The Student Room Group

Why Men Cheat

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by Wilfred Little
It's relative and it was in response to somebody else, without the post I quoted you would have a point, unfortunately you do not. Anyone can lift bits and pieces from posts and twist it to mean something else.

You've gone from disagreeing that it's cheating (and conveniently knowing exactly what I meant at the time :rolleyes:) to making stuff up as you go along.

Poor.


So why didn't you just explain that when I first quoted you rather than acting like a jumped up prick for 10 posts before finally admitting I was right all along?

Read back over your responses. Some of them are just plain embarrassing.
Original post by py0alb
So why didn't you just explain that when I first quoted you rather than acting like a jumped up prick for 10 posts before finally admitting I was right all along?

Read back over your responses. Some of them are just plain embarrassing.


Original post by py0alb
So if you tell your girlfriend you're not happy with her looking guys in the eye when she passes them in the street, shes a cheating slut if she does so?


Cool backtracking. :redface:
Reply 82
Original post by Wilfred Little
Cool backtracking. :redface:


So you think looking people in the face is cheating?

Other than that, I don't really see the point of your last post.
Original post by py0alb
Oh good, another poster with nothing to offer to the argument but silly ad hominems. :rolleyes:

The point is that one person's subjective level of jealousy is quite patently not a sensible or workable definition of cheating. Its far more nuanced than that.


Whilst it's easy to suggest flaws in other's arguments, I can't help wondering what your definition of actually cheating is?

I was also deadly serious about my cuckold idea, as I have no idea what you're thinking in terms of your standards of what constitutes cheating.

Original post by Wilfred Little
Out of interest, would you consider cyber sex cheating?


Ok, so are you imagining text-based cyber sex or video-based contact?

Regardless, whilst I reflexively thought "yes, of course", I think it becomes very difficult to pin down what's cheating if you don't factor in various other things.

So whilst it seems obvious that if a partner, without the other knowing, is say, on webcam, naked, taking commands from a third party who is also doing the same for them, it would constitute cheating, this presents obvious issues.

What is it that makes an action that could be considered cheating? Is it the mutual nudity, mutual sexual pleasure between two individuals who are not in an exclusive relationship, violation of trust, deception of the other partner, or something else?

None of these things help at all to define cheating, at what point does the level of clothing become inappropriate? What if the partner is not necessarily enjoying it, but doing it anyway? How should a partner know what the other half is trusting them not to do without explicit listing of all possible actions? If the other partner is aware of the interaction, does it become acceptable?

It's all very grey, and that's just the issue of online interaction. If you go trying to define inappropriate, non-internet-based relations, where's the line? How many seconds before a hug is inappropriately long? What kind of conversations are appropriate?



OK.

So whilst it seems I've gotten pretty lost and confused, this has let me see where py0alb and Wilfred Little are coming from and why you're arguing; there is no set definition of cheating that is not subject to dispute ("Only full intercourse is cheating", "well, what if their genitals touch put there's no penetration?" etc etc).

This is where Wilfred Little got the edge when he noted that the only way to really define what "CHEATING" is without argument, is by both partners explicitly agreeing what's acceptable beforehand, clearly outlining when something become inappropriate. Anything that happens that hasn't been discussed explicitly, perhaps merely implied, couldn't REALISTICALLY be considered cheating based on the massive room for discussion, as I talked about above. Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse participation in actions that are almost certainly going to lead to the upsetting of the other partner, it just perhaps shouldn't be called "cheating" because it raises too many questions.

The question "is <activity> cheating?" should not be acceptable because it doesn't allow for the relationship-to-relationship basis for "cheating".
Reply 84
Original post by Calpurnia
Whilst it's easy to suggest flaws in other's arguments, I can't help wondering what your definition of actually cheating is?

I was also deadly serious about my cuckold idea, as I have no idea what you're thinking in terms of your standards of what constitutes cheating.



I would suggest that its almost certainly a complex mixture of both objective and subjective factors. I can't think of a suitably complete set of criteria off the top of my head and I can't be bothered hammering one out. The point is that any attempt at a definition that is either purely subjective or purely objective is doomed to failure.
Reply 85
Original post by Calpurnia
Look, perhaps my morals are just totally skewed, but there is just no justification for cheating, ever.


There are always justifications. Some are right, some are wrong.

Of course, there are reasons why people would but none of them make it right. In your "husband drinks, boss flirts" scenario, there's a couple of things that stand out: the boss is a scumbag for approaching a married woman and the whole thing is subject to corruption;


It's immoral to sleep with a married woman.

It's immoral to not help those who are in pain.

In most situations there are mixed morals. There are lots of guys who want to save women in bad situations. It's an old old fantasy.

there's every chance the husband genuinely DIDN'T know what was going on and wife, who was apparently already keen on the boss enough to accept his advances, didn't feel like busting a gut to tell him. Even if husband spent all day drinking/didn't listen for no reason, she should've ended with him because he sounds like a terrible partner. Perhaps, preferable to either of these options would be an effort to help the partner with his drinking/other issues for the sake of the relationship.


It's possible the husband didn't know what was going on. It's possible she tried to end it. I saw both sorts of scenarios. Poor communication is the norm, so it's generally hard to do much. Regardless, I see little point in focusing on morals in this sort of situation, the woman is normally very agitated so is more emotional than intellectual and her morals are especially weak. Better to avoid this situation.

Leaving the TV show to one side, rather than cheating, if we apply your idea, to attain someone who is physically strong enough to beat them up, and not have to fear retribution, surely it would be preferable to make a friend who would fit this bill, rather than just go cheat on one's partner?


If you sleep with someone they're more likely to help you. Some people certainly do rely on friends.


This would seem to lead to a preferable situation more than sleeping with someone for the express purpose of protection.


It depends on the circumstances in your life. How good you are at manipulating men. It's quite hard to manipulate a guy who you're not offering much to protect you. Most people don't like to get involved in marital disputes.

Whilst I appreciate you were presenting "common" moral ideas, I am not required to recognise they have any sort of value for that reason. Also, I would be quick to point out that this is perhaps a difference of morals again, you say I'm unpleasant because I said you're stupid, even though it appears you're not, and I think you're unpleasant because you're advocating cheating in a relationship.


I think you're unpleasant because you insult me with little reason. I am not advocating cheating in a relationship. I am pointing out what morals actually are. You can not recognise any sort of value in them all you like, people will still do such things. I wouldn't cheat. Many would.

This is very closely related to my issue with our "husband drinks, boss flirts" scenario: relationships can't always be easy. Sometimes it's important not to take the path of least resistance, and to actually stop thinking about how to make life easiest for yourself on a moment-to-moment basis. Yes, cheating in this scenario will mean you get lots of attention without as much risk of a reprisal, however, does this then mean that you're happy to spend the rest of your life living a lie, just so you don't have to actually make the call and end your relationship?


Often when I saw this sort of scenario the attention built them up and allowed them to leave their partner. It had a good benefit for them. They also had someone to financially support them so there was less chance of them starving. The easy choice was the best choice for them.

Again, I would just say that if a partner has the confidence, freedom and time to cheat, they definitely have the freedom to seek advice from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. As a justification, it just doesn't hold up, and it totally vulnerable to misuse; "yeah, I think he'll, like, hack my Facebook if I leave him, so I'm just gonna stay with him and have 5 guys on the side".


You do like to minimize stuff. "Yeah, I think he'll like, turn up at my workplace and make a scene, and delete everything on my laptop, and take our dog and kids and move to another county."

So here's my fundamental issue with you trying to justify cheating:

as soon as you advocate ONE case FOR it, everything else becomes fair game. As you noted early on in your other post, perhaps this is me being ideological but I think that without absolute morals on the issue, and indeed, there doesn't appear to be any logical reason against this, people will be free to cheat on their partners without ANY sort of guilt or moral accountability and this really upsets me. Because it ALWAYS hurts to be cheated on, and you know what, most of the time, people cheating think they're in the right for whatever tiny little reason they're holding in their head. Here's a couple:


Whatever I say or don't say, people will have their own morals. You have your morals about cheating. I have mine. Other people have theirs. I have certainly seen other people's morals on cheating get them a better life. I've seen it bring them a worse life.

The issue is this- you seem to believe morals are absolute, handed down from god or whatever. I believe morals are whatever moral beliefs people have.

- I'm not getting the attention I need
- I'm in love with this other person but don't want to hurt my partner
- The relationship has been over for a long time, we've just drifted apart (despite the partner not having a clue this was the case)


I've certainly seen people have a variety of reasons.


If any of your scenarios are taken and morally justified, all of the other reasons for cheating become legitimate.


The reasons a person cheats depends on their individual morals. They may believe one thing is ok or believe all of them are ok.

So I don't think this is an argument I will ever reconsider because there's just no room to manoeuvre, either cheating is never acceptable, or it's always acceptable. You're probably sitting there incredulously thinking "it's not like that", but it is. As soon as you put the job of rationalising cheating into the hands of someone who wants to do it, they can and will rationalise it, probably based on something that you have said here is valid. They shouldn't have that option, there's no need for them to have it.


You're acting like our actions here will determine the future of cheating. Either we give them options or they don't have options. They already have the option to rationalize. They may be taught by the media to rationalize during our relationship. It's really not a good idea to rely just on morals to hold the line. It's best to be aware of the sorts of reasons people cheat and be able to argue for or against them based on their actual merits and flaws.
Original post by Nepene
You're acting like our actions here will determine the future of cheating. Either we give them options or they don't have options. They already have the option to rationalize. They may be taught by the media to rationalize during our relationship. It's really not a good idea to rely just on morals to hold the line. It's best to be aware of the sorts of reasons people cheat and be able to argue for or against them based on their actual merits and flaws.


I appreciate the long explanation of your ideas but I think that often so much harm is caused by cheating that it would be better to, rather than say with hindsight: "oh, your/my reasons for doing it were wrong", say "don't cheat on your partner". Of course, there's been another discussion in this thread about what cheating actually is, which has kind of blown this thread wide open and has resulted in me being more sympathetic to the morals of individuals, with regard to what constitutes cheating. HOWEVER, I suppose this doesn't affect our conversation too much, since we're talking about a violation of what the individuals themselves regard as cheating. Or maybe we're not.

Do the people in your scenarios think they're cheating on their partners? Or do they think it's something else, perhaps justified? I don't know, that seems pretty fundamental to our line of discussion.
Reply 87
may I propose reading "The Friendzone and how to avoid it"
It may enlighten you to why you seem to keep getting cheated on.
Original post by The_Jammy_Witch
Hmm. So does that mean that moral standards are ALWAYS a sign of weakness/guilty to exist... ness?

Or is there a balance where you can be both confident/whopass, and still have a sense of conscience for a partner... if they themselves are also decent/whopass and it's generally a high status relationship all round?


Erm.. IMO if you can cheat and choose to do so, then it shows that you're clearly very socially confident and dominant therefore why shouldn't you do it if you get the chance?

Yes there can be a balance between the two but if you get the chance to cheat especially with a really pretty girl then it shows that you're awesome.
This reads like one of those "how not to write your coursework" examples they hand around in GCSE sociology....

Quick Reply

Latest