Is it really cheating?

[Vulpine]

Again with the morality... come on.

:yawn:

BS, cheating is 100% selfish and lying to cover it up is just to protect YOURSELF and your OWN INTERESTS. In other words, to keep from getting yelled at and cut off by that girl.

Selfish, protecting yourself, protecting your own interests... could it be said that a DJ "protects himself and selfishly protects his own interests"?

You still aren't answering my questions.

Who said we should resist the urge to have sex with as many people as possible?
Who thought up the concept of marriage and monogamy?
Who came up with this measure of morality known as cheating?
And who are we trying to impress by being "moral"?

Since you aren't asking yourself these questions, you aren't getting the point I'm presenting, and you aren't doing anything but tell me I'm some sort of bad guy.

Cheating is this, cheating is that, you're a bad guy for cheating, shame on you for being a cheater, blah blah blah blah, when you spin plates you're a cheater, wah wah wah...

:yawn:

 

[RedPill]

Really this all boils down to the question "does fukking imply exclusivity?"

I say no. A feminized society says yes.

When a person who lives in the Matrix hooks up with someone outside the Matrix, the potential for hurt feelings exists. After all, disappointment is nothing more than a negative deviation from perceived expectations.

 

[Vulpine]

Really this all boils down to the question "does fukking imply exclusivity?"

Further, why is there a need to be exclusive at all? You have to start there. Start with cavemen who fuqed whomever they pleased, and follow the evolution to the present day "cheating". I'm leaving it to you guys to determine who/what it was that changed how humans interacted socially/sexually.

 

[wayword]

Who said we should resist the urge to have sex with as many people as possible?
Who thought up the concept of marriage and monogamy?
Who came up with this measure of morality known as cheating?
And who are we trying to impress by being "moral"?

1) Not me. All I said was you risk more diseases and drama with more partners.
2) Probably men, in their greater wisdom. But, it was designed to benefit all individuals in the FAMILY - mother, father & child. Basically, the man promised to help raise his eventual offspring from screwing his wife. That's why women were advised not to have sex before getting that guarantee (marriage) first. The woman also promised not to cheat on him so that he was assured he was providing for his own young and not cuckolding. And of course, kids get ensured a stable, 2-parent home. This is what's known in game theory as a strategic alliance where individuals all gain more together than they could on their own, by each sacrificing a little.
3) Cheating is breaking the rules of whatever relationship contract you're in. If you're honest and in an open "relationship," then it's not cheating. You CAN fvck as many people as possible without cheating, if that's the contact you agree to (open dating). But if you don't want to be exclusive, then don't agree to or lie about it to begin with. It's that simple.
4) Some people believe in karma. Others in your reputation. Either way, liars eventually all get caught and it tends to create a stressful, negative spiral in your life. Takes away from the full satisfaction of victory to me, too.

Bottom line here is that I am not against screwing tons of women (even simultaneously), I am against lying and deception.

 

[Vulpine]

1.) The question was "Who". If it wasn't you, the who was it?
2.) Maybe it was men, but that's not the answer I was hoping you would come up with. You could have answered "people", but I'm looking for something specific.
3.) Again, you defined cheating for me, you didn't answer the question.
4.) I'm trying to impress "some people"? If you had arrived at the answers of the previous questions, the fourth question would have been easy to answer.

Does anyone know what I'm trying to get at here? Please, help a brother out. There must be some lurkers that understand what I'm driving at.

 

[Bad_Lil'Pixie]

1.) The question was "Who". If it wasn't you, the who was it?
2.) Maybe it was men, but that's not the answer I was hoping you would come up with. You could have answered "people", but I'm looking for something specific.
3.) Again, you defined cheating for me, you didn't answer the question.
4.) I'm trying to impress "some people"? If you had arrived at the answers of the previous questions, the fourth question would have been easy to answer.

Does anyone know what I'm trying to get at here? Please, help a brother out. There must be some lurkers that understand what I'm driving at.

Um, to each their own?

The rules of "cheating" are man made, so be a man and make your own?

Be accountable/responsible for your OWN actions and screw the opinions of others?

Do what feels good?

Make love not war?

 

[Vulpine]

Wonderful answers, BLP, but not what I'm looking for.

I'm not going to just tell you my answers. I can lead you to water, but it's your responsibility to drink.

Neo called Morpheus a liar.

 

[Vulpine]

Come on... no takers?

Here's a few hints to get you on the right track:

to have and to hold?
to love and to cherish?
in sickness and health?

Who came up with this stuff?

Caligula?

Sigmund Freud?

Marquis De Sade?

Hallmark?

Do you not want to believe that an organization's (s') viewpoints have molded society since the dark ages? Is it so ingrained into society and your own personal beliefs that you cannot pinpoint their origin?

You can believe what you want, all I'm asking is that someone point out the origin of those beliefs that you subscribe to (because they aren't your own original concepts, you learned them from somewhere).

 

[WestCoaster]

Here's the deal: If the rules of your relationship with your GF are to not have sex with other people, you're cheating.

If you have an "open relationship" and the ground rules are that you will have sex with others, you're not cheating.

If you suspect your gf would get mad if you had sex with someone else, you're cheating. If not, you're not.

I've always wondered why there aren't more MEN in this world who can set ground rules and obey them. If you want to have sex with other women, tell your gf that. If she breaks up with you, don't get another gf, play the field.

If you want a committed relationship, get one and stay faithful. No one has a gun to your head to have a gf or be a swinging single. Why are you conflicted? You don't want a gf, so break up. Oh, it will cause drama and a girl will be crying ... God you big p-ssy, put up with the tears if you want to have multiple sex partners. Grow a pair.

If you want the commitment and depth of a relationship, be in that. If not, sack up, break up, tell her why, and move on. God, some men are wimps.

If Vulpine (or the original poster) doesn't believe in the promises of a relationship and the commitments that go with it, why not just admit it and play the field? Why is this confusing? Why would someone want to be in a serious relationship if they want to play the field?

Just do one or the other.

If you want to "cheat" and if Vulpine says there is no cheating, OK, float that by your gf since there supposedly is no cheating. She'll understand, just explain it to her that there is no such thing as cheating. You're right, right? Explain all that philosophical stuff you're writing here.

Just pick one or the other and don't be a coward about confronting your gf.

 

[Bad_Lil'Pixie]

I hadn't responded yet, to be honest I do not think I have read the entire thread and wanted to do that before posting again.

Religion, early religious leaders? Is that who you are getting at?

I believe the first "documented" vows were biblical based.

So, I say God.

Now I do think the "idea" can be related all the way back to cave man days. Ug and Ig fought over a woman until their dad, EGO, gave them each one and told them to shut up and stop fighting over women.

So can I say it was man's EGO who set the rules on cheating? LOL

 

[Vulpine]

Careful how we go about this, now!

Keep in mind we aren't discussing religion, but citing it's importance in the origin of a now widely accepted behavior.

1.) Who said we should resist the urge to have sex with as many people as possible?
2.) Who thought up the concept of marriage and monogamy?
3.) Who came up with this measure of morality known as cheating?
4.) And who are we trying to impress by being "moral"?

1.) Religion, early religious leaders?

2.) I believe the first "documented" vows were biblical based.

3.) I believe the first "documented" vows were biblical based.

4.) So, I say God. (so you can be "moral" and get into "heaven" or get 75 virgins or whatever the dangling carrot is)

Extra Credit) Now I do think the "idea" can be related all the way back to cave man days. Ug and Ig fought over a woman until their dad, EGO, gave them each one and told them to shut up and stop fighting over women.

So can I say it was man's EGO who set the rules on cheating? LOL

BLP "gets it".

The extra credit is because she understands that cavemen with bad genes would be happy getting just one cavewoman and keeping her satisfied. Those AFC cavemen then plotted against the Alpha males - there is safety in numbers, you know. Hey! Let's create organized religion and crucify those who don't play along! Weeeee! Burn the witch!

So yes, there is a "gun pointed at my head that says I shouldn't cheat". Well, not now, but in the dark ages there was the lingering threat of being charged with heresy and tortured, burned alive, stoned, gibbeted, etc.

"Heresy meant deliberate departure from the accepted doctrines of the church. It was intellectual and spiritual dissent and concerned the beliefs of Christianity, not the morals of its adherents."

So, by calling someone a "cheater", you are quite actually calling them a heretic because they aren't accepting the doctrines of your religion.

I hate to tell you guys, but I'm pretty much agnostic.

Now that being said, let's get back to the original question posed:

Is it really cheating?

 

[wayword]

The extra credit is because she understands that cavemen with bad genes would be happy getting just one cavewoman and keeping her satisfied. Those AFC cavemen then plotted against the Alpha males - there is safety in numbers, you know.

Again, if you never want to get married or in an LTR - GREAT! If you're really that alpha, then tell that to each woman you date in your SOI, like WestCoaster said. Since you are so alpha, they shouldn't care if you don't want an exclusive relationship, right?

Instead, you are NOT alpha. You are a beta - posing as an alpha or AFC when convenient to these women. You pose as if you are a committed "AFC," because you lack the true alphaness to win your true game without cheating (breaking the rules) - except to your low-value FBs.

Thing is, this stuff goes far deeper than "organized religion" into evolutionary biology. Women today still want some assurance (even illusory) that the daddy (or Uncle Sam) will help raise her young - and thus want some commitment of resources in exchange for sex. Why is this? Because that mating strategy is what worked better and survived. How do we know what worked in evolution? By what is here today.

Anyhow, there is nothing wrong with healthy, functional LTRs - and they are not necessarily a forced AFC choice. In fact, let's look at societies where marriage is rare and longterm polygamy is the norm. See Africa - AIDs-ridden, poverty-stricken, kids in the street, slumhole of the world. These people can't even support themselves anymore, but rely on foreign donations to subsidize their "alpha malecentric" mating strategy. In other words, if it weren't for "AFC" countries propping them up, these "alpha malecentric" states would completely die off on their own by now. They are not self-sustaining. Therefore, some societal guidelines for mating are NEEDED to keep a society HEALTHY, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? Cuz we all end up sharing the burden for these failed relationships and parentless bastards if not.

Anyways, the point you keep avoiding is that you LIED, and THAT is what's WRONG here! Can you admit that simple fact yet?

 

[azanon]

Again, if you never want to get married or in an LTR - GREAT! If you're really that alpha, then tell that to each woman you date in your SOI, like WestCoaster said. Since you are so alpha, they shouldn't care if you don't want an exclusive relationship, right?

Instead, you are NOT alpha. You are a beta - posing as an alpha or AFC when convenient to these women. You pose as if you are a committed "AFC," because you lack the true alphaness to win your true game without cheating (breaking the rules) - except to your low-value FBs.

Call it what you want, but why should I impose these additional standards arbitrarily upon myself just to see if i can still pull off "making her/them stay". Why make something unnecessarily hard? I dont pick up multiple chicks to impress someone. I pick them up because I want them, and no other reason. Thus, it is pretty illogical to make something unnecessarily hard upon myself.

If you have rules, and i dont, then i'm more powerful than you, not less powerful. Name a rule of yours, and you've just potentially named something i can do that you cant/wont.

Thing is, this stuff goes far deeper than "organized religion" into evolutionary biology. Women today still want some assurance (even illusory) that the daddy (or Uncle Sam) will help raise her young - and thus want some commitment of resources in exchange for sex. Why is this? Because that mating strategy is what worked better and survived. How do we know what worked in evolution? By what is here today.

So at least now you know why the deception is sometimes necessary. You're halfway there.

Anyways, the point you keep avoiding is that you LIED, and THAT is what's WRONG here! Can you admit that simple fact yet?

It is plainly clear that lying is an issue for you. Just don't make the assumption that it is for other people too. You're asking him to admit something that likely is a non-issue for him. What would be the point? He probably could not care less.

Make no mistake, i do take humor in pretty much any real human being even implying that they never lie. What's worse, a lier or someone who lies but implies they never do? If you are religious, then most religions, including christainity, do not distinguish being small lies and large ones.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

... What or who are we trying to impress with this new measure of "morality"?

Y'know after thinking about it, this is a damn good question. It may deserve its own thread.

 

[Vulpine]

:crackup:

Ho-ho-HO! Busted AGAIN! How very perceptive of you! *reaches back to grab stuffed animal* You win a prize!

To quote Henry Rollins:

"I'm a liar. Yeah... I love to lie. I'm good at it! And, I'll lie to you."

He further went on to say:

"Liar. Liar. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!"

I already did. And, I already admitted that I felt poorly for doing so.

AFC? ALPHA? Did I claim to be either? Do I care which you would classify me as?

Quit throwing rocks. I'm not in stocks, and this isn't the town square.

I've made my point to the forum. I'm not burning in your religion's hell, so leave me out of it. Instead, argue and direct your points to the forum, not this person in the forum.

 

[wayword]

I've made my point to the forum. I'm not burning in your religion's hell, so leave me out of it.

Just FYI, I am NOT Christian (or Judaic, Islamic, etc), and generally very anti-Christianity. So, LAST thing I am trying to do here is defend any Semitic religion, lol...

 

[Bad_Lil'Pixie]

Is it really cheating? This is a question answered via personal convictions only, not based on law or fact. Someone once said, "When the facts are not known, emotions take over." This is so true and I see it here.

When asked, is it cheating, people will only be able to answer with emotion and personal convictions, so to me, in Bad Lil Pix's world, yes, it would be cheating.

Now, am I RIGHT and all others WRONG, NO, because my answer is just that, MY answer.

Should someone preach that it is cheating and anyone and everyone that says different is wrong, to me, is a person that is not confident or secure in themselves.

Vul, screw them all I say, it is YOUR thing.
Mr. Pix, you'll be a dead man, that is MY thing! LOL

 

[WestCoaster]

For the record, I'm not religious either. As for our lead poster, I'm not sure why he's chicken to just tell his gf that he's going to have sex with other women. He's going round and round in his head, going down philosophical roads and so forth.

If you don't want to cheat, don't. If you want to have sex with other women, tell your gf about it and see what she says. If you don't want a gf, just be single. Why is being a swinging single with no commitments and no gf so scorned upon in this country? I have WAY more respect for the guy who pulls a lot of tail but doesn't have a committed partner than the person who has a partner and cheats on the side.

To be honest -- and I've been ripped for saying this -- I have WAY more respect for prostitutes than the cheating wife who tries to portray this squeaky clean image with hubby, kids, SUV, home, etc.

At least prostitutes are being honest about it.

I'm not sure what the confusion is here. You want to have multiple partners, you don't want a gf, you're conflicted about whether it's cheating.

Just sack up, break up, and play the field. Why have a gf is that's what you want to do? Oh, I forgot, she'll cry and there will be drama ... give me a break.

 

[dakota]

The extra credit is because she understands that cavemen with bad genes would be happy getting just one cavewoman and keeping her satisfied.

First of all, not picking on you by any means Vulpine, just that you are the latest in a long list of posters who does this..... but what the heck is the deal with people on this forum doing " trash science" as they refer to cavemen and DNA/genes in the same breath? Hello, we are just now getting a good grasp on identifying genes and their implications yet somehow these cavemen that at best we can hypothetically construct their lives... were aware of good and bad genes? what construed good and bad anyhow back then? Was the ability to kill a mastadon with your bare hands " better" than the ability to think of and create weapons that could be used from a distance? Everything is relative. Anyhow these references to cavemen that keep popping up on this forum are simply ludicrus ( in my opinion) No disrespect to Vulpine of course.

As for this whole morality issue, yes the church is behind much of it in western culture.. but if we examine cultures throughout the world there is always a certain amount of morality. Here were I live amoung the lakota.. there was even a word for such a concept of lying, it was simply an inconceivable notion. I myself have a strong moralistic compass yet am a very strong agnostic. To me the church is the root of all evil, it is for weak minded individuals who seek solace in a higher power. But I never cheat, steal, lie, etc.. not to please any god/family/freind or society but simply because I recognize it as the right thing to do.

Ok, time to get off the soapbox.

 

[Vulpine]

Anyways, the point you keep avoiding is that you LIED, and THAT is what's WRONG here! Can you admit that simple fact yet?

Given the spirit of this thread, I had to chuckle. We can make another thread nearly identical to this one entitled: "Is it lying?" In that thread we could touch on intent: malicious or benevolent? And, of course, it would run the same course of flaming, definition, and morality discussion. I bet I could get some really cool labels applied to me outta that! We'll see... I have to manage to climb down off of this crucifix before I can climb up on another one.