Is it cheating if I don't care?

[chinu]

I agree well enough. But I still feel you did not understand what I meant - admitedly, it was a extreme and (I hope!) very rare scenario.

Luis, whatever the scenario is, its always immoral if one is unable to sacrifice something/anything for the sake of Love/Beloved. Like, in OP the writer says that >>> Let's say you're in a marriage with someone whom you love dearly <<< Either way, if one is unable to sacrifice something/anything, than one should not use the word "Love" for such a relation.

Why to use the word "Love" if unable to face-up it ?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think if there is deception, there is harm. If it is done with the ok given by the partner, there's no deception, so probably no harm.

edit: If the partner chooses (asks) to not be informed of specifics, I think that would be ok, but I think whenever deception enters a situation, or relationship, it hurts someone -- even if only the person doing the deceiving.

Sounds good & complete.
But why would he need relief from di-sodium bromide (DSB)?

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, whatever the scenario is, its always immoral if one is unable to sacrifice something/anything for the sake of Love/Beloved. Like, in OP the writer says that >>> Let's say you're in a marriage with someone whom you love dearly <<< Either way, if one is unable to sacrifice something/anything, than one should not use the word "Love" for such a relation.

Why to use the word "Love" if unable to face-up it ?

I can only assume you still misunderstand what I said.

 

[chinu]

I can only assume you still misunderstand what I said.

Perhaps.

Can you please rephrase your scenario ?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm talking about a situation where the love exists and is mutual, but the ease and willingness to talk openly about a sexual life does not.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's say you're in a marriage with someone whom you love dearly, but for a medical reason they can't copulate. In fact, there is zero interest in sex. Would it be immoral to have a secret affair just to get rid of your DSB, or is it a 'no harm, no foul' kind of thing?

Clarify boundaries and expectations. Be understanding of grievances (there is grief over a loss of a kind of intimacy, in fact). Take into consideration future scenarios and possibilities. Then discover new avenues of love in the process.

Deception be damned.

 

[chinu]

I'm talking about a situation where the love exists and is mutual, but the ease and willingness to talk openly about a sexual life does not.

You mean the relationship like.. mother and child ?

 

[LuisDantas]

You mean the relationship like.. mother and child ?

Perhaps. Love and trust are both crucial for a relationship.

Sex is important, and of course closely related to both of the former, but I don't think it is impossible to have sexual secrecy while keeping them.

Deception, however, is by definition a betrayal of trust, and incredibly destructive to a relationship and to love itself. It may even only be possible when love has burned away.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let's say you're in a marriage with someone whom you love dearly, but for a medical reason they can't copulate. In fact, there is zero interest in sex. Would it be immoral to have a secret affair just to get rid of your DSB, or is it a 'no harm, no foul' kind of thing?

If it is agreed upon by both parties I don't see it as a huge problem. But it may develop into a problem. The true question is it possible to maintain a relationship of one has sexual interest and the other doesn't? Sexual intimacy should never be the basis for a relationship but it can never be absent in the majority of romantic relationships.

 

[paragon]

Is it murder if they're not very productive?

 

[Uberpod]

So, how you doin'?

My wife and I discussed this last night. She works with a lady who's husband still has his twig, but no berries, if you follow my drift, and she started sleeping with another guy (the coworker, not the wife.... so far). She's keeping it a secret because she loves the guy, but still has needs.

Sounds like a convenient rationalization. There is plenty to do with just a twig.

 

[bain-druie]

I'm with Mystic and Luis on this. Trust is the most intimate part of any relationship; you can still love someone deeply without trusting them, sadly, but you cannot easily rebuild a trust that's been betrayed. In order to protect that trust in a love relationship, honesty is paramount. What two people decide on as far as boundaries is entirely between those two; the relationship must define itself, rather than being defined by rigid external artificial boundaries of 'morality' set by religion.

 

[dawny0826]

Let's say you're in a marriage with someone whom you love dearly, but for a medical reason they can't copulate. In fact, there is zero interest in sex. Would it be immoral to have a secret affair just to get rid of your DSB, or is it a 'no harm, no foul' kind of thing?

I think it somewhat deceptive not to openly communicate such intentions.

 

[JerryL]

In fact morality, or immorality has no relation with the circumstances. Circumstances never makes any immoral action as moral.

So being willing to kill your own child? Moral because it was moral when Abraham did it?

Heck. Someone drugs you and has sex with you. Did you just cheat on your spouse by being raped?

You can say "willing sex with someone not your spouse" is the standard; but that's just *incorporating* the circumstance.

Look at killing. Moral sometimes, immoral sometimes.

To the OT: Cheating is when you do something you are not supposed to. If your spouse thinks you are refraining from sex with others, and you know that, and you are not, then you are cheating.