Loren Pechtel

It's a serious breach of trust.

If a couple freely chooses an open relationship that's not cheating.

Jamie_L

Cheating is by definition engaging in a relationship with one individual when you have an agreement with another individual not to do so.

Cheating is thus wrong, because it violates this agreement.

Jamie

truelies

It would seem that the wrongness of 'cheating' depends very much on the feelings of being cheated in the 'cheated' individual rather than on the overt act. Deliberately causing pain to someone you have promised to Love is certainly hard to justify for the sake of a casual roll in the hay. On the other hand what objectively has the cheated party lost if their position in a primary Relationship(Rights of children, Property) is not being threatened by a bit of side fun? Their own sex quota is not threatened, as sexual activity is not a finite product that can be used up. Probably the best most honest thing would be to ask permission of your partner before hand.

fatherphil

it need not be wrong if you define it as right.

Psycho Economist

There's more support for this than you may realize... Studies show women are particularly jealous of emotional infidelity (e.g. long romances with 'other women') and men are particularly jealous of sexual infidelity (e.g. one-night stands, or extended sexual relationships).

I don't know whether to envy or pitty your implicit lack of emotional attachments. I'm leaning towards pittying it.

Never mind imparting feelings of inadaquacy and the breech of trust involved... Just to talk evolutionary psychology, it would drive most men batty to have doubts that they are the fathers of the children they rearing and the ever-looming threat of their lives' partners leaving would worry most women to no end.

No duh. It's not cheating, then.

In other news, I think it's remarkable that our focus has stayed on "cheating" (unagreed-to breeches of exclusivity) and not been confused with "adultery" (inclusive of permitted liasons).

meritocrat

Again, define harm.

A sports fan is 'harmed' if their favourite team loses a match. A person can be harmed at ANY time they are offended. Where does one draw the line, if it is wrong to harm?

Oxymoron

Sports fans (should!) accept the risk of there being a decent chance their team will lose at some team. It is therefore their business how much emotional investment to stake in it.

Relationships, for some, are arrangements intended to minimise certain risks (not being able to pass on one's genes, freedom from disease). They are also team-based: the deal is that the couple are working in each others' interests for their mutual benefit. When this is compromised by an individual acting to the detriment of their partner, there is obvious distress.

There is no need to define 'harm'. It is patently obvious what harm is because people know it when they feel it. Irrational and overblown it may be on occasion, but it is well-documented enough that you could not use ignorance or contempt of it as a justification for your actions.

MollyMac

Where are you going with this? It was you who introduced the word 'harm' - your first respondent said 'hurt' which is not the same. Now you're using it again when words like 'disappointed', 'angered' or any number of other words would be more appropriate, rendering your question about 'where to draw the line', redundant.

Do you want this be a discussion on semantics, on morality, on social control or on the rights and wrongs of monogamy? Or on something else? Why not give your own view or ideas on whatever it is you want to talk about?

DRFseven

Meritocrat, you're questioning because you're looking for an intrinsic wrong in cheating and there's not one. This is the problem with the idea of intrinsic wrong; it doesn't make sense. Things can't just be "wrong"; they've got to be wrong for something.

Most people whose spouse cheats, subsequently lose trust in the spouse. Unless this trust can be redeemed, the relationship necessarily suffers. So if a solid relationship is important, then cheating could be considered wrong. As an aside, to me, it WOULD BE wrong.

meritocrat

There is a need to define harm. You say it's wrong to hurt or harm. I'm telling you that many things can conceivably 'harm' a person. Where does one draw the line?

Besides aren't most people who post here moral subjectivisits? Why care if an action 'harms' someone else?