Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

design219 · Apr 27, 2009, 10:04 PM

Spouse, Lover, Significant, Intended, whatever.

Me, not guilty. (and no, my wife doesn't read MacNN)

Oh, and share the consequences if any. And was it worth it?

Tiresias · Apr 27, 2009, 11:00 PM

Not guilty.

However, the other day I did some on-line research on that much less-energetic and infinitely better guard dog, the German Shepherd... while my border collie was watching me forlornly.

Does that count?

Laminar · Apr 27, 2009, 11:30 PM

Not guilty. I'm surprised enough that I've found one girl willing to touch me.

goMac · Apr 27, 2009, 11:41 PM

I'll admit it. I once owned a Windows machine.

Tiresias · Apr 27, 2009, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

I'll admit it. I once owned a Windows machine.

Before your first Mac, or between Macs?

goMac · Apr 28, 2009, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie

Before your first Mac, or between Macs?

Between Macs.

Jawbone54 · Apr 28, 2009, 12:43 AM

I once admitted a woman besides my wife was mildly attractive.

I felt so dirty.

gradient · Apr 28, 2009, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I once admitted a woman besides my wife was mildly attractive.

I felt so dirty.

Scandalous!

cjrivera · Apr 28, 2009, 01:08 AM

Guilty...

... of committing the purchase of Hi Infidelity.
(I know... REO Speedwagon. I don't how I can live year after year with such a horrible past. It haunts me to this day.)

King Bob On The Cob · Apr 28, 2009, 02:40 AM

I use my right hand to cheat on my SO...

Does that count?

Oisín · Apr 28, 2009, 04:34 AM

Not guilty, for some reason …

Face Ache · Apr 28, 2009, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

I use my right hand to cheat on my SO...

Does that count?

Not if your SO is your left hand.

shifuimam · Apr 28, 2009, 07:57 AM

I kissed a guy once, while I was in a relationship. I was drunk and tired, and it was pretty innocuous.

But that's it. Boyfriend's ex cheated on him hardcore. I've got a zero-tolerance policy for infidelity, myself. One time is enough for me to give the relationship the axe.

sek929 · Apr 28, 2009, 08:21 AM

I was sleeping with a girl for a while that had a boyfriend but that's it.

One night I actually went with them both (and a few friends) to a concert and ended up making out with her behind his back somehow.

Eug · Apr 28, 2009, 08:57 AM

I'm typing on a Windows machine right now.

osiris · Apr 28, 2009, 09:01 AM

That's disgusting, Eug. And immoral.

klb5090 · Apr 28, 2009, 09:01 AM

About two years ago i dated two girls from work at the same time for about two months until one transferred schools, good thing they worked completely different schedules.

osiris · 09:59 AM

infidelity - oh yeah, but I'm not to going admit to that stuff. That's all in the past with all the other skeletons. Hot, delicious, sexy skeletons.

shifuimam · Apr 28, 2009, 11:03 AM

My neighbor takes infidelity really seriously in his own relationships, but has no problem at all carrying on with a married or otherwise taken woman.

I just don't get that so-called logic.

ShortcutToMoncton · Apr 28, 2009, 12:11 PM

I agree with him!

If someone else wants to, well, that's their problem. Who am I to judge? I'll take it and run with it.

greg

shifuimam · Apr 28, 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I agree with him!

If someone else wants to, well, that's their problem. Who am I to judge? I'll take it and run with it.

greg

That makes no sense, though. You're helping someone cheat on their significant other, which makes you no better than someone who cheats on you.

Infidelity is never a thing to be celebrated. It seems entirely hypocritical to not tolerate infidelity in your own relationships, but to have no problem facilitating infidelity in someone else's relationship.

ShortcutToMoncton · Apr 28, 2009, 12:19 PM

Individual choice?

"Facilitating" is such an awkward word in this context. If someone wants to cheat, then that's their choice.

greg

Atheist · Apr 28, 2009, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

That makes no sense, though. You're helping someone cheat on their significant other, which makes you no better than someone who cheats on you.

Infidelity is never a thing to be celebrated. It seems entirely hypocritical to not tolerate infidelity in your own relationships, but to have no problem facilitating infidelity in someone else's relationship.

First you must define Infidelity. How do you know that the married person in question doesn't have an arrangement that allows them to have sex outside the marriage?

shifuimam · Apr 28, 2009, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Individual choice?

"Facilitating" is such an awkward word in this context. If someone wants to cheat, then that's their choice.

greg

This comes back to the idea that the person who provides the method for another doing something hurtful might be partially to blame.

If a woman wants to cheat, she's going to cheat. However, I think it shows a huge lack of respect for her, her significant other, and relationships in general to choose to be the person with whom she cheats.

If your SO went off looking for some booty on the side, wouldn't you want the guy she hits on to reject her advances?

subego · Apr 28, 2009, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

My neighbor takes infidelity really seriously in his own relationships, but has no problem at all carrying on with a married or otherwise taken woman.

I just don't get that so-called logic.

It probably has more in common with clinical paranoia, but the reasoning behind it is dirt simple. He carries on with a bunch of "committed" women, thus he has come to the conclusion "committed" women cheat. These women probably lie about screwing around to their partners, so he thinks women are liars as well. It is also likely he cheats (and lies about it) when in a "committed" relationship, further reinforcing his viewpoint.

IOW, to him, a zero-tolerance policy is merely a method of delaying the inevitable.

shifuimam · Apr 28, 2009, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Atheist

First you must define Infidelity. How do you know that the married person in question doesn't have an arrangement that allows them to have sex outside the marriage?

Perhaps.

Seems like it makes more sense to err on the side of caution with that kind of thing, though.

Atheist · Apr 28, 2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Perhaps.

Seems like it makes more sense to err on the side of caution with that kind of thing, though.

Personally I disagree. It's not my job to police others morality. If they want to mess around on their partner then more power to them.

shabbasuraj · Apr 28, 2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by eug

i'm typing on a windows machine right now.

epic fail

Eug · Apr 28, 2009, 12:51 PM

Well, there is an entire forum on alternative lifestyles here. I'd think most people would accept these people (myself included) for what they are.

Chuckit · 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

That makes no sense, though. You're helping someone cheat on their significant other, which makes you no better than someone who cheats on you.

I don't see it that way. A relationship is a pact between two people — you agree not to sleep with anyone else. But unless we're friends, I have no agreement with you. I might not even know anyone has an agreement with you. If somebody in a relationship decides to cheat with me, I am not breaking any promises to anyone. They're violating your trust, I am not.

In general, I still wouldn't do it because I don't like causing other people pain — but that's just me being nice. I don't feel like I have any obligation to prop up somebody's skills at keeping their SO's affections.

Salty · Apr 28, 2009, 01:37 PM

What if I found out he had a girl friend after?

turtle777 · Apr 28, 2009, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

What if I found out he had a girl friend after?

Then he's confused.

-t

Salty · Apr 28, 2009, 01:48 PM

Is it OK if they're confused?

sek929 · Apr 28, 2009, 01:58 PM

I didn't even know the girl I mentioned earlier had a b/f, asking whether or not she is seeing someone isn't on my 'to-do' list when a leggy blonde starts getting naked in my room.

At any rate she got back together with her b/f after the summer, and then months later started banging my roommate.

besson3c · Apr 28, 2009, 02:00 PM

Only if it was missionary position.

Oisín · Apr 28, 2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

I didn't even know the girl I mentioned earlier had a b/f, asking whether or not she is seeing someone isn't on my 'to-do' list when a leggy blonde starts getting naked in my room.

At any rate she got back together with her b/f after the summer, and then months later started banging my roommate.

Sounds like a healthy relationship she was in. Unless of course she was actually in an open relationship and her boyfriend was okay with it; then you can ignore the implied [/sarcasm] tag.

Dakar V · Apr 28, 2009, 02:07 PM

Don't you talk about my wife like that.

Laminar · Apr 28, 2009, 02:15 PM

Can I be the third unmarried person in this thread to imply that I'm married?

Dakar V · Apr 28, 2009, 02:17 PM

You always were a follower.

shifuimam · Apr 28, 2009, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I don't see it that way. A relationship is a pact between two people — you agree not to sleep with anyone else. But unless we're friends, I have no agreement with you. I might not even know anyone has an agreement with you. If somebody in a relationship decides to cheat with me, I am not breaking any promises to anyone. They're violating your trust, I am not.

In general, I still wouldn't do it because I don't like causing other people pain — but that's just me being nice. I don't feel like I have any obligation to prop up somebody's skills at keeping their SO's affections.

I think it's just general decency to not mess around with someone else's significant other. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me...why would I do it to them?

It's a double standard. If it's okay for you to mess around with someone's SO, then it should be completely fine for your SO to mess around with other people.

ShortcutToMoncton · Apr 28, 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

If your SO went off looking for some booty on the side, wouldn't you want the guy she hits on to reject her advances?

Why?? What's he got to do with me? He's just some dude; he's got no position at all in the relationship between me and "my girl." He's not part of any trust, he has no commitment, and he has no expectations placed upon him by someone else. Anything that happens is 100%, totally, her fault in the context of how it affects our relationship.

You're placing some sort of moral obligation on a person to ensure that other people's relationships remain true. That's weird, to me. If that guy decides to be a "nice guy" and help me out, then good for him. If he'd rather nail a hot chick because he doesn't give two shits about my situation, then good for him – and whatever happens in my relationship is entirely her fault.

greg

Laminar · Apr 28, 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

You always were a follower.

After my girlfriend noticed last week that I have picked up a nuance of her speech and am using it regularly, I made the argument that I have no personality of my own, but the way I act is a direct result of individual characters traits that I've consciously picked up from the people around me.

Dakar V · Apr 28, 2009, 02:22 PM

You pee sitting down, don't you?

ShortcutToMoncton · Apr 28, 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

It's a double standard. If it's okay for you to mess around with someone's SO, then it should be completely fine for your SO to mess around with other people.

Nonsense, it's not a "double standard" at all. You're confused on the term.

greg

Atheist · Apr 28, 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I think it's just general decency to not mess around with someone else's significant other. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me...why would I do it to them?

It's a double standard. If it's okay for you to mess around with someone's SO, then it should be completely fine for your SO to mess around with other people.

It's not a double standard. You have a commitment to your SO. You don't have a commitment to the SO of someone you are messing around with.

Laminar · Apr 28, 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I think it's just general decency to not mess around with someone else's significant other. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me...why would I do it to them?

It's a double standard. If it's okay for you to mess around with someone's SO, then it should be completely fine for your SO to mess around with other people.

It's a selfish point of view: I don't give a **** about the consequences my actions have on the lives of others, I'll do whatever I want to get my rocks off. The idea that the only reason you'd show someone kindness is because you've entered into some sort of contract or commitment is a big part of what's wrong with our society.

While it's not possible to be entirely 100% selfless, doing what you can to work towards it is admirable.

Laminar · Apr 28, 2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

You pee sitting down, don't you?

If you saw my toilet, you'd understand.

Chuckit · Apr 28, 2009, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I think it's just general decency to not mess around with someone else's significant other. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me...why would I do it to them?

It's a double standard. If it's okay for you to mess around with someone's SO, then it should be completely fine for your SO to mess around with other people.

No, it's the same standard for everyone: I expect people to keep their promises. If somebody has promised to be faithful, I hold them to that. Joe Otherman hasn't made me any promises, so he can't betray the trust I never placed in him.

And like I said, yes, I think it's not nice to let someone cheat with you. That's why I don't do it. But it's not on the same level as cheating.

Oisín · Apr 28, 2009, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Nonsense, it's not a "double standard" at all. You're confused on the term.

greg

What shif wrote specifically isn’t really a double standard, but the situation itself does contain a double standard:

If a guy, A, is willing to do someone, B, who’s in a relationship (and therefore cheating on her SO*, C—I’m purposely ignoring open relationships here, for the sake of simplicity), then it’s a double standard if he’s not willing to be in a relationship with someone, D, who does the same thing. Regardless of whether A has any obligation towards C not to be cheating on him with his girlfriend/wife, doing the girlfriend/wife (i.e., B) itself is an approval of the act of infidelity. If he can be with B while she’s in a relationship with C, it’s a double standard not to be willing to be in a relationship with D while she’s doing someone else (perhaps C).

If you’re okay with infidelity, you can’t go around demanding your own partners not to engage in it.

subego · Apr 28, 2009, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Atheist

It's not a double standard. You have a commitment to your SO. You don't have a commitment to the SO of someone you are messing around with.

I agree with you (and others), but I think what hasn't been mentioned is that just "messing around" (even with someone who is uncommitted) is generally considered skeevy behavior unless it is declared beforehand the relationship will not progress beyond that.