some acts evil. Some people tend to think concepts like "morally wrong" and "evil" are just social constructs based on a culture's values. Although different cultures may different values, I still think some acts are always wrong. You just don't kill or rape somebody or steal their stuff and say "Well, my values are just different from yours." That's not just evil but smacks of callous rationalizing.
danwilke
Expert Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Posts
- 17
- Media
- 12
- Likes
- 132
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Denver (Colorado, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I've cheated and yes it was hot. It was also the biggest fucking mistake I've ever made. I proved once and for all that I am selfish and like to have things my way. Wow, big insight. Wish I had discovered that in a less traumatic way to my wife, kids and friends. A few hours of pleasure was not worth the years of pain and work to get back to trust. The idea of cheating is way hotter than the reality with the pain sidecar.
nicenycdick
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Posts
- 1,785
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 45
- Points
- 133
- Location
- New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I believe that we're not meant to be faithful to one for life, and this has long been recognised in most cultures in the world, with the exception of those cultures influenced by Christian moral values. I say Christian, because the Bible has many accounts of multiple wives, concubines etc etc, which condones multiple sex partners for men but not for women. But when such things are morally acceptable, then it's not 'cheating'.
In any case, when I studied human sexual behaviour in psychology, the majority of cultures had man-woman relationships equivalent to our marriage, and almost all allowed unfaithfulness. These relationships had evolved around the notion that faithful to one partner for life was not possible. One African tribe we studied allowed both a man or a woman to have an affair, as long as it was discreet and conducted in another village. Polynesians tended to mix unfaithfulness with celebration, say the boats coming in with a big catch of fish, which would lead to hooking up with different partners for the night. Other cultures had variations, but the common element was that marriage did not equal sexually faithful for life.
The Christain view on sex is that it is morally wrong, and this remains the view regardless of protestant or Roman catholic. The theology is that man was created in God's image, and this makes man close to divine. Sex is too primitive and too animal-like for a divine creature such as man, and therefore should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. This means one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation. The Roman catholic view of sex remains unwavering, hence their prohibition on birth control. The sexual revolution of the 1970's, the time when I first became sexually active, brought sexual pleasure to the fore, regardless of one partner for life, or multiple sex partners as quickly became the norm (pre-marital sex). This first-time experience of actually enjoying sex rather than having 2 to 3 minutes of intercourse was profound, and many turned their backs on the official Church position on sex. Protestant Churches changed, they had to because they were fast becoming irrelevant, and made a giant leap to actually condone sexual pleasure in marriage. But, of course, they still cannot condone either pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex, even though the majority of the world finds one or both more than acceptable. After all, sex is not becoming of divinity, or the image of divinity.
Here endeth the theology lecture. And please don't respond about how your Church encourages certain sexual behaviours and so on, because what they do in a pragmatic sense does not have any bearing on the theology that sits behind the universal Christian view on human sexual behaviour. Unless you have had a theologian explain it all to you, such as I have, then you really don't know the full story.
In any case, when I studied human sexual behaviour in psychology, the majority of cultures had man-woman relationships equivalent to our marriage, and almost all allowed unfaithfulness. These relationships had evolved around the notion that faithful to one partner for life was not possible. One African tribe we studied allowed both a man or a woman to have an affair, as long as it was discreet and conducted in another village. Polynesians tended to mix unfaithfulness with celebration, say the boats coming in with a big catch of fish, which would lead to hooking up with different partners for the night. Other cultures had variations, but the common element was that marriage did not equal sexually faithful for life.
The Christain view on sex is that it is morally wrong, and this remains the view regardless of protestant or Roman catholic. The theology is that man was created in God's image, and this makes man close to divine. Sex is too primitive and too animal-like for a divine creature such as man, and therefore should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. This means one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation. The Roman catholic view of sex remains unwavering, hence their prohibition on birth control. The sexual revolution of the 1970's, the time when I first became sexually active, brought sexual pleasure to the fore, regardless of one partner for life, or multiple sex partners as quickly became the norm (pre-marital sex). This first-time experience of actually enjoying sex rather than having 2 to 3 minutes of intercourse was profound, and many turned their backs on the official Church position on sex. Protestant Churches changed, they had to because they were fast becoming irrelevant, and made a giant leap to actually condone sexual pleasure in marriage. But, of course, they still cannot condone either pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex, even though the majority of the world finds one or both more than acceptable. After all, sex is not becoming of divinity, or the image of divinity.
Here endeth the theology lecture. And please don't respond about how your Church encourages certain sexual behaviours and so on, because what they do in a pragmatic sense does not have any bearing on the theology that sits behind the universal Christian view on human sexual behaviour. Unless you have had a theologian explain it all to you, such as I have, then you really don't know the full story.
Unless you have had a theologian explain it all to you, such as I have, then you really don't know the full story...and I assume you have a doctorate in theology......or are you just full of yourself...
No, my late Godfather was a theologian, and he didn't mind having a few deep and meaningful discussions with me. He didn't want me to be adversely affected by Western-Christian morals and values.
You're referring to a time period when marriage wasn't about love, it was about property and offspring. As a result, it was assumed that if a person fell in love, it would not be with one's spouse, since that relationship was not about romantic love.
As Joseph Campbell points out, this was openly acknowledged during the medieval ages with the "Courts of Love" and the behavior for married people's relationships with their lovers was as codified as modern concepts of marriage. There is one amusing story he tells of a situation in which a married woman had a lover and another potential suitor came along. She told the potential suitor that she already had a lover, but if anything should happen to him, then the potential suitor would be "next in line." It happened that her husband died and she married her lover. The potential suitor came along and demanded the "favors" that she had promised him. She told him that she had married her lover, and the case ended up in the "Court of Love" who ruled against her because there was "no such thing as married love" and she had to provide him with her "favors" as Joseph Campbell put it.
Therefore you are taking these historical examples out of context. Now that women are free to chose whom they marry, the meaning and definition of marriage is completely different than it was during the time period that you are referring to.
You've gotten off track here. When something violates the terms of the relationship contract, then it's "cheating." If you have promised to be monogamous, then you have sex with someone else, then you've voilated your spouse's expectations of your behavior, behavior that you led her to believe that you wouldn't violate. Cheating involves a lack of honesty in the relationship, an action that loses the trust and faith of your partner.
If you live in a culture where it is expected that men will have multiple wives, then it's not a violation of your wife's expectations, nor is it considered cheating if your spouse approves of any extra-sexual relationships outside one's marriage, because if he/she approves, then it does not violate trust or lose his/her faith in you.
These aren't biblical concepts. These are universal concepts about not lying, not being deceitful, keeping one's promises, not toying with people's feelings, or not taking the emotions of people that you care about lightly. These are basic concepts about being basically respectful, and especially respectful to the people that you love.
Any argument regarding whether fidelity or marriage is "natural" ignores most people's desire to have a partner in life who will stand by them during the hard times, care for them if the become ill, grow old with them, and have the experience of building shared memories.
If you aren't one of those people, then you're different and you're free to simply not get into those relationships, but I don't think that people who want those things should be judged.
Last edited:
No, my late Godfather was a theologian, and he didn't mind having a few deep and meaningful discussions with me. He didn't want me to be adversely affected by Western-Christian morals and values.
so having discussions with a godfather gives you credentials....I think not. Just had good conversations. BTW not picking on you....I just question everyones credentials when they say they are something, or an expert. If you do not have the degree or experience, you just are not it. Claims are cheap and anyone can claim to be anything. Talk is cheap.
so having discussions with a godfather gives you credentials....I think not. Just had good conversations. BTW not picking on you....I just question everyones credentials when they say they are something, or an expert. If you do not have the degree or experience, you just are not it. Claims are cheap and anyone can claim to be anything. Talk is cheap.
People misunderstand history. During past times, be they the middle ages or the books of Jane Austin in the 18th century, the concept of marriage soley being about property was applicable in a tiny minority of cases. The overwhelming majority, the ones who didn't make history or have novels written about them, married because they loved one-another. Middle classes, working classes, peasant farm labourers; they didn't have much property to worry about, nor inheritance to pass onto their offspring. They struggled to get by: food and shelter, clothing, love and sex. Remember this.
I'm not judging anyone, merely putting writing in my anthropological psychological persona. The cultures I wrote about: Polynesia, Native Americans, Africans; they wanted a liftime partner too, but they didn't equate love with possession. Instead, they loved each other in a different and more natural, way.
I haven't been faithful, and without flaunting it my wife worked out that I had a mistress. But being from one of those cultures, Africa, it wasn't any big deal to her. As for me, I discovered that it is truly possible to love two different women at the same time, and not have the love for one diminished by the love for another. You see, there's a difference between love, and the desire for possession.
During that time, my love for my wife was stronger. It was as if I needed to release tension, have sex with someone else, in order to be centred. The closest analogy is sexual tension: the desire to have sex with a partner when it's been a very long time. The relief I felt was the same as releasing sexual tension.
So, in my dissertation, I discussed the lives of primitive people. I studied this at a young age, about 21, but it took many years before I realised that what we strive for is largely ridiculous, and what primitive people did was practical and commonsense. Ridiculous because, as we all know, unfaithfulness rates have stayed in the range 30% to 40% for as long as we have been measuring them. That means that up to 40% of married individuals will have at least one extra-marital affair during their relationship.
I never claimed any credentials: my qualifications are Bachelor of Commerce. But my discussions were valid, and the Anglican theologian gave me facts about the theological basis of Christian values on sex. It's not rocket science, the history's well known, and it's very, very simple. You can probably Google it these days.
He was my Godfather because my late father was studying to be an Anglican priest, and they studied together. But then my father discovered they didn't believe Jesus was the son of God, or didn't even exist in the form which is best known, so he gave up. He couldn't preach what he described as a 'fairy tale'.
Now Joseph Campbell doesn't understand history? No offense to your degree in Commerce, but I'll trust his lifetime of research and education over your convenient opinions.
In which case, if it is not seen as causing emotional pain because it is a violation of the terms of the relationship, as it is popularly understood and discussed often in this very thread, this behavior would not be what is called "cheating," which is the topic of the discussion here.
Your repeated defense of "cheating," what is understood to be hurting one's own loved one for selfish desire, reeks of an intellectual defense for what you surely must strongly suspect is simply wrong.
Wow, your stats are off! And that's sidestepping the point entirely. If many people commit a wrong, it doesn't become right simply because so many people have done it.
goodwood
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Posts
- 1,750
- Media
- 27
- Likes
- 183
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas
- Sexuality
- No Response
well...i have never cheated or been cheated on and don't find it hot.
however - i have had sex with women that cheated on their husbands
by having sex with me. they loved it.
i also have a female college friend that is married and she and her husband
have both 'cheated' and have had random, casual sex with other people with
the other one's permission and found it hot. that seems to work for them so
that's great. whatever works for each individual situation.
however - i have had sex with women that cheated on their husbands
by having sex with me. they loved it.
i also have a female college friend that is married and she and her husband
have both 'cheated' and have had random, casual sex with other people with
the other one's permission and found it hot. that seems to work for them so
that's great. whatever works for each individual situation.
Similar threads
