is it cheating? - Help a girl understand.

[doppelgaenger]

Listen, a guy who really likes you wouldn't pull this shit.

[Take2]

I do not understand how this works. More than one person here has said that if two people agree to only have sex with each other, but do not label themselves gf and bf, one party can break that promise and secretly sleep with someone else...and it ISN'T cheating? How is that possible? I don't get it.

Apparently I have very liberal ideas about marriage AND extremely conservative ideas about dating! I am a conundrum.

[doppelgaenger]

Well, I agree with you, Take2. Only a lying sack of shit would pull this stunt.

[SelflessnHumble]

I do not understand how this works. More than one person here has said that if two people agree to only have sex with each other, but do not label themselves gf and bf, one party can break that promise and secretly sleep with someone else...and it ISN'T cheating? How is that possible? I don't get it.

Apparently I have very liberal ideas about marriage AND extremely conservative ideas about dating! I am a conundrum.

It's pretty simple really...If two people agree to be ****** buddies -there is no commitment at all.
If you call having sex mutually between two people a commitment, it's news to me. The issue with the OP is that
to her it was more than sex: so she lied to herself that by giving him sex: it meant he was obligated to be mutually exclusive or that
he possibly loved her back: which was NOT the case.

It, however doesn't make it right what he did, but considering she didn't have a problem giving it up; for sport then I don't see how cheating is the correct term in this case.
He lied to her and was intimate with someone else. He had no obligation to uphold his silly little promise to be mutually exclusive because there was NOTHING backing it (like a commitment affords)

At any rate this is the price to pay with wanting to F someone who doesn't love you nor respect you.
Since he obviously felt he hadn't cheated (as did I when I thought I could just have sex with someone who emotionally makes the connection with such an act) I am trying to dissuade
the OP from getting into this bullshit of "mutual exclusive" based relationships where sex is the only thing bringing them together...


Concerning your post #8:
How do you not see your views on marriage can be seen as liberal when you said it's cool for a couple to bring someone else into their bed as long as all parties agree to it?
(and that it somehow doesn't constitute cheating?) This goes against what marriage means. Just an observation. Just because they could see it as no issue, doesn't mean
that what they are doing IS invalidating their marriage. -Marriage is a traditional element of a relationship one must be willing to accept should marriage be an option.

It isn't subject to debate as to what marriage means for me, you or anyone else when the state, as well as law define it as does tradition.

[reeba]

I think it is time to define cheating. You can cheat someone out of money, you can cheat in a game, you can sexually cheat in a relationship, you can emotionally cheat in a relationship.... Cheating is doing something intentionallt against the accepted norm to achieve gains unfairly.

He went against an agreement, so he could get sex from multiple partners. You had an understanding, and he broke it so he could get lots of sex from multiple girls.

If it wasn't cheating, then WHY did he cover his tracks by lying to you? He lied because he knew what he was doing was wrong. And he lied for his own persoanl gains.

Bottom Line ..... He cheated.

OK, and now I'm going to start on what you did wrong. You had an exclusive 'friends with benefits' relationship. What the hell is that? Makes absolutely no sense. Just admit it. You were emotionally attached to the guy and you agreed to whatever it took to keep him. Even now you are grasping at straws to keep him by this 'I want to give him the benefit of the doubt' BS. So what was the final result you were hoping for? That he would eventually decided that he loved you? If he loved you, he wouldn't have dumped you in the first place, and he definetly wouldn't be effing another girl.

Second bottom line... Dump him.

[Take2]

He lied to her and was intimate with someone else. He had no obligation to uphold his silly little promise to be mutually exclusive because there was NOTHING backing it (like a commitment affords)

Oh, I see. Only some promises count, and a man has no obligation to keep promises if he deems them "silly, little promises" rather than big promises. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

Over in my universe, promises are important. Communication is important. I don't consider any promise "silly" or "little" and I consider broken promises a betrayal. To me, the defense "Sure, I said we could be exclusive, but I didn't have any responsibility to keep my dick out of other women because I also said I wasn't your boyfriend"...proves that a guy is not even really a man at all. The honest and appropriate time and method to end ANY sort of sexually exclusive arrangement is with a conversation before having sex with someone else. Period. To handle it any other way is cheating. Period.

How do you not see your views on marriage can be seen as liberal when you said it's cool for a couple to bring someone else into their bed as long as all parties agree to it?
(and that it somehow doesn't constitute cheating?) This goes against what marriage means. Just an observation. Just because they could see it as no issue, doesn't mean
that what they are doing IS invalidating their marriage. -Marriage is a traditional element of a relationship one must be willing to accept should marriage be an option.

It isn't subject to debate as to what marriage means for me, you or anyone else when the state, as well as law define it as does tradition.

How can you not see that what a married couple decides mutually about their sexual relationship is not really your place or mine to judge? I do have liberal leanings, but I know plenty of conservatives who feel the same. And if "tradition" was a good way of deciding what a marriage should be, then it should be legal for my hypothetical husband to beat me and rape me and illegal for me to marry a black man. As I find these ideals ridiculous, I can't accept tradition as a compelling argument. Some of the most devoted married couples I know are not recognized as married by the state, so perhaps that colors my views as well.

In my mind, any union that is loving and supportive and respectful can be a good marriage. And the sanctity of marriage is marred not by non-traditional loving bonds, but by marriages like mine, fully endorsed by church and state but lacking in the mutual support and respect and eventually even the love.

[Gigabitch]

He agreed to mutual exclusivity and then slept with someone else.

He lied to both you and the other girl.

Now he's trying to weasel out of it on a technicality.

Walk away from this clown and never speak to him again. Going forward, don't sleep with someone who isn't 100% into being with you.

[SelflessnHumble]

Oh, I see. Only some promises count, and a man has no obligation to keep promises if he deems them "silly, little promises" rather than big promises. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

^^^THIS right here *is* true for most men...Not good men who know how to treat people and their women^^^

If I am having sex with a woman: best believe there is a connection, chemistry, respect, love and (for me) a commitment
that proudly says, "You're mine and I'm yours...I'm not going anywhere." However if I had to sink to their level and just
"have sex" then I would too agree that this is still a commitment (sort of)

It's just a commitment (to ****) without a commitment (to love and respect one another)
Sex with a promise not to have sex with someone else (or even kiss) is still a promise and HE did promise (and broke it)

It doesn't get him off the hook, but being right or wrong in this asinine scenario precludes the possibility of the OP
learning the value in this experience. Even if I say, YES it's cheating (he did cheat her out of being exclusive, for sure)
but what does this do for the hurt OP? Can she tell him, "SEE, I was right, haha!" and then she will feel better? Doubt it.

I'm trying to teach the OP there is a problem with "just" ****ing in a relationship without the feelings that go along
with being in a serious, meaningful and committed relationship (he obviously didn't reciprocate) see?

Since I've been cowardly, deceitful and a lying piece of shit I know what men will say just to get laid...
He is textbook bullshit. His actions tell me his intent (even if she had never posted him breaking the promise he made)

I ask you this: what was the end result here?
She got messed with, toyed with and now she's hurt and feels violated because she gave something that wasn't
appreciated, nor given back...

Over in my universe, promises are important. Communication is important. I don't consider any promise "silly" or "little" and I consider broken promises a betrayal. To me, the defense "Sure, I said we could be exclusive, but I didn't have any responsibility to keep my dick out of other women because I also said I wasn't your boyfriend"...proves that a guy is not even really a man at all. The honest and appropriate time and method to end ANY sort of sexually exclusive arrangement is with a conversation before having sex with someone else. Period. To handle it any other way is cheating. Period.

Of course promises are important.
I don't see how you cannot see "****ing exclusively" is just a problem waiting to happen because:
She isn't a good judge of a man's character (the proof is here) and she allowed her emotions to control her choices.

The defense you wrote up there IS a piss poor excuse and I agree with you:
But you seem to be missing the point here:

How good of a promise can the guy keep...when he wasn't able to commit to her via a "title, his actions" or
the way two people are supposed to be in a relationship where sex is given/had but he was able to commit
to bang her "exclusively" without a commitment???? If he is able to take sex: without being in a relationship with her
then it's clear: it is a problem for him: hence his inability to make that commitment.

He said he promised to get the sex (obviously)

How can you not see that what a married couple decides mutually about their sexual relationship is not really your place or mine to judge? I do have liberal leanings, but I know plenty of conservatives who feel the same. And if "tradition" was a good way of deciding what a marriage should be, then it should be legal for my hypothetical husband to beat me and rape me and illegal for me to marry a black man. As I find these ideals ridiculous, I can't accept tradition as a compelling argument. Some of the most devoted married couples I know are not recognized as married by the state, so perhaps that colors my views as well.

I believe in a common law marriage, the vows, the explicit promises to one another are still present.
2nd, you keep using that word *judge* as if I am "judging" someone based on their choices? (I'm not)
and not once have I judged anyone who has posted here...

What I do is: observe. and when it is appropriate I post my opinion on the subject at hand AND if applicable
I will interject with facts established by the source(s) of marriage, its origin and the point of it. In some countries
rape, physical abuse ARE legal and these two words don't even apply!!!! You don't have to accept tradition.

Marriage is between TWO "people" who love each other.
Not between one white and one black, however I can tell you that the civil war wasn't about what you think it was...
It was all about property and until certain historical precedents took place: Blacks were NOT considered "people" let alone
human because of the "white" man's false interpretation of the Constitution AND even back then: Honest Abraham
thought slaves were legal and just....Certainly it wasn't...Voluntary servitude still exists, however.

Personally marriage allows a 3rd party into your marriage: the STATE. Common Law is a great thing.
It seems you have an issue with disagreeing with my opinion? I am happy you post your opinion as it makes for
good conversation but don't ever think I'm "judging" people: Only God can judge (if he exists)

I observe based on what I know, which in the grand scope of things isn't infinite period.

In my mind, any union that is loving and supportive and respectful can be a good marriage. And the sanctity of marriage is marred not by non-traditional loving bonds, but by marriages like mine, fully endorsed by church and state but lacking in the mutual support and respect and eventually even the love.

People can create their own beliefs all they want.

Having 3 somes, having consensual affairs within a marriage is anyone's choice.
It just happens to go against what I know to be marriage...WHY get married then?
Tax benefits? Gov't credits?

[Take2]

I agree with you, I don't personally want a f-buddy, nor have I ever wanted one. But I still think a promise is a promise, and even someone who wants a f-buddy deserves to hve promises honored. But sure, I agree that the chances of being respected and treated well by a guy go way up if you treat yourself with self-respect. And most women I have known (not all!) who got involved in a f-buddy situation did so by compromising their own standards and that was the first step to being disrespected.

I believe in a common law marriage, the vows, the explicit promises to one another are still present.

I guess you mean implicit? OK, I believe that openly communicating your expectations and customizing them to the actual relationship are the responsibility and priviledge of each individual. Sure, my personal preferences for a relationship are very traditional, but there is no need to assume or benefit from doing so. Every couple should talk about what the relationship means and what its boundaries are.

Marriage is between TWO "people" who love each other.
Not between one white and one black, however I can tell you that the civil war wasn't about what you think it was...
It was all about property and until certain historical precedents took place: Blacks were NOT considered "people" let alone
human because of the "white" man's false interpretation of the Constitution AND even back then: Honest Abraham
thought slaves were legal and just....Certainly it wasn't...Voluntary servitude still exists, however.

Dude, I am not talking about the Civil War at all. But since I grew up in Virginia, I do think I am pretty familiar with all of the political and social themes that were in play, no need to condescend. Loving vs. VA was in 1967! Not even 50 years ago, a black person and a white person could not get married legally. It had been over 100 years since slavery ended legally and all races had been considered full people.

Having 3 somes, having consensual affairs within a marriage is anyone's choice.
It just happens to go against what I know to be marriage...WHY get married then?
Tax benefits? Gov't credits?

I don't know the reasons, as I would only marry into an exclusive relationship based in love, myself.

And no, I don't have any issue with you and I disagreeing, I just address posts I see that have issues where I feel there is a compelling counter-point. I don't think our views are even diametrically opposed, just different in key details.

[SelflessnHumble]

Dude, I am not talking about the Civil War at all. But since I grew up in Virginia, I do think I am pretty familiar with all of the political and social themes that were in play, no need to condescend. Loving vs. VA was in 1967! Not even 50 years ago, a black person and a white person could not get married legally. It had been over 100 years since slavery ended legally and all races had been considered full people.

The exact purpose of the marriage license DIRECTLY involved the Civil War, and the subsequent
13th, and 14th Amendments...Blacks were given privileges (while whites had rights) as the Constitution
only merely affirms: not gives us, nor affords us...No condescension was made nor implied.

The first marriage license was made so that whites could "intermarry" with Blacks, so yes it has to
do with "marriage" as far as the "state" is concerned.

A license: means you need permission.
In this case...a marriage license was a granted permission to intermarry (racially)

It doesn't mention gays (like Krapnifornia had unconstitutionally voted for)

The state gives you permission when you ask for it...
Permission for what? To "marry."
This is how you give the state partial ownership of your marriage (and your children) and thus: they can be taken away from you.

And no, I don't have any issue with you and I disagreeing, I just address posts I see that have issues where I feel there is a compelling counter-point. I don't think our views are even diametrically opposed, just different in key details.

O.k, cool.

[HeartIsAching]

To me, it appears that you tried to have your cake and eat it, too. If you want a committed relationship (to whatever degree) then you want it and need to state your wants. If he agrees to it, then at that point it would be cheating for him to step out on you.

However - I think this needs to be addressed; he lied to you about it. That says to me that he felt some level of guilt, and probably wanted to continue having his fun on the side without you knowing. It's quite possible, even probable that he would have cheated if you were in a defined relationship. Watch for it in the future, if you continue to have a relationship with him.

[SelflessnHumble]

To me, it appears that you tried to have your cake and eat it, too. If you want a committed relationship (to whatever degree) then you want it and need to state your wants. If he agrees to it, then at that point it would be cheating for him to step out on you.

However - I think this needs to be addressed; he lied to you about it. That says to me that he felt some level of guilt, and probably wanted to continue having his fun on the side without you knowing. It's quite possible, even probable that he would have cheated if you were in a defined relationship. Watch for it in the future, if you continue to have a relationship with him.

Exactly........