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.

The point is, that whatever is happening needs to be known to both parties, otherwise it is cheating! If you both agree to go on a diet but one of you is secretly stuffing their face with chocolate, they are cheating. If you both agree to be faithful to each other, but one of you is shagging the next door neighbour, that is cheating. If, however one person says I need more sex than you are willing to share, I am going to do it with other people, then the other partner can choose to stay in the marriage or leave, because they are fully informed. What usually happens is the one who wants more sex, sneaks about telling lies about where they are, in order to shag other people, and that is cheating.

I mean, if DH felt he wasn't getting enough sex at home, id expect a conversation about it first and foremost.

In fact, DH has admitted that he'd like us to have more sex but wanting it and actually fitting it in are different. We both work full time, have a child, have commitments, try and socialise, try and keep the house nice and tidy, try and exercise regularly blah blah blah. Regardless of if you can fit in sex every 2-3 days on top of all that, we both find it tough! At best we get once a week. If it was a genuine problem for DH, I'd expect an honest conversation from him and I'd work harder.

I would consider it cheating. 100%. Our relationship is built on trust and honesty. It breaks trust to run out and have sex outside of your marriage. It usually comes with a load of other lies and deceit. It's also very easy to develop feelings for someone you're having sex with. If he develops feelings for someone else then our relationship is over anyways.

It's still cheating as you are with someone else. A sexless relationship is not a free pass to shag other people. Address it with your partner "I want more sex" my husband said it to me when sex died out after having a baby. Uncomfortable conversation but I'm glad we had it... I assume he didn't screw someone else in the meantime!

Of course it's cheating @SlickShady
I'm amazed you had to ask.

In the same way as when a woman wears revealing clothes, it's not rape 🙄
You should seek professional help.

I think there is difference between a relationship with infrequent sex, or a dry patch, as opposed to a sexless marriage where both of you know it's not going to happen again, and one party has made that clear. Obviously a discussion should come first, but I can see why in those circumstances the person who does still want sex who has been told "no, never again" feels the need to find it elsewhere. No one should be forced to a life of celibacy. Yes, honesty is always best, and an open conversation about what eachother wants, in or outside the relationship is the best way to address this, but I can see why sometimes that isn't possible, and can totally understand why in those circumstances someone may look for sex outside of the marriage. If my husband and I stopped having sex in later life, and he still wanted it, I can't imagine us having an open conversation about it, but I would be happy to turn a blind eye to it if I thought he was fulfilling that need elsewhere, as I value his companionship, and our family life, I wouldn't want us to split over such an issue. I wouldn't consider it cheating. The only issue I could see with this arrangement is the potential for deeper feelings with an AP to arise

There's a really good recipe on the Carnation condensed milk tins!
Although Carnation is made by Nestlé. How do you feel about that?

What? Of course it's cheating. If you're not happy in your relationship then you talk to your partner about it or you leave. I sympathise when kids are involved as it's much harder but it still doesn't give you a free pass to go and cheat.

I'll check that out thank you. Does anyone else make condensed milk or does Carnation have the monopoly. Would evaporated do?

The “cheating” goes beyond the physical act though; it’s not as simple as a basic transaction.

It’s the lies, the duplicity, the hidden life, the having of cake and eating it.

The deceit and undermining of trust is the (imo) the worst aspect. Hence “cheating” - it’s underhand, and disloyal to cheat.

Just leave or have a frank conversation stating that an open relationship or some kind of “arrangement” is needed if that’s the case and then both parties can decide what/how to move forward (together or apart).

Withholding that choice from the hypothetical partner and instead creeping round like a gollum lying and deceiving in order to get one’s end away doesn’t make anyone virtuous lol.

It’s not as simple as your OP assumes, so in fact not the most cogent or coherent of arguments (even if you say so yourself!)

Oh yes! Most supermarkets do their own version. You can even get vegan versions. Do you have vegan friends perhaps?

No I don't think you can use evaporated!!

Stop throwing around the term narcissistic. It's not. You may think it's selfish But it's not narcissistic.
It's just them not wanting to for many different reasons which they are entitled to do so.

I wonder if this thread is related to the one with the prostitutes. Are you trying to justify something @SlickShady ?

Cheating is cheating.

if you want to act on your urges that’s fine but have the decency to either end the marriage or open it (if you both are able and willing to do that)

I get not having a loving relationship or intimate relationship can cause people to be more atine to their urges but it isn’t an excuse to go outside the marriage/relationship

Your post isn't coherent though - you don't even know the meaning of the word narcissistic for one.

The answer to your question "can it be called cheating"? Is yes, unequivocally. If someone is shagging someone else in secret behind their partners back, that is the definition of cheating/being unfaithful.

I think what you really meant was "is it reasonable to expect someone to not have an affair whilst in a sexless marriage"? That is a whole other debate but My personal answer to that (and probably most peoples) is that there should be an open conversation about this between both parties before it ever gets to the point of someone being unfaithful.

You sound young.

Wonderful. I will give it a whirl. I used to have a vegan friend but she moved away, sadly. Perhaps I could post some to her.

Consider any other contract.

if you were employed as a contractor with a term to include exclusive use and you felt you were under utilised by your client, would you be in breach of contract if you, without prior agreement, did a few jobs on the side to keep your skills up?

Yes.

How about if a woman gets very upset if her husband eats a hamburger that she didn't prepare, but at the same time she never prepares him one? I think what the OP was getting at is whether the spouse who withholds sex has the moral high ground and the moral right to be outraged if the other partner finds it elsewhere. Personally I'm not so sure they do.

Actually, I see where the OP is coming from. And it’s interesting to me to read these comments. As if somehow sex doesn’t matter. I think for anyone who isn’t asexual, it’s an important part of a relationship. I think that if you entered into a long term partnership or marriage under the assumption sex would happen (accepting that natural ebbs and flows would occur) and then later on, your partner just decides they’re done with that, then I think it’s acceptable to seek it elsewhere. Sex isn’t just a physical act. It’s a place of intimacy and trust in a relationship. I think that someone deciding they are done, as an implied permanent position, with no intention of being willing to seek outside help as to why this may be, or to looking to rectifying it, then they are breaking the intimacy of the relationship first.

Of course there is nuance here. Both parties should be doing everything they can to communicate and resolve whatever issue is going on. But if the one who decides no more sex will occur is unwilling to have these conversations, and yet is otherwise intent on keeping the relationship, I think they have severed the promises between the two, whether explicit or implicit, and that the other should be able to seek that intimacy elsewhere, guilt-free.

I will add the caveat that I think this would place the relationship firmly in the transactional camp as a result. For money, to raise the kids, or whatever other practical decision they are still together.

Oh, and I’m a woman.

@FunnyBeaux it’s the contract you’re overlooking. If both parties have (strangely) only agreed to eat each others’ hamburgers then yeah, there’s an issue.

In my example, a business might share privileged info with someone on an exclusive contract that they might not if they knew they were picking up work on the side.

In OP’s example the wife doesn’t have all of the information about her own sexual health she thinks she does if sexual relations resume. One assumes the spouse wouldn’t pipe up in this circumstance to say ‘so pleased we’re having sex again- btw I have had sex elsewhere, I used a condom but it was within 12 weeks so I could technically be carrying herpes’.

I think that if you entered into a long term partnership or marriage under the assumption sex would happen (accepting that natural ebbs and flows would occur) and then later on, your partner just decides they’re done with that, then I think it’s acceptable to seek it elsewhere.

Of course it is acceptable to seek sex elsewhere - AFTER the prior relationship has finished, not during.

Of course it is acceptable to seek sex elsewhere - AFTER the prior relationship has finished, not during.

Yes, apart from possibly losing contact with his children, possibly losing his home, possibly losing 20 years worth of his savings, there's no obstacle to a man just leaving his marriage before having sex with someone else.

Haha

Oh, you're serious??

Piss off love, of course it's cheating

It's 100% cheating. You make a vow when you marry and one of those isn't usually have sex with partner even if you don't want to. If there is a gebuine reason why not such as il health, well sticking together through sickness is in the vows! It's worth trying to resolve the cause of lack of sex (if one is tired all the time could other partner be doing more to help alleviate the tiredness?). If sex is so important to you that masturbating won't do to the point you want to source sex elsewhere then your marriage is over and you should leave

I've had this thought process before... when I was in a sexless relationship (his choice, not mine). If we're not in a sexual relationship, then how the hell am I cheating if I sleep with someone else? So yeah, I get your point OP and I think in a scenario where 1 person just refuses to have sex anymore, then maybe it ISN'T cheating in the way we commonly, lazily think about.

Another way to look at it is that the person who won't have sex is the cheater. They entered into a romantic, physcial relationship with you... and then they unilaterally changed the terms of that relationship. That's cheating.