# Cheating???



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Okay...I have a feeling that this is probably going to be a dumb thread...but after reading the thread about understanding women, I was just wondering, what is everybody's opinion on cheating???

Sence I dont really know any of you I can admit this...I've assisted in cheating (as in sleeping with married women)...I've cheated on girlfriends (sometimes with the aforementioned married women)...and I too have been cheated on...

I dunno...I mean yeah, it didnt feel too good to find out that a girl I was with would cheat on me...but at the same time...I figured I have to accept it if I'm going to participate in the same behavior. That's one of the main reasons that I dont ever really want to get married is because I'm sure if I got bored or whatever, perhaps it's my hispanic blood or something...but I'd probably do it again, and in that case it would have huge consequences...

My best friend in the whole world and mentor in life is a guy old enough to be my father, he and I have spoken about this many times, he admitted to me that one time he cheated on his wife, and he has never forgiven himself for it...this is where he and I differ, I feel that you have to let it go...another friend of mine is in the middle of a split with his wife because she cheated on him...once again...I dont know if I aggree with his decision to call it quits because of this...I guess it would depend on who she cheated with...

Dont get me wrong...I think loyalty is important...but there are different kinds of loyalty, but I'm sure it would be different if I found a woman that I acutally "loved" or whatever...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Is a huge test of character. If you cheat, well... your character is suspect.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

JRR said:


> Is a huge test of character. If you cheat, well... your character is suspect.


not being funny...but...isnt that just something we tell ourselves???

I mean seriously, I've known pretty decent guys who've cheated on their significant other...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> not being funny...but...isnt that just something we tell ourselves???
> 
> I mean seriously, I've known pretty decent guys who've cheated on their significant other...


No you haven't.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

The Gabba Goul said:


> not being funny...but...isnt that just something we tell ourselves???
> 
> I mean seriously, I've known pretty decent guys who've cheated on their significant other...


No, telling yourself that it doesn't matter is just something you're telling yourself.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

There are only three tenable attitudes in this situation:

*1. The Moral Position.* Cheating is wrong, and thus whoever cheats acts wrongly, and is obligated to do whatever people who commit wrongs are supposed to do. (Atone, apologize, ask for forgiveness, etc.)

*2. The Amoral Position. * Cheating is not wrong, because all's fair in love and war. People will do whatever they either (a) feel like doing at the moment, or (b) can hide from those who might object.

*3. The Contractual Position.* Cheating is not wrong in the global sense, but it is wrong to the extent that you break an promise not to cheat that you explicitly made to someone.

The fourth way really doesn't work. It's what we might call ...

*4. The Antisocial Personality Position.* Cheating is wrong for other people, but the rules of civilized society don't apply to me.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> not being funny...but...isnt that just something we tell ourselves??? ...


Not me.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I mean seriously, I've known pretty decent guys who've cheated on their significant other...


I agree with Jack, these aren't decent guys.

And don't try to justify it as being an "Italian" or Latin thing, I am part Italian and believe cheating to be morally reprehensible.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

How much do you value yourself? If you cannot keep a promise to someone you obstensibly love above all others, what worth do you ascribe to yourself? 

If you never agree to sexual monogamy, you are not "cheating". However, if you do and are not monogamous, you are cheating. On yourself.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> How much do you value yourself? If you cannot keep a promise to someone you obstensibly love above all others, what worth do you ascribe to yourself?


That's the thing...I guess I'm not sure because I've never really "loved" whoever I was in a relationship with...

JRR...nobody is justifying anything...but the fact of the mater is that hispanics do seem to cheat more...I'll admit...my father cheated on my mother...that's why they split up...many latin guys I know screw around behind their old lady's back...I honsetly do just think it's something in our genes, not saying that it's right or wrong or whatever...it's just something about our particular race...many latin women that I know avoid dating latin men for that specific reason...


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

AlanCQuote:
Originally Posted by *The Gabba Goul* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=536502#post536502 
_not being funny...but...isnt that just something we tell ourselves???

I mean seriously, I've known pretty decent guys who've cheated on their significant other..._

No, telling yourself that it doesn't matter is just something you're telling yourself.

+1

"Some things are true even if you don't believe them."

It is wrong, period. I have known people who have cheated, regretted terribly that they had done so, and changed their lives. I believe their is decency in that, but to continue, unrepentant (whether talking spiritually or humanistically), does not qualify as decent. You cannot justify a wanton, immoral act. You can try to do so, I suppose, but it would continue to be wrong.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> AlanCQuote:
> Originally Posted by *The Gabba Goul* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=536502#post536502
> _not being funny...but...isnt that just something we tell ourselves???
> 
> ...


Immoral??? okay fine...but where do you draw the line??? Do you plan on making a baby every time you have sex...if not, I'll save you a seat in hell...

once again...I'm not trying to be a smart ass...but why is one okay and not the other???


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> JRR...nobody is justifying anything...but the fact of the mater is that hispanics do seem to cheat more...I'll admit...my father cheated on my mother...that's why they split up...many latin guys I know screw around behind their old lady's back...I honsetly do just think it's something in our genes, not saying that it's right or wrong or whatever...it's just something about our particular race...many latin women that I know avoid dating latin men for that specific reason...


It's ego pure and simple. And not limited to Latins, I've known many middle class WASPs who couldn't keep it in their pants...

If sleeping with loose women behind the back of the person you supposedly love feeds your ego enough to be worth it, go ahead and partake.

I would listen to your mentor, you said he regrets his extracurriculars.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> That's the thing...I guess I'm not sure because I've never really "loved" whoever I was in a relationship with...
> 
> JRR...nobody is justifying anything...but the fact of the mater is that hispanics do seem to cheat more...I'll admit...my father cheated on my mother...that's why they split up...many latin guys I know screw around behind their old lady's back...I honsetly do just think it's something in our genes, not saying that it's right or wrong or whatever...it's just something about our particular race...many latin women that I know avoid dating latin men for that specific reason...


My best friend in the world is hispanic (Mexican) and his wife repeatedly cheated on him, each time he forgave her. Ultimately, she left him (1999) and it truly devastated him. It is not in _his_ genes and, I am sorry, but that is crazy talk.

Now, it is possible that it is a cultural thing. My wife is from Brasil. I lived there for two years. I had dinner one night with a doctor and his wife (she was a dentist). We had a discussion about this subject, sort of (I was a missionary at the time so talking about issues of morality with them at the dinner table would not be unusual). These were two very educated people, mind you, and they told me this: In Brasil, the man is expected to be experienced in matters of sex when he gets married whereas the woman is expected to be a virgin. I asked, naturally, that if this was the case, who were all of these boys getting their experience with, since the girls were supposed to be virgins. Incredibly, the answer was: "Well, there are the girls you marry and then their are girls that prepare guys for marriage." At that exact moment their, quite beautiful, daughter walked in the door with her boyfriend. I said: "So you are telling me that your lovely daughter's boyfriend is going out having sex with other girls, not your daughter, so that he will be better prepared for marriage with your daughter?" The daughter chimed in: "He better not be!"

So, I would agree that it is possible for it to be a cultural thing, learned and accepted, passed on from generation to generation, but in the "genes?" Sorry, but that is a real stretch to justify something that is wrong.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Immoral??? okay fine...but where do you draw the line??? Do you plan on making a baby every time you have sex...if not, I'll save you a seat in hell...
> 
> once again...I'm not trying to be a smart ass...but why is one okay and not the other???


I am not sure I understand your point? How is having sex with your wife without the intent of creating a baby, rather, simply expressing your love for her physically, qualify one for a seat in hell? No one is saying that sex is a bad thing. The issue was "cheating." Cheating on your partner, or from my persepective, your wife, is what is wrong. Sex is a very important part of marriage, not simply a means to create offspring. You are going to have to explain your rationale here because I clearly do not get this, and I am 48 years old and have heard a lot in my day, but this one has me perplexed. To be clear, I obviously believe that sex is reserved formarriage. I know others do not share that point of view and I accept that everyone has a different value system in that regard. But whether married or in a committed relationship, cheating is not a "value" judgment, it is a character flaw, as I think someone else suggested earlier.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Do you plan on making a baby every time you have sex...


Plan? No. Be open to the possibility? Yes, and we have sufficient reason to take this position.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Gabba is pulling in the ***Radio Edit*** position that sex should be for procreation, hence birthcontrol is immoral.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Gabba is pulling in the [Roman Catholic] position that sex should be for procreation, hence birthcontrol is immoral.


indeed...not that I necessarily aggree...but if one wants to talk about morality it should at least be considered...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> indeed...not that I necessarily aggree...but if one wants to talk about morality it should at least be considered...


Never confuse religion with morality and do not confuse Catholicism with "religion" (religion is more that the Catholic church). So actually, no, I do not think we need to consider it. Then again, not only am I not a ***Radio Edit***, I am also not religious.

If you want to be "moral" about it, the question really is simple in my mind. Phinn would call this "contractual". Did you or did you not make a committment to be sexually exclusive. That is all you need to answer. If you did make such a vow, cheating means you do not have the character to keep a contract. Pretty much end of story in my book.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> indeed...not that I necessarily aggree...but if one wants to talk about morality it should at least be considered...


This is not just about morality.

There is an agreement between involved parties not to cheat on each other. That can be either an express agreement or an implied one, but if you haven't specifically agreeed the relationship is open, then it isn't. Therefore you are violating an agreement. This is wrong.

As for the morals let us seperate it from religious beliefs -which vary- to some universals.

It is pretty universally agreed that it is immoral to cause others pain in an attempt to gain pleasure for onesself. No major belief system encourages that.

It is pretty universally believed to be wrong to expose anyone to an increased risk of death, as you do if you increase your odds of having an STD then sleep with a faithful partner.

Now no matter my personal views...if you are in an agreed open relationship, fine. My standard for right and wrong always comes down to what I call the innocent non consenting party test.

Is there an innocent, non consenting party being hurt. If yes it is wrong period paragraph.


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

These women that have cheated on you, were they the same one who had you chaning your hair, your style? There's likely some correlation between a woman's domination of your personality and her likelyhood to cheat on you.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GG,

If ,after further reflection, you still believe what you have written in this thread then other things besides your spelling is suspect.

And Wayfarer, a point of clarification, it is the official Catholic position that it is ARTIFICIAL birth control that is considered immoral. Natural Family Planning is allowable and is discussed in Pre-Cana counseling (the counseling that engaged couples undergo before the Catholic sacrament of marriage.) Now I don't necessarily endorse this position held by my Church nor is it a rule that is widely observed by the majority of Catholics. The prohibition of artificial contraceptives is still one of the most controversial aspects of the Humanae Vitae. Just ask Charles Curran or Hans Kung.

https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl:

You know my position on religion but I have to say, if I was Catholic, I would not allow the rythym method either. It seems to be Jesus taught that intent was a very important thing. To my mind, whether I tried to prevent pregnancy through the pill, IUD, or simply timing the lady's courses, it is all the same intent, all hoping for the same result, i.e. sex without possibility of procreation. I would also think the logical conclusion is that sterile people and women past child bearing age could not have sex either. Just my heathen 2 cents on the topic, I am sure anyone sufficiently educated but more importantly....motivated...on the subject could come up with a dozen reason why I am wrong...which is another reason I eschew religion. 

Godlessly yours,
Wayfarer

P.S. Does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that a ritual celibate gives people marriage instruction?


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> Now, it is possible that it is a cultural thing. My wife is from Brasil. I lived there for two years. I had dinner one night with a doctor and his wife (she was a dentist). We had a discussion about this subject, sort of (I was a missionary at the time so talking about issues of morality with them at the dinner table would not be unusual). These were two very educated people, mind you, and they told me this: In Brasil, the man is expected to be experienced in matters of sex when he gets married whereas the woman is expected to be a virgin. I asked, naturally, that if this was the case, who were all of these boys getting their experience with, since the girls were supposed to be virgins.


A classic classist situation. Upper class boys 'learn' with lower class women (sometimes prostitutes, sometimes not). In some parts/at some times in the South it was not uncommon for young white men to lose thier virginity with black prostitutes.

The alternative is that young upper class men learn with each other, and then marry virginal upper class women.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Thank God you aren't religious otherwise you'd be a real prig!.....just kidding!

But two other points:

- Catholicism isn't as absolutist as is widely imagined. And it being a highly codified and at times legalistic confession there exist lots of possibilities for loopholes on certain prohibitions. I don't speak to whether this a good or bad thing (though I am sympathetic to a certain flexibility in dogmas of every stripe) but rather it is what is widely practiced. After all they don't call annullments the Catholic divorce for nothing.

- As to the Pre-Cana counseling, it is done by other married couples, who at least have some experience with the institution of marriage. 

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl:

Sorry but again, if I was a Catholic, there would be no divorce. Also, at one time I was fairly serious with a Catholic girl, serious enough to talk marriage (I was a besotted teen but was cured). The priest in our little town held the classes and that was my main experience concerning such things. Another example of how bad a sample of one is


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I say look at it from the perspective of: If your spouse/significant other was doing what you're doing (or going to do) would you consider it cheating or wrong? If you would feel his/her actions would be cheating or wrong, then if you're about to do the same then you're cheating. 

Many times people judge doing something wrong in how they perceive it, but maybe you should judge your actions by how someone else would perceive them. I guess if you wouldn't care if your significant other was out "cheating" with someone else, then I guess you could "cheat" without concern. 

That said if you get caught, accept the consequences like "a man" (even if you're a woman).


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> GG,
> 
> If ,after further reflection, you still believe what you have written in this thread then other things besides your spelling is suspect.
> 
> ...


Not controversial to everyone. this is often misconstrued by people both in and outside of the faith. Sex has two purposes both unitave promoting love between the husband and wife and procreative, as in the begetting of children. Saying it's either one or the other is not correct. Looking at JPII, this "prohibition" is fulliy in line with the "theology of the gift" which runs through so much of JP II's teaching. If the exchange of the gift of sex between the husband and wife is not open to both the unitive and procreative aspects then it's not a complete gift of one to the other- something is held back. This holding back gives rise to a greater possibility of one objectifying the other. Hence the prohibition. NFP ( natural family planning) is approved because one is not trying to have an act that is not open to being complete- during a period of fertility one abstains from relations. No act,no incomplete gift. I think that the rate of divorces among 'Catholics' that practice artificial contraception as opposed to the divorce rate of those who don't bears out the validity of the premise.

I wouldn't put Curran or Kung in the same paragraph as the word Catholic- they're not.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

JRR said:


> I agree with Jack, these aren't decent guys.
> 
> And don't try to justify it as being an *"Italian"* or Latin thing, I am part Italian and believe cheating to be morally reprehensible.


Us **** always get a bad rap.... =)

I don't think it's a nationality thing, all nationalities have men who need more than one woman. It's in your character not your nationality, whether or not you're going to cheat.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yachtie,

Well I am not a fan of Curran or Kung and and would describe myself as a center right Catholic but I take a a more catholic view of the Catholic Church - pun intended.

And as birth control (and of course I don't speak of something like RU 486) is not matter of faith, I think reasonable Catholics can have a differing opinion than that of the official view.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Not controversial to everyone. this is often misconstrued by people both in and outside of the faith. Sex has two purposes both unitave promoting love between the husband and wife and procreative, as in the begetting of children. Saying it's either one or the other is not correct. Looking at JPII, this "prohibition" is fulliy in line with the "theology of the gift" which runs through so much of JP II's teaching. If the exchange of the gift of sex between the husband and wife is not open to both the unitive and procreative aspects then it's not a complete gift of one to the other- something is held back. This holding back gives rise to a greater possibility of one objectifying the other. Hence the prohibition. NFP ( natural family planning) is approved because one is not trying to have an act that is not open to being complete- during a period of fertility one abstains from relations. No act,no incomplete gift. I think that the rate of divorces among 'Catholics' that practice artificial contraception as opposed to the divorce rate of those who don't bears out the validity of the premise.
> 
> I wouldn't put Curran or Kung in the same paragraph as the word Catholic- they're not.


I cannot buy this either. It is just giving into human foibiles IMO. No birth control method is 100% effective, ergo even while using a method other than the rythym, the ability for this "complete" gift is possible. The only time it is not, is if one or both partners cannot biologically have a child, ergo, once again, sterile people would be banned from having sex.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Yachtie,
> 
> Well I am not a fan of Curran or Kung and and would describe myself as a center right Catholic but I take a a more catholic view of the Catholic Church - pun intended.
> 
> ...


Karl-
While I appreciate your position, practicing artificial contraception in marriage is a grave matter, which if made with full knowledge precludes one from reception of the Eucharist without sacramental reconciliation and a sincere desire to amend. Seems pretty serious to me. 'Cafeteriaism' ( gee I hope I didn't just make that word up) is a serious problem. Either one buys the whole bill of goods or one isn't in union with the Church. I'm not trying to be doctrinaire- that's just the way it is.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I cannot buy this either. It is just giving into human foibiles IMO. No birth control method is 100% effective, ergo even while using a method other than the rythym, the ability for this "complete" gift is possible. The only time it is not, is if one or both partners cannot biologically have a child, ergo, once again, sterile people would be banned from having sex.


No since it's a matter of intent. The intent is complete even if a child won't be born (probably). And surprises do happen...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have to back Yachtie here but go a few steps further. No "natural" method, no sex for those that cannot bear children.

I would be the hardest line Catholic you ever saw. Part of what turns me from religion is that, as I understand it, God is immutable. If man was given the revealed word of God, that word is unchanging. If it changed, that would mean God was wrong, and that is impossible given the properties ascribed to him. I would be a real stickler over this.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> No since it's a matter of intent. The intent is complete even if a child won't be born (probably). And surprises do happen...


Exactly surprises happen, even with the pill. Ergo both are okay or neither. Cannot have your (logical) cake and eat it too.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Exactly surprises happen, even with the pill. Ergo both are okay or neither. Cannot have your (logical) cake and eat it too.


Sure I can, If you're on the pill, your intent is to not have children and you've made an act to see that your intent is realized. If one is sterile, first, your intent may be to have children and second you've made no act contrary to your intent. One needs intent to sin ( at least in catholic theology). The logic is sound.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Sure I can, If you're on the pill, your intent is to not have children and you've made an act to see that your intent is realized.


Ditto if you use the approved "natural" method. The intent is not to have children, you take active, knowing, and conscious steps to stop it. It is just as intentful as the pill. I fail to find the circumlocutions valid.

If you know you are sterile (or past childbearing age), you know you cannot have children. Ergo to have sex would be sinful. Not knowing you are sterile and having sex however, you lack the intent so are not committing a sin.

This is exactly why I have opted not to be religious. People twist the divine and revealed word of god so they can continue to think they are pious yet give themselves some wiggle room on the important things, such as getting some tail.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Nice try, but ignoring the proffered argument is not a response. Let me simplify:
No Act- no problem
No Intent- no problem

That's why the issue is not whether having sex after menopause, or if one of the spouses is sterile , or sex during an infertile period- all are straw men. All of these either lack intent or an act. No jesuitical weaselwording, just laying out the logic based on the given premises.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Re: post # 28, I have a hard time imagining that someone not bound by celibacy, and who had some actual experience of the different aspects of a sexual relationship, in marriage or otherwise, could have come up with the gibberish recited there. I well remember when Humanae Vitae came out and the Jesuits drilled into us the ideology that sex without the possibility of conception, or sex while using contraception, was no more than mutual masturbation. How would any of them, or the pope, know anything about it?

(For that matter, from the conversations I've had with people who engage in pre-cana classes, I seriously doubt that the married couples who lead the classes parrot the Vatican line that contraception is absolutely verboten, unless it's along the lines of, "Well, you know what the church says about contraception, right?")

Yachtie, you may be right that you're just laying out the logic based on the given premises, but the given premises have nothing to do with reality or with life as it is actually lived. Anyone who has studied logic knows that it is possible to reach an invalid conclusion through perfectly logical reasoning, as long as your premises are invalid to start with.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Nice try, but ignoring the proffered argument is not a response. Let me simplify:
> No Act- no problem
> No Intent- no problem
> 
> That's why the issue is not whether having sex after menopause, or if one of the spouses is sterile , or sex during an infertile period- all are straw men. All of these either lack intent or an act. No jesuitical weaselwording, just laying out the logic based on the given premises.


Even if I give you the sterility and post-menopausal, the pill makes you infertile during the time of use, ergo, under your own logic, it is okay. QED.

Edit: I think Monty Python said it best....every sperm is sacred.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Even if I give you the sterility and post-menopausal, the pill makes you infertile during the time of use, ergo, under your own logic, it is okay. QED.


Not quite, since it's an affirmative act to prevent conception. Actually the low dose Pill now on the market also acts as an abortafacient since even though it doesn't always prevent the maturation of eggs, it prevents implantation of an embryo.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Not quite, since it's an affirmative act to prevent conception. Actually the low dose Pill now on the market also acts as an abortafacient since even though it doesn't always prevent the maturation of eggs, it prevents implantation of an embryo.


yachtie, I will drop it after this, as it is really no never mind to me, but if you specifically plan sex around when a women is fertile and when she is not, you have taken a far more affirmative step than taking a daily pill. It takes much more planning to get your nookie around ovulation than it does to just go on the pill and take your pleasure without a schedule. I know you will not agree with that, but from my POV, it is the truth.

I guess we should avoid the whole cannabalistic aspect of belief in the transubstantiation?

Cheers friend


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Re: post # 28, I have a hard time imagining that someone not bound by celibacy, and who had some actual experience of the different aspects of a sexual relationship, in marriage or otherwise, could have come up with the gibberish recited there. I well remember when Humanae Vitae came out and the Jesuits drilled into us the ideology that sex without the possibility of conception, or sex while using contraception, was no more than mutual masturbation. How would any of them, or the pope, know anything about it?
> 
> (For that matter, from the conversations I've had with people who engage in pre-cana classes, I seriously doubt that the married couples who lead the classes parrot the Vatican line that contraception is absolutely verboten, unless it's along the lines of, "Well, you know what the church says about contraception, right?")
> 
> Yachtie, you may be right that you're just laying out the logic based on the given premises, but the given premises have nothing to do with reality or with life as it is actually lived. Anyone who has studied logic knows that it is possible to reach an invalid conclusion through perfectly logical reasoning, as long as your premises are invalid to start with.


Gee, Jack where to start? Since when is intimate personal experience of a thing a requirement for opining on that thing? If that were true, this forum would have about 10 posts. Actually, I'd say that a good arguement can be made that being involved with sex may make someone less likely to provide a good rational analysis of it. One's personal experiences always cloud or at least affect ones judgement about any given thing. Sorry, your premise is wanting.

Pretty sorry to hear about pre-Cana classes you've attended too. Just because there is either a lack of catechesis, or some rampant heterodoxy in the group you've mentioned doesn't make the orthodox position incorrect. Sort of a "gee, well _everyone's_ doing it so it must be okay" kind of thing...

I really don't know what problem is- this really is one of the easier precepts of the Church to follow anyway. I'm comfortable that the premises are correct.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> yachtie, I will drop it after this, as it is really no never mind to me, but if you specifically plan sex around when a women is fertile and when she is not, you have taken a far more affirmative step than taking a daily pill. It takes much more planning to get your nookie around ovulation than it does to just go on the pill and take your pleasure without a schedule. I know you will not agree with that, but from my POV, it is the truth.
> 
> I guess we should avoid the whole cannabalistic aspect of belief in the transubstantiation?
> 
> Cheers friend


No Prob. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

*I am a bad person too.*

I used to have a rigid utilitarian viewpoint on this for a long time. One day I was noticed by a woman with whom I used to work at the train station. She was married - still is happily married. Knowing this I was lulled into a sense of security. No need for the single guy/single girl heebie jeebies. We just chatted like old friends. I would look forward to waiting for the R5 just to have a word or two with her - and sometimes we would have coffee together. Then I began to feel something change as if I blundered into something I shouldn't have. We sometimes left work early together and took the train to see a part of town together. Then one day we just ended up being intimate. I would soon be leaving the city to go on and do other things - she still is with and in love with her husband as far as I know. Could I do what she did if I were in that situation? Probably not - but the experience changed how I feel about monogamy a great deal.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

After reading these posts, I'm glad I'm a Lutheran.
_Sin boldly but believe more boldly. Let your faith be greater than your sin.-_Martin Luther


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

You're dating a girl that knows you cheated on her girlfriend? I hope you sleep with one eye open!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> (For that matter, from the conversations I've had with people who engage in pre-cana classes, I seriously doubt that the married couples who lead the classes parrot the Vatican line that contraception is absolutely verboten, unless it's along the lines of, "Well, you know what the church says about contraception, right?")
> .


Jack,

You are right. NFP is brought up, but not discussed as "if you don't do it, you're going to hell"


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Okay...I have a feeling that this is probably going to be a dumb thread...but after reading the thread about understanding women, I was just wondering, what is everybody's opinion on cheating???


A man or woman who cheats, simply put, has the moral focus and personal standards of the common alley cat. It is just wrong...any way you choose to slice and dice it. I expect more of myself and of my social partner than that.

I did a fair amount of dating and was involved in several relationships during my college years and for a few years thereafter. I never cheated but, was cheated on twice during that period...both young ladies were immediately dumped, on my learning of their infidelity. Today I am married to a beautiful lady I met more than thirty-four years ago. She was and still is the kindest, most gentle person I have ever met and, to this day, remains one our our Lords' most beautiful creations. Without hesitation, I can tell you that I would give up my life, rather than ever (even) consider cheating on her!

Cheating is just wrong!


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Getting back to the original post, perhaps I am completely off-base, but it seems to me that the poster is looking for some sort of support or justification for his own cheating, perhaps to reconcile a guilty conscience.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I could not but help to notice a pattern in this thread. Those of us in long term monogamous relationships all think our partner is a superlative person, _no matter our stance on religion_. Does that say something?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I could not but help to notice a pattern in this thread. Those of us in long term monogamous relationships all think our partner is a superlative person, _no matter our stance on religion_. Does that say something?


Good relationships are based on delusion, I mean communication.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I could not but help to notice a pattern in this thread. Those of us in long term monogamous relationships all think our partner is a superlative person, _no matter our stance on religion_. Does that say something?


It's a necessary precondition for a long term relationship IMO.:icon_smile_big: Well put.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I guess I am going to take a middle ground here. For starters,

No I have not cheated on my wife in the 26 years that we have been dating and married. Have I had the opportunity? Yes, certainly. Do I know plenty of young lovelies that, on a certain level, I would love to bed? Again, yes, certainly. I'm human. Staying faithful takes some will power. The bottom line is that I wouldn't do that to my wife. Our marriage is too important to potentially destroy. And to me, that's what makes it immoral.

As for birth control, I am a Catholic who has followed a basic set of rules when it comes to sex and the Church: "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules." I told my wife early in our relationship that the Church stops at our bedroom door. We will determine what is right for us and what is wrong. Am I a hard line Cafeteria Catholic? You bet. Will some people not think that I am a good Catholic, or even one at all? My mother-in-law aside, sure. But I can live with that.

I believe God gave me a brain to determine right and wrong. I do not buy into any philosophy or theology lock, stock and barrel. And that philosophy has served me well.

Cheers,

Ken


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

If you desire someone else and stop yourself, are you not cheating on yourself?

It seems that there will always be a loser, wether its you or your wife...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

johnnyblazini said:


> If you desire someone else and stop yourself, are you not cheating on yourself?
> 
> *It seems that there will always be a loser,* wether its you or your wife...


And then something happens and your wife finds out. You get divorced and she takes you to the cleaners. She gets the house, the kids, alimony, child support....you even have to buy a life insurance policy on yourself, make her the beneficiary, and pay for it! You have to move to a small apartment and you work your butt off everyday, drive your 15 year old heap home to your tiny apartment, and watch a small TV while sipping straight, cheap vodka all alone.

That is a loser. I have just described the exact situation a good friend of mine got himself into through infidelity.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

KenR said:


> I guess I am going to take a middle ground here. For starters,
> 
> No I have not cheated on my wife in the 26 years that we have been dating and married. Have I had the opportunity? Yes, certainly. Do I know plenty of young lovelies that, on a certain level, I would love to bed? Again, yes, certainly. I'm human. Staying faithful takes some will power. The bottom line is that I wouldn't do that to my wife. Our marriage is too important to potentially destroy. And to me, that's what makes it immoral.
> 
> ...


Hi, Ken,

This doesn't sound like a middle ground. Although we don't necessarily agree on too much politically, I pretty much agree with everything you say here. Except for the God stuff, of course. (For that matter, I pretty much agree with all of Wayfarer's posts that I've seen quoted on this thread. Go figure.)

Boy, could you imagine a Republican Secretary of Agriculture today making the joke that you made, the way Earl Butz did when the Catholic Church objected to U.S. funding for family planning efforts? Times have sure changed.

Jack


----------



## ravravrav (Apr 15, 2007)

*No*

I'm personally against cheating as I just can't stand the feeling of betrayal that goes with it. If you're in a relationship and you both claim to be in it for each other how can you go to someone else?


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 13, 2006)

The thought of cheating or being cheated on makes me sick. There is no excuse for cheating. It is not the culture it is the individual person.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Hi, Ken,
> 
> This doesn't sound like a middle ground. Although we don't necessarily agree on too much politically, I pretty much agree with everything you say here. Except for the God stuff, of course. (For that matter, I pretty much agree with all of Wayfarer's posts that I've seen quoted on this thread. Go figure.)
> 
> ...


Jack,

Actually, it is easy for me to make that particular joke using that particular slang since I am of Italian ancestry :icon_smile_big:. But then again, if I was in a position like Mr. Butz was in I would be a little more politic in my public utterings.

Kind of topical, considering how Imus got himself into trouble using a different culture's slang.

You and Wayfarer agreeing? Now I've heard everything. 

Regards,

Ken


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

johnnyblazini said:


> If you desire someone else and stop yourself, are you not cheating on yourself?
> 
> It seems that there will always be a loser, wether its you or your wife...


If you stop yourself, you are not necessarily a loser. Of course, you will not be tasting that particular forbidden fruit, so to speak. But in the long run you will be a winner because you are respecting your wife and your marriage.

You can't indulge every whim.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

tripreed said:


> Getting back to the original post, perhaps I am completely off-base, but it seems to me that the poster is looking for some sort of support or justification for his own cheating, perhaps to reconcile a guilty conscience.


not at all...I mean...I know what most people's stance is on the subject...

perfect example...as I stated before my biological parents split up due to my father's infidelity...one night I was at Safeway picking up beer or something when my cell phyone rings, mind you it's after midnight, I look, it's my mom...I answer the phone...she's furious...somebody had spoken to her at work that night and told her that I was sleeping with a married woman in the hospital that we both work at. She was so mad at me that we didnt speak for weeks, after which she even went so far as to tell me that if any angry husbands came after me I "had it comming"...

I broke it off with this woman shortly thereafter, although I still speak to her when I see her or whatever...

So no, I'm not looking for any attaboys...or whatever...nor am I looking for any "life saving" advice about "changing my evil ways" or any of that BS...just stoking up discussion here...It's interested to see what different people's takes on things are...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> So no, I'm not looking for any attaboys...or whatever...nor am I looking for any "life saving" advice about "changing my evil ways" or any of that BS...just stoking up discussion here...It's interested to see what different people's takes on things are...


People who live overly complicated lives, generally have a high level of personal involvement in making them that way...our lives are simply a composite of our choices. What is really gained by cluttering and complicating our lives with a never ending series of bad choices. As I get older (and hopefully wiser!) and the array of possibilities grows, it becomes ever more clear to me that...simple is better! In another 30 years, you might grow to understand this. Good luck with the journey GG.


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> And then something happens and your wife finds out. You get divorced and she takes you to the cleaners. She gets the house, the kids, alimony, child support....you even have to buy a life insurance policy on yourself, make her the beneficiary, and pay for it! You have to move to a small apartment and you work your butt off everyday, drive your 15 year old heap home to your tiny apartment, and watch a small TV while sipping straight, cheap vodka all alone.
> 
> That is a loser. I have just described the exact situation a good friend of mine got himself into through infidelity.


Perhaps he married the wrong girl...:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Where is the James Bond in all of you blokes? Good grief 

In my case it is quite simple: God put me on Earth to seduce any and all beautiful women. God put my beautiful sex-godess of a wife on Earth to be faithful to me.

No, it's not a double-standard, it's a different standard for different people, and different gender.

Cheers,

M8

P.S. For you eunuchs out there, don't forget to have them put the jewels back in the coffin with you when you get buried :devil:

P.S.S. You can't just dress _Italian_, you've got to think _Italian_ :icon_smile_big:


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Where is the James Bond in all of you blokes? Good grief
> 
> In my case it is quite simple: God put me on Earth to seduce any and all beautiful women. God put my beautiful sex-godess of a wife on Earth to be faithful to me.
> 
> ...


If this doesn't make the case for fidelity, I don't know what will. Do any of you really want to think like this neanderthal?


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

rip said:


> If this doesn't make the case for fidelity, I don't know what will. Do any of you really want to think like this neanderthal?


That's not very nice. Come on, we are just as faithfull as our options... Polygamy is much more prevalent than is generally believed. Read "The Red Queen"


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

rip said:


> If this doesn't make the case for fidelity, I don't know what will. Do any of you really want to think like this neanderthal?


Haha! LMAO! :icon_smile_big:

But I do like that neanderthal idea. Just club them over the head and drag them into the cave. They'll protest, but they really like it. Shows 'em who's the boss :icon_smile_big:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Where is the James Bond in all of you blokes? Good grief
> 
> In my case it is quite simple: God put me on Earth to seduce any and all beautiful women. God put my beautiful sex-godess of a wife on Earth to be faithful to me.
> 
> ...


I hope you are joking. Although I agree that we are wired a little differently there is not a different standard. We just have a tougher job to stay faithful. And I _do _think Italian. I just don't dress it.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Where is the James Bond in all of you blokes? Good grief
> 
> In my case it is quite simple: God put me on Earth to seduce any and all beautiful women. God put my beautiful sex-godess of a wife on Earth to be faithful to me.
> 
> ...


remind me again, [email protected], do you still live in the same household with your kid(s)?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> remind me again, [email protected], do you still live in the same household with your kid(s)?


According to [email protected]'s post, you'll have to specify from which woman are these kids .
LOL He has to be kidding.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

yachtie said:


> According to [email protected]'s post, you'll have to specify from which woman are these kids .
> LOL He has to be kidding.


I think he is half kidding, but I seem to remember he is divorced and lives appart from his daughter (?), but I may be wrong. my point being, I keep it in my pants because I like living with my family.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> I think he is half kidding, but I seem to remember he is divorced and lives appart from his daughter (?), but I may be wrong. my point being, I keep it in my pants because I like living with my family.


Good choice- esp. in light of the divorce horror story above. Reminds me of a line, which I can't remember in toto, but it ends with "... repent at leisure"


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Good relationships are based on delusion, I mean communication.


Two mantras of a successful relationship....
1. Ignorance is bliss.
2. I wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> And then something happens and your wife finds out. You get divorced and she takes you to the cleaners. She gets the house, the kids, alimony, child support....you even have to buy a life insurance policy on yourself, make her the beneficiary, and pay for it! You have to move to a small apartment and you work your butt off everyday, drive your 15 year old heap home to your tiny apartment, and watch a small TV while sipping straight, cheap vodka all alone.
> 
> That is a loser. I have just described the exact situation a good friend of mine got himself into through infidelity.


Yes, but he is now free to have sex with all the women he wants. The fool is the one who gets married again and makes the same mistakes twice! =)


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Where is the James Bond in all of you blokes? Good grief
> 
> In my case it is quite simple: God put me on Earth to seduce any and all beautiful women. God put my beautiful sex-godess of a wife on Earth to be faithful to me.
> 
> ...


Okay, this one made me laugh. Vicarously, I am with you Martinis (and so is my wife's divorce attorney), but I'm guessing there is just a tad bit of "boasting" in that post.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> Yes, but he is now free to have sex with all the women he wants. The fool is the one who gets married again and makes the same mistakes twice! =)


Actually, he died last fall, alone, of a massive heart attack at age 41, a broken sad man. I think he would be alive today if his life had gone differently in the last five years. Sex with all the women he wanted to? Hard to meet women when you have no money for yourself, as it all goes to support your ex and two kids.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> remind me again, [email protected], do you still live in the same household with your kid(s)?


Yes, as Dr. Laura would say. "I am the father of my own children."

At least the one's I know about :icon_smile_big:



yachtie said:


> According to [email protected]'s post, you'll have to specify from which woman are these kids .
> LOL He has to be kidding.


Well, duh :icon_smile_big:



globetrotter said:


> I think he is half kidding, but I seem to remember he is divorced and lives appart from his daughter (?), but I may be wrong. my point being, I keep it in my pants because I like living with my family.


So the legend of *Martinis at 8* grows. Most men want to be me, most women want to be with me.

Actually I met my wife in high school. We have been married for almost twentyfive years :icon_smile_wink:



Trenditional said:


> Okay, this one made me laugh. Vicarously, I am with you Martinis (and so is my wife's divorce attorney), but I'm guessing there is just a tad bit of "boasting" in that post.


Boasting? I'll have you know I would have been a member of the Rat Pack. I coulda been a contender! :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

If you are married and looking to get a "bit on the side" or to acquire a mistress, for God's sake *don't tell anyone*! And don't get caught. Use discretion at all times. Don't embarrass or humiliate your wife. Affairs can be incredibly painful, for all involved. I've met quite a few "kept women" in my time. This area in particular is crawling with them. And almost to a woman, they are a strikingly sad group. Alcoholism, depression, drug use, and suicides are common.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Actually I met my wife in high school. We have been married for almost twentyfive years :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> M8


I am really sorry, my mistake.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

...just to further pour fuel on this fire...

I find it interesting that many of those here who find cheating to be reserved strictly for lowlifes seem to have unhealthy amounts of hero worship for carachters like Prince Charles and JFK...

hmmmm...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> ...just to further pour fuel on this fire...
> 
> I find it interesting that many of those here who find cheating to be reserved strictly for lowlifes seem to have unhealthy amounts of hero worship for carachters like Prince Charles and JFK...
> 
> hmmmm...


Really? Could you name these folks?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Really? Could you name these folks?


ummmm...probably about 95% of the fora...give or take a % or two...(I was always under the impression that cheating was part of the whole East coast wannabe country club lifestyle we so affectionately call "trad"...but that's neither here nor there) the point is, not every cheater is a scumbag, they just have different priorities...I have no numbers to back this, but I'd bet that many people have friends who cheat and they dont even know it...it's not as uncommon as one might think...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It's not as common as some are made to believe, either.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> ummmm...probably about 95% of the fora...give or take a % or two...(I was always under the impression that cheating was part of the whole East coast wannabe country club lifestyle we so affectionately call "trad"...but that's neither here nor there) the point is, not every cheater is a scumbag, they just have different priorities...I have no numbers to back this, but I'd bet that many people have friends who cheat and they dont even know it...it's not as uncommon as one might think...


I cannot find anyone in this thread, who is against cheating, that has "unhealthy" admiration for either of the two men mentioned. About as positive as I am willing to be about those two gents is that they both have a certain dash of style. Other than that, they really do not even register on my personal radar screen.

Gabba, you want to cheat and want everyone else to think it is okay. That is just not going to happen. Not everyone that cheats is a scumbag, I certainly at least did not say that. However, cheating is certainly a scummy thing to do. You would be correct in that many people have friends that cheat. In fact, I used my good friend as an example of what could happen to you from cheating. He expressed to me many times, before his death, how he wished he could undo that one act.

Each to his own though bud. Cheat your little Latin fanny off, it really is of no never mind to me.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Each to his own though bud. Cheat your little Latin fanny off, it really is of no never mind to me.


Indeed...and I might add...I'm not really out to change anybody's mind about the subject...I mean if that's one's opinion then that's one's opinion...

I think you are much more pragmatic about it than others...

once again...just making conversation...isnt that what discussion forums are for???


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> once again...just making conversation...isnt that what discussion forums are for???


Yup, you are correct sir!


----------

