When is it cheating?

  • Thread starter Thread starter idoqna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

idoqna

Guest
I heard a talk show the other day discussing when is it cheating. It came to my attention during this show that men and women view the onset of cheating differently.

Married men were saying they didn’t consider online chat rooms where they talk about other things besides the weather as cheating. Married women were saying that is cheating because you’re emotionally there with the other person.

Some married men don’t see it as cheating to view online sexually graphic websites, if you know what I mean. Married women were saying that is cheating.

I was wondering what this forum’s members thought on the subject, whether you’re married or not. Secondly, what does the Catholic faith say on this subject, especially the online subject. I know a married couple who almost divorced over the online subject. They went to counseling and worked everything out. They are Catholic.

Thanks for any responses. Also, if the SYSOP doesn’t think this is the appropriate area for this question, please move it for me and let me know. It was hard trying to figure that one out since it’s such a wierd subject. I’m thinking the internet is just another way for the devil to enter into our marriages and private lives if it’s abused.

Thank you for responses.

Stephanie
 
As for my opinion of cheating, I think it depends on two things:

Your intent. Just chatting with another person can be wrong if your intent is to rob your marriage of connection, time or closeness. If you know communicating about specific things with your spouse would enrich your marriage, but you choose someone else because it is easier, that is wrong.

Your spouse’s comfort level. In every relationship you need to define and respect the boundaries. Generally, your spouse will be less comfortable then you with the idea of you hanging out with your ex or spending the weekend with a female co-worker. Listen to their concerns and honor them, even if you think the interaction in question is innocent. Putting your spouse’s interests first is a way to communicate how much you love him/her and value their presence in your life.
 
If the bible says something on it, I say listen 🙂
**Adultery **

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'a]28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Jesus makes it clear that to even look at a woman with lust IS adultery. The same goes for women - men.

In Christ.

Andre.
 
40.png
Magicsilence:
If the bible says something on it, I say listen 🙂

Jesus makes it clear that to even look at a woman with lust IS adultery. The same goes for women - men.

In Christ.

Andre.
Click to expand...
Good catch.
 
I agree with the quote. I’ve always felt that way.

I was wondering nowadays why it’s become acceptable among some to talk “sexy” with another person online. I think that would be wrong if you’re married because emotionally you’re already there with the man/woman. As someone else said, you’re also robbing your spouse of that intimacy as well.

The question again is why would some people think that’s acceptable? I’m not talking about talking to a pal of yours through your IM that you’ve known forever and about normal things. I mean, that’s a friend and you could talk either on the phone or IM or e-mail. It’s when the line is broken, whether it’s an IM friend or one of these sites, that I’m questioning the “adultery” part and why there’s such a disparity between the sexes when it comes to what is viewed as adultery and what is not viewed as such.

I appreciate the replies so far.

Steph
 
As some one who is addicted to internet pornography and these vile chatrooms… It is cheating
 
If you wouldn’t do it with your spouse next to you, it’s cheating.
 
I agree with the other posters. If you are lusting for another someone other than your spouse, it is cheating on them. Flirting with someone other than your spouse (whether on the internet or not) is cheating.
 
For men, this is nearly a laughably easy principle. If something gets you aroused and it ain’t your wife… stop doing it! Notice I said the principle was easy, not the living of it.

That said, there are more subtle emotional infidelity issues that must be guarded against as well. But if the first rule were followed, there would be no male infidelity.
 
If - as in fact I have - I pay attention to a woman other than my
wife, simply because I find said woman attractive, I feel that that is a form of “cheating” - even if the words and actions involved in that “attention” are objectively innocent and appropriate.

Also, if I spend too much time at work, or “out with the guys” - or even interacting with our children - at the expense of my marriage, then those behaviors, too, are a kind of “cheating”, I believe.

Spending too much time in these chat rooms instead of chatting with my wife is cheating…
 
I guess I’m a contrarian. If by cheating you mean adultery, then there’s only one way to do that–and it involves a specific act with someone physically present. The commandment against adultery is written in Hebrew and Hebrew is specific on what adultery is.

On the other hand, if by cheating, you mean failing to properly support your family emotionally, financially or spiritually because of these distractions, then yes, they would entail cheating.
 
40.png
idoqna:
…Married men were saying they didn’t consider online chat rooms where they talk about other things besides the weather as cheating. Married women were saying that is cheating because you’re emotionally there with the other person…
Click to expand...
“Emotionally there”
What an odd way of putting things :confused:
Are they suggesting that any bonds whatsoever with the opposite sex outside of marriage is somehow cheating?

I have a lot of friends and relatives I’m close to and I would hope that I’m emotionally there when I interact with them.

My soon to be wife and I are in our 40’s and 50’s we realize that each of us has had decades of life before we met. That is the reality of life. I would like to think that she is as emotionally there for the men she has known for 20 or 30 years as I would like to be for my women friends.

Now if the talk in the chat room in question is mostly sexual in nature then that is another matter if it goes beyond regular old playful flirting or banter. But the forums I’m familiar with are usually topical. And if I like collecting Yugoslavian teaspoons or discussing Zoroastrian wall hangings and my spouse doesn’t it does seem to me to be cheating if I become friends with someone who does.

Very strange
 
40.png
manualman:
For men, this is nearly a laughably easy principle. If something gets you aroused and it ain’t your wife… stop doing it!
Click to expand...
Why is this “for men”?
 
If something gets you aroused and it ain’t your (husband or) wife… stop doing it!

Here, here!

To add to it, I also believe If your spouse is (or would be) bothered by anything you do, then it is causing a conflict in your marriage that needs to be addressed. Even if the action is not objectively wrong, it is robbing your love bank of its worth and sabotaging your relationship. You and your spouse need to find a way of meeting BOTH your needs in the marriage simultaneously.

For any who might have a problem with this in their own lives, I yet again find myself saying how much I like Willard Harley’s premise of marriage.

His Needs, Her Needs
Building an Affair Proof Marriage

and his website, www.marriagebuilders.com
 
40.png
Timidity:
Why is this “for men”?
Click to expand...
Simply because I ain’t a woman and I can’t remotely pretend to understand how they think. I have heard that a married women’s attractions are more likely to start at the emotional level before becoming sexual. I dunno, but women may need more sophisticated moral trip wires then us knuckle draggers.
 
Steve,

I was talking about “emotionally there” in chatting sexually or intimately with the opposite sex. IOW, you’re on a chat site or even a game room and your spouse is playing with someone of the opposite sex and starts talking in sexual banter, then that is cheating, IMHO. What if he/she meets that person every day for a game or to chat and it’s not just about the spoons y’all collect? It starts off light hearted and goes further into the realm of sexual flirtation. That’s what I’m talking about with the phrase. At that point you are not physically there but you are emotionally there.

I don’t think when the book of Hebrews was written that they had the foresight of the internet and the porn industry, etc. So, in today’s society has the definition of “adultery” changed from just physical contact? Yes, from just these posts alone. It’s change to emotional as well if you’re speaking in sensual terms.

Steph
 
I just found out 2 months ago that my husband has been in internet chat rooms and has looked at pictures on the internet. I feel in a way that he has cheated on me. It is not as bad as if he had a relationship with someone else, but I feel cheated from the time that he spent on the computer instead of with me. He had said that he was paying bills, doing work, etc., but some of that time he was doing other things, which took time away from us building our relationship. I also feel that it was cheating because he was opening up to other people when he should have been opening up to me. Since I have found out, things have been much better and we have been more open with each other, so it has actually been a blessing in some ways. However, even if it is not considered cheating, it definitely hurt to know that he was doing these things.
 
40.png
idoqna:
I heard a talk show the other day discussing when is it cheating. It came to my attention during this show that men and women view the onset of cheating differently.

Married men were saying they didn’t consider online chat rooms where they talk about other things besides the weather as cheating. Married women were saying that is cheating because you’re emotionally there with the other person.

Some married men don’t see it as cheating to view online sexually graphic websites, if you know what I mean. Married women were saying that is cheating.

I was wondering what this forum’s members thought on the subject, whether you’re married or not. Secondly, what does the Catholic faith say on this subject, especially the online subject. I know a married couple who almost divorced over the online subject. They went to counseling and worked everything out. They are Catholic.

Thanks for any responses. Also, if the SYSOP doesn’t think this is the appropriate area for this question, please move it for me and let me know. It was hard trying to figure that one out since it’s such a wierd subject. I’m thinking the internet is just another way for the devil to enter into our marriages and private lives if it’s abused.

Thank you for responses.

Stephanie
Click to expand...
This is what Christ meant when he made reference :

“Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” Mat 5,28

So it does not need to have the act carried through to be classified as the same. The desire to obtain it is enough.

What your subjects are doing is exciting the passions. The marriage becomes a barrier to expressing the desire to the complete end, therefore a compromise or facimile is chosen.

The intent is to express the gratification through the desire for the act. The inability to express it is not a credit to the person, as if he could remove the barrier, he would carry it out.

That said, a critique, (and for the heresy police, relax, it’s Sententia Tolerata)…

I wonder if part of this mechanism is really controllable. For instance how much does primitive instinct play in the temptation mechanism?. If we are programmed in any small way, are we not fighting our own instincts? If these instincts are redundant as the law implies by it’s severity, wouldn’t it be simpler to have people born without them? Why even have the potential trap door at every birth.? We have tonsils removed early from our kids, we give them shots for later diseases, we have pot holes filled not for the thousands that would probably miss them, but for the few who probably won’t. Wouldn’t a loving God care more about removing the desire if it’s a potential problem for even some of us, not merely all of us, especially since what’s at stake is eternal punishment and not simply death or illness?

If millions of years of evolution (I know, controvertial) has ingrained primates to have sex as frequent and as indifferent as drinking from a stream, how reasonable is it to expect man to simply refrain from even thinking the thought.

Personally, I feel not expressing the desire sufficient and makes some consideration for the programming(hormones,testosterone,estrogen,libido,whatever). But if we consider the test is simply as a scientific wager played by spiritual super beings, it makes sense. Horses for us, man for them.

Andy
 
40.png
AndyF:
This is what Christ meant when he made reference :

“Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” Mat 5,28

So it does not need to have the act carried through to be classified as the same. The desire to obtain it is enough.

What your subjects are doing is exciting the passions. The marriage becomes a barrier to expressing the desire to the complete end, therefore a compromise or facimile is chosen.

The intent is to express the gratification through the desire for the act. The inability to express it is not a credit to the person, as if he could remove the barrier, he would carry it out.

That said, a critique, (and for the heresy police, relax, it’s Sententia Tolerata)…

I wonder if part of this mechanism is really controllable. For instance how much does primitive instinct play in the temptation mechanism?. If we are programmed in any small way, are we not fighting our own instincts? If these instincts are redundant as the law implies by it’s severity, wouldn’t it be simpler to have people born without them? Why even have the potential trap door at every birth.? We have tonsils removed early from our kids, we give them shots for later diseases, we have pot holes filled not for the thousands that would probably miss them, but for the few who probably won’t. Wouldn’t a loving God care more about removing the desire if it’s a potential problem for even some of us, not merely all of us, especially since what’s at stake is eternal punishment and not simply death or illness?

If millions of years of evolution (I know, controvertial) has ingrained primates to have sex as frequent and as indifferent as drinking from a stream, how reasonable is it to expect man to simply refrain from even thinking the thought.

Personally, I feel not expressing the desire sufficient and makes some consideration for the programming(hormones,testosterone,estrogen,libido,whatever). But if we consider the test is simply as a scientific wager played by spiritual super beings, it makes sense. Horses for us, man for them.

Andy
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular belief, chastity is not some far off virtue that can never be reached.

Our current culture tells us that we should be thinking of sex all day long.

From birth it is ingrained into our minds that sex is the object of all things.

All films, adverts, books, websites (well, nearly all) promote such an attitude.

I am sure, that set in the middle of a mountain, freezing with snow, and a lack of food, sex would be the last thing on your mind.

Try fasting for two days solid, and see if sex still holds much importance.

We seek sex because our other needs are fulfilled.

We can change this through suppressing some of our needs.

Not fulfilling them, denying the body pleasure.

Sex is the ultimate pleasure, but we will not desire it if all other BASIC needs are not fulfilled.

Christ said “When you fast” not “If”, if we followed Him in this path, the current sexual abomination seen in our society would definetly not have held so much power as it does over todays Catholics.

In Christ.

Andre.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top