What the evolution of jealousy tells us about online infidelity

[Mistame]

Need some tips?

You know, very rarely does this guy say anything worth reading but this is about the funniest thing I've read all day.

[Daedius]

Sounds like a really lonely and sad way to live life.

A person can be fucking a lot of people and having a grand time doing so, with zero desire for marriage, not feeling remotely lonely... how's that "lonely and sad way to live" ?

What's sad is your obnoxious infatuation with marriage and nosy nature in what others do with their relationships.

- - - Updated - - -

Huh so these 50-60 year old men, with possible STDs, arthritis, depression etc are just fine? Meanwhile their friends, family have kids and spouses who give them so much support and joy. How does that work?

You are such a God damn try hard... there are countless marriages that have dysfunctional issues...

What kind of la-la land do you live in? Doubt you're even married, and here you are pushing your bullshit agendas on us all.

When are you going to join one of those door-to-door groups that preach at people, instead of here on a gaming forum? -.-;

Stop being a condescending schmuck.

[Gref]

Tennis you are amazing man. My simple brain cannot comprehend your existence. I really want to meet you in rl and sit down drink together. Not that I agree with anything you say %90 of times but how you can talk all of these like it is nothing is simple beyond me. I just want to listen to you talk and talk and talk.

[Smokinya]

Lol. I don't post here 24/7 bud. The only reason you're not on my ignore list is so I can report you

Tennis I don't even frequent the Off-Topic section and every other thread is one of yours. You have to make a thread at least once per day. Do you even play World of Warcraft??? Honestly why are you even on these forums?

[MoanaLisa]

Best course of action is not bother using these social media networks once you're in a serious relationship.

The best course of action is to use common sense and don't get into situations on social networks where you can be seen to be cheating in a relationship.

[shadowmouse]

and don't get into situations on social networks where you can be seen to be cheating in a relationship.

That's a logic that takes us to Mike Pence land: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-all-shocked/

I disagree with even the use of the word "cheat". Relationships aren't a card game, they are a social interaction and require communication. X cheated is language that implies a set of rules and assigns blame as if one's partner is somehow owned. The latter is an idea that should have been put out to pasture long ago. The extension of "cheating" to appearances and to interaction that isn't even necessarily sexual blurs things even more. It is something that I find uncomfortably close to the thinking that gives us religion based clothing for modesty. Notice the way the language of the OP promotes distrust: " We all must guard against infidelity" That isn't promoting healthy communication, there is no element of introspection either.

For clarity: Partner X does something that causes Partner Y pain or discomfort.

You tell Zach things that you don't even tell me. You've had late dinners at the office with him three nights this week and I saw a picture of you eating strawberry cheesecake with him. Strawberry cheesecake is our thing!

Take the same thing and add "that's emotional cheating" There is some room for discussion up to that point, but once the word cheating gets thrown in it instantly shifts the balance even further. X is wrong. He *cheated* and broke the rules!

Either one is going to lead to a fight and there are better ways Y could phrase the first example to open communication, but once cheating gets thrown in X is on the defensive for sure. I mentioned an element of introspection earlier. What I'm referring to is that the "cheating" language or even "guarding against infidelity" shifts blame to the other person without ever asking how the blaming partner (Y in the example) might have also been part of the problem. What if Y just hasn't been making time to talk to X? What if Y has been on a diet for the last eight months and refuses to eat strawberry cheesecake?

[Stop Pretending]

Sounds like a really lonely and sad way to live life.

Aren't you single with no kids. So are you saying you're lonely and live a sad life? Why is his lifestyle any concern to you?

[Kathandira]

Aren't you getting married soon? Need some tips? I want you guys to be successful.

Sure, tell me about you and your wife. How did you meet? What struggles have you been through? What do you do to keep the passion alive?

[Stop Pretending]

Sure, tell me about you and your wife. How did you meet? What struggles have you been through? What do you do to keep the passion alive?

He's single.

[Kathandira]

He's single.

Absurd! No one with such wisdom and experience would be single.

[MoanaLisa]

That's a logic that takes us to Mike Pence land: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-all-shocked/

Strong relationships are a negotiation as much as anything.

What "cheating" is and isn't is up to the parties involved. If what Pence does works for him and his wife, that's great. Other people handle it differently and if they can make their relationship work that's great too.

There is no logical end point on something so subjective and personal and to think there is is just wrong.

[shadowmouse]

What "cheating" is and isn't is up to the parties involved. If what Pence does works for him and his wife, that's great. Other people handle it differently and if they can make their relationship work that's great too.

We may be approaching things from slightly different angles, but I would generally agree with you -- with the caveat that it should be kept between those involved. When some person, persons, organization, or religion steps in to declare what should be, then the give and take of those negotiations becomes lost.

[MoanaLisa]

We may be approaching things from slightly different angles, but I would generally agree with you -- with the caveat that it should be kept between those involved. When some person, persons, organization, or religion steps in to declare what should be, then the give and take of those negotiations becomes lost.

Yeah, take the Pence example since I'm U.S. based: If what he does works for he and his wife then that's fine for them and if they live a long and happy life together because of that, hooray for them. If he starts lobbying Congress to pass laws that mandate that sort of behavior then I'm going to be strenuously against that (as I am with most everything else Pence). That's not completely out of the question with him.

As a public person I'm certain that much of what he does is as much to protect himself and less about the idea that he can't resist engaging in shenanigans. He no doubt lives in mortal fear that others would take advantage of that situation to bring him down. And he's not wrong. Billy Graham even during his most popular days in the 60's/70's had a lot of the same sorts of rules. If he had to meet with a member of the opposite sex, there was always someone else in the room or the door was always kept open. For those who take conservative positions on morality that's probably smart. They will be targets. It's inevitable.

My problem with the thread is really the premise. Online sex/cheating/whatever you want to call it isn't something new and there's no "evolving" definition of fidelity as such. The terms of relationships may be evolving a bit just like they did in the 80's when AIDS came along. But it's still a decision that couples (or more) make together at some point, unspoken or otherwise. I've known couples that were swingers that reserved certain acts just for themselves or had rules about one-time only encounters. Again, if that's what works for them then great. You're right: all of this should be entirely private.

You're not wrong if you believe that there are conservatives in this country--those who profess small non-interfering government--who would leap at the chance to legislate sexual morality. They've done it in the past and as a supposedly 'free' culture we must guard against it happening again. People invest positions with so much faith that at times it seems as if there is only one right way which with topics like this you and I would agree is total BS.

That's a more worked out version of what I wrote earlier which is simply if you're engaging in acts on social networks that your partner(s) would consider cheating then you have your own self to blame for the consequences. Better to simply not do that. That's a personal choice and has little to do with the actual social network unless it's a hookup or dating network.

It's been lovely exchanging views with you. It happens so rarely. Thanks.

[shadowmouse]

It's been lovely exchanging views with you. It happens so rarely. Thanks.

Indeed, thanks! The fireworks are already ramping up, Happy Year of the Dog!

[zebreck]

And it's still derived from jealousy, still not "cheating" and it's still stupid.

You seem to think that jealousy is somehow inherently wrong and that cheating requires genital contact. I think jealousy is an emotion with no inherent moral valence and I think cheating is the act of violating the pre-agreed-upon bounds of a relationship without discussing it with your partner first. We're just not ever going to agree on this one.

[Dziubla]

Huh so these 50-60 year old men, with possible STDs, arthritis, depression etc are just fine? Meanwhile their friends, family have kids and spouses who give them so much support and joy. How does that work?

You DO know that vast majority of 50-60 year old men with depression are divorce-raped guys, that went ahead with your recipe for a good life, married some gold digger, and years later were left with nothing, when she cheated on him, divorced him, took his house, kids, money, basically everything?

[Deleted]

Aren't you single with no kids. So are you saying you're lonely and live a sad life? Why is his lifestyle any concern to you?

Explains the threads

[Tennis]

You DO know that vast majority of 50-60 year old men with depression are divorce-raped guys, that went ahead with your recipe for a good life, married some gold digger, and years later were left with nothing, when she cheated on him, divorced him, took his house, kids, money, basically everything?

I don't think all women are gold diggers. @Algy
Plus plenty of marriages don't end in divorce fyi.

[Mistame]

You seem to think that jealousy is somehow inherently wrong and that cheating requires genital contact. I think jealousy is an emotion with no inherent moral valence and I think cheating is the act of violating the pre-agreed-upon bounds of a relationship without discussing it with your partner first. We're just not ever going to agree on this one.

You may be right that we'll never agree. I would like to point out, however, that it's not the result of jealousy that I make my position, but rather the source. Jealousy derives from insecurity and/or possessiveness and both of those are negative. So while there may be scenarios of jealousy that are "less bad", none of them are good, regardless of them being natural or their moral valence, or lack thereof.

As far as "cheating" goes, it's defined literally as, "to be sexually unfaithful". While you've certainly the right to use it however you want, keep in mind that a word or phrase only carries the value of its weakest connotation. And while there is no doubt that a couple should agree upon acceptable bounds, using "cheating" to describe any breech of these bounds is too subjective for it to be worth anything. Thus, terms like "emotional cheating" are generally worthless because there's nothing wrong with hanging out with a friend. That your SO is jealous or doesn't like them is irrelevant. Contrary to popular belief, a relationship is not about catering to what the other person wants, it's about accepting each other as-is.

[Moralgy]

I don't think all women are gold diggers. @Algy
Plus plenty of marriages don't end in divorce fyi.

Did you call me not a gold digger or was this an accidental mention.