Can you even call it cheating?

[SlickShady]

Inspired by another trending thread which I didn't want to derail, but actually it's not just that particular thread. How many times do people (usually women) complain their partner was cheating because they had sex outside of the marriage, yet they readily admit there was hardly or no sex within the marriage?

Can you really call that cheating?

I posit that cheating is only when you fulfil your side of the bargain but the other party doesn't. When one partner is always knackered or not in the mood, it's narcissistic to expect the other party just to do without. You can't even call it cheating if they find sex elsewhere.

Sure the favourite response is 'they have the option of leaving before cheating', but why is the onus of leaving on the partner who's deprived rather than the one depriving. Surely if one partner decides to hardly or never have sex anymore, it should be on them to leave.

He's hard to deny that OP ,must be a very unpleasant person to be in a relationship with. He doesn't even see it as his responsibility to have a conversation with his partner about what is bothering him. Indeed, he regards that as 'crawling.'

OMG!! It is definitely cheating! If you have sex with another person, regardless of how much sex you have with your partner, it is certainly cheating!

Please just leave her. What is keeping you in the relationship?

I haven’t read all the many posts on here but I have read all yours OP and I will admit you do raise a very interesting point and a perspective I’m sure many can genuinely relate to. I would hazard a guess that most would be men, but I’m sure there are a lot of women too.

IMO I do think it would be cheating IF the situation were lacking the honesty of both parties to have already communicated about the issue and given their perspectives/feelings.

So we’ve been left to make assumptions on the gender of the OP (if I’m even allowed to say that anymore!) and most, as I have done, have assumed it’s a man unhappy with the lack of sex with his wife/partner. On this basis, we still need to know more - has there been a frank and honest discussion? One of the many “fundamentals” expected from both parties in a marriage surely is to communicate effectively? I’m not comfortable with the OP’s term of having to go “crawling” to his/her partner to raise the subject. This is a very immature attitude and immediately implies huge cracks in the foundation of the relationship if that’s how he/she feels about communicating an issue with his/her partner.
Other things that would shed more light and allow a more informed opinion would be knowing if children were involved? What are the daily demands of said partner? Working? Exhausted SAHM? Has she had physical/internal issues as a result of childbirth? PND? Self esteem issues? Problems in the past with sexual relations that have now come to the surface (assault/abuse)? There’s SO many factors that can be causative for a downturn in libido. Has the OP looked to his/herself - change in looks? Change in attitude? Lack of hygiene? Lack of input emotionally?
It’s really not a simple question or answer.

I agree that I’ve heard many complaints from men AND women that their partners are no longer interested in sex and can very much sympathise, as for the average person with a healthy sexual appetite, this must be incredibly frustrating. I know specifically of a couple whereby the woman had a terrible time during/after childbirth and no longer wanted any kind of sexual contact. They discussed it and she gave him the ok to seek sexual relief elsewhere, providing it was not with a regular partner (too much like an affair) and she didn’t want to know anything about it. But for one partner to seek physical solace elsewhere, without the knowledge of the other partner is pure and simple cheating.

My general feeling from the choice of language used in this post, I think there’s far more wrong in this relationship than just a lack of sex.

@SlickShady You seem to have abandoned your original argument here.

"At the very least this should preclude them from having the right to moral outrage of the other partner reneges on their deal too."

"Now I'm not suggesting that if a woman isn't going at it daily one week post partum, the husband has the right to cheat."

You see? Even you're labelling it as "reneging" or "cheating". Your original argument was that extramarital sex wasn't even "cheating" if the marriage had become nonsexual. You've now abandoned that argument and are now arguing that cheating becomes morally acceptable in that scenario. Regardless of the merits of the new argument, it's critically different to the original argument, which was clearly bollocks. If you and I promise each other something, and you break that promise, then regardless of how much justification that provides for me to break the promise too, that is still exactly what I would be doing if I acted contrary to the promise!

@Allinadayswork80
I am sorry, but the wife in the couple you describe is deluded if she thinks that arrangement will be honoured. These women who think their husbands will find a ready and willing supply of women to have cold, detached, unemotional sex with, and for decades! And that’s not even withstanding the fact that I do believe most men would find that ultimately unsatisfying.

And that doesn’t even touch on the morality of seeking to use another women’s body as a wank receptacle for a man.

Her husband will inevitably find a long term affair partner who he will become emotionally involved with.

Never open a marriage without being prepared for that.

Oh Christ. So now it's not just frequency, it's "quality". So if after a 40 year marriage the guy is still randy but the female party is frankly a bit tired of all the swinging from the chandeliers stuff and just wants a bit of friendly missionary now and then, then he can STILL cheat because the "quality" has declined?

Do you even slightly acknowledge that fluctuations in libido are normal and natural fo women, because of the nature of our biology and our hormonal cycles around menstruation, birth, breastfeeding and menopause? That if you enter into a lifelong relationship with a woman it is UNREASONABLE not to expect the frequency and nature of the sex you have to change and ebb and flow over time?

Seriously what comes across loud and clear wit male posters like this is that for them, marriage is a transaction - it's a way of "locking down" something they perceive as a resource, securing a woman to have sex with as a matter of course to save them having to actually make any effort. It's fucking medieval. And it's the reason the hetero institution of marriage (and indeed monogamy) is in such trouble because once upon a time when women were financially dependent on men there was some quid pro quo involved (albeit women didn't have much choice in the matter) - we don't actually need your money now guys. We make our own. The sex we have is sex we want to have, i.e. you have to work to make us want to have it with you personally, and you gave to accept it if we don't want to do it with you, and you have to accept it if we decide that if you go around fucking other women, whatever your spurious justification, we will more than likely chuck you out of our lives. Clearly drives some men fucking crazy.

But really think about it. If you are an emotionally illiterate, entitled man with a sex drive so potent it apparently obliterates your ability to access the empathetic parts of your brain or behave in an ethical manner, what exactly do you have to offer a solvent, emotionally intelligent woman who has gone off you sexually? Why would she even bother "trying to work on the problem" that really, when you think about it, isn't her problem at all?

I’m not comfortable with the OP’s term of having to go “crawling” to his/her partner to raise the subject. This is a very immature attitude and immediately implies huge cracks in the foundation of the relationship if that’s how he/she feels about communicating an issue with his/her partner

Indeed. OP clearly feels it is beneath his dignity to actually raise the issue with his partner as from his POV there is nothing to discuss - she is the faulty appliance that has ceased to function and thus it is entirely on her to sort it out spontaneously, otherwise he's well within his rights to start using the sexual equivalent of the launderette 🙄

Reading the posts people misunderstand the concept of sex and its function

The function of sex I to make babies and provide conditions optimal to their rearing. Nothing more. Beyond that it means whatever it means to the two people involved - BOTH of them. So for the type of men who use it as a surrogate for almost everything else - leisure activity, physical release, emotional connection and expression, personal validation - going without it can I'm sure feel very physically and emotionally distressing. However. That does not make the woman in their life obliged to carry the entire weight of that man's extensive needs, which have all been bundled up in this one need for sex, on the back of her own sexuality. Which is apparently what marriage is according to the OP.

I do consider it cheating as they really having sex with someone else when in a committed relationship. I think if there are issues where someone is withholding sex then communication can resolve that. I with-held sex after feeling a lot of pain following giving birth to our child. It took a while to resolve and I didn't reveal the full extent of the issue as didn't want my husband to feel horrendous for the pain it was causing me. I should have spoken up but I didn't. He had an affair and I was devastated. Do you think I had no right to feel that way because I withheld sex due to it hurting? Both partners should be prepared to discuss the issue rather then having their cake and eating it through an affair. It's cruel it hurts, it destroys the trust and the betrayed partner. Any sex outside of a relationship is cheating regardless of whether sex is an active part of that relationship.

He had an affair and I was devastated.

I'd love to actually explore this. Why were you devastated? I mean you knew you were withholding sex, so why did it bother you if your husband got it elsewhere?

The function of sex I to make babies and provide conditions optimal to their rearing.

For animals maybe but not for humans. Intimacy for pleasure and emotional connection is intrinsic to human relationships.

Well, given that one of the 5 legal grounds for divorce in the UK is adultery, I think you are being ridiculous, but I think you know that. You can't divorce someone for "enforced celibacy" as you so charmingly put it 🙄

But is wife was handed over to him by her father! He must be outraged.

Your argument is very black and white and fail to take into consideration the reasons why sex might not be on the cards any longer. Most importantly, you fail to consider that although sex is indeed an expectation of marriage, so is respect, honesty, and more importantly, caring.

There are various reasons why a woman or a man might not want sex any longer. Some might be selfish, IE. never enjoyed it but pretended just to have the kids, but for many, it is an expression of frustration.

If the marriage is strong and happy but for the issue of intimacy, surely the respectful way forward is to work together to understand and tackle the reason, not to just act like a kid who doesn't get what they want so go elsewhere for it.

There are two scenarios most often. The marriage is deep down down but neither want to admit it because neither want to face the consequences of divorce so the marriage continue on pretence but cheating still feels like a betrayal. These couples really need to accept the marriage is dead and move on.

Then there are those who still love each other but communication has broken down and is being replaced by frustration on both sides and instead of finding ways to learn to communicate again, focus on satisfying their frustrations.

She was in a lot of pain after giving to their child! There's isn't anything to "explore"

'Fulfilling your side of the bargain' is a really gross way of putting it. I'm generalising, but most of the women I know well enough to have these conversations with (including me) enjoy sex and want to have it- with someone who treats us with respect and dignity, cares about our pleasure, doesn't leave the lion's share of the child rearing and housework to us, etc etc. If the sex has waned, there's often a reason for it- medical or because the relationship isn't secure or loving outside the bedroom. The talk of 'bargains' doesn't make me think loving, mutually-pleasurable sex. It sounds like the spouses are expected to service each other. That's not sexy.

If it really is the case that either party just doesn't want to have sex any more simply because they don't want to, then there needs to be a conversation and a decision reached about whether to stay married/open it up etc. As for the 'it's too expensive/unfair/annoying to get divorced' argument- that's the risk you run when you enter into any relationship. It might not last forever, especially if one partner decides to cheat instead of 'crawling' to the other to discuss a problem in the marriage that could potentially be solved with some good communication.

I agree its a hairy hand for sure.

For argument's sake let's say that the hypothetical situation from the OP is my real life story. Well perhaps I do feel some resentment that my wife has just stopped having sex because 'she's fine without'. That's quite natural.

@ThePants999

I haven't changed the premise as it was always two-pronged. And my question was never about the technical definition of the word 'cheating', but rather the moral implications thereof.

In a situation where one partner has stopped being intimate with the other, then from the POV of the partner being cheated on, I don't think they have any right to the moral high ground. And I fail to see how they can be outraged that the other partner got it elsewhere, when it was their own fault that partner couldn't get it within the marriage. In fact I'd posit that was appears as moral outrage is just bitterness at having lost the power.

From the POV of the cheating partner is where it gets more complex. The simplistic view, which seems to be the predominant one here, is that they should first leave the relationship before pursuing sex elsewhere. And I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think it's more complex and nuanced. After all this partner isn't the one who unilaterally changed the situation, so why should they be the one to suffer?

Imagine uprooting your life and moving across the country to work for a company with a promise of a long-term job, and 18 months later they change the entire nature of your work. Yes you can leave, but to what? You've made major changes in your life for this job and perhaps given up many things, so now what?

Leaving a marriage isn't something you just do willy-nilly, and it comes with much stress and financial costs. Not to mention minimum 50% restrictions in seeing your kids. So the choice of leaving isn't really a choice, and men/fathers are just as much trapped within the marriage as women.

As to those who have a problem with me seeing marriage as transactional, hello, every relationship is transactional. Why are you together with your other half? Because you love them? Unconditionally? Are you saying if they stopped providing for your needs (whichever ones you have met in the relationship, emotional, financial or whatever), you would continue to love and care for them just like before?

I'm not talking if the OH became incapacitated or ill, but just because they can't be bothered. Is anyone seriously saying they would still be loving and giving, because after all it's not transactional?

Marriage is loving and giving, but of course there is also an expectation of reciprocity.

Look while I'm very sympathetic with your pain, you can't blame the lack of communication just on your husband. You withheld sex. Did you communicate the problem or did you leave him to feel rejected? Also, and sorry for being blunt, did you attempt to accommodate him in any other way? I mean even if PIV is out, there can be all the rest, cuddling, kissing, even culminating with oral or a handjob. Surely that makes all the difference.

To answer your question:
Do you think I had no right to feel that way because I withheld sex due to it hurting?

It depends. If you just rejected him, no explanation, empathy etc, and made him feel worthless and rejected, then no you have no right to feel that way. But if you were communicative and accommodating yet he still cheated, then obviously he was totally out of order.

I mean even if PIV is out, there can be all the rest, cuddling, kissing, even culminating with oral or a handjob. Surely that makes all the difference.

@SlickShady you really do think women are there to service men sexually no matter what, don't you? Following a traumatic birth, why should a woman in pain service a man when there's nothing in it for her? Why can't the man give her time to recover? It's truly tragic that you see relationships in this way. Nobody is owed sex and cheating is never justifiable.

Nobody is owed sex and cheating is never justifiable.

But nobody is owed fidelity either.

Oh you mean the agreement, implicit and explicit, when the couple decided to become a thing? Well that was an implicit agreement that both parties take care of their OH's needs, be they emotional, physical, financial etc.

@SlickShady

Your thread is titled "Can you even call it cheating?", and you put this in your OP:

"I posit that cheating is only when you fulfil your side of the bargain but the other party doesn't."

And this:

You can't even call it cheating if they find sex elsewhere.

So yes, it absolutely was about "the technical definition of the word 'cheating'". If you now want to move the discussion on and talk about whether cheating is morally acceptable in certain circumstances, fine, but that's best done in conjunction with an admission that the original question was misphrased so that people don't get hung up on it.