Weiner said he didn't cheat. Agree, or disagree?
Weiner said he didn't cheat. Agree, or disagree?
Not sure, I may not mind my lover getting some sexual entertainment from a disembodied person afar. Internet flirtation seems harmless. But if they met things would change real fast.
I think it would depend on how his wife views it and how she has expressed that belief to him (if it has come up).
I'm pretty sure my husband would consider it cheating and I would consider it cheating if he did it to me, however, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as actually sleeping with someone else. And I know there are some couples who consider it cheating if their partner just looks at other people naked, just as there are other couples that only view it as cheating if having sex outside of marriage involved love or some emotional intimacy with the person outside of the marriage.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
It depends on how their relationship works, and the boundaries they have set for themselves.
If there's a god, damn it she won't mind.
If there's a god, baby she won't mind.
So ... shoot. I sorta don't know what to think. Say no boundaries were ever set. Would he then be - in my estimation, you don't do anything behind your partner's back that you wouldn't feel perfectly comfortable doing in front of their face. Is that naive?
So yeah, I consider cybersex/sexting cheating. If a person in a relationship needs to go outside that relationship for sexual gratification of any kind without the knowledge of the partner then something is wrong with the relationship.
I could be that the partner isn't sexually gratifying the person or the person's sexual appetite is too much to be satiated by the partner. In any case, though, if someone is going behind the back of their partner something is wrong. Which is why I consider it cheating if it was done to me or I was doing it to someone else.
Then again, I wouldn't do it to someone else. I would have had enough balls to address the issue with the woman I was married to and if that didn't get resolved then I would man up and divorce her. Life is too short to be in a relationship that doesn't make both the people in it happy.
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
To me, no. However, it depends on the two people in the real world relationship. They are the ones who set their boundaries.
My first instinct was to look for the "Hell yes!" option. Then I thought about it for a moment. If I learned my husband was talking dirty to women on the internet, and had actually established a long-term "relationship" with a half-dozen of them, I'd certainly feel personally betrayed. It's something that in the decades I've been online I have never done, would never even consider doing.
And yet... apparently Weiner's wife knew about those relationships. Whether she knew they had continued after their marriage would be the question. Did she know, and believe it harmless fun for a man with power who really, really liked having his ego stroked? Perhaps it was kinda like internet porn... wives know that their husbands probably view it but don't bother asking because they know if he does, he will be embarrassed to admit it.
Whether it's cheating or not depends on each individual relationship, and the expectations they have communicated with each other. In many relationships, yes, it would be cheating, and it would be a hurtful betrayal. In others, it would be accepted with tacit approval as an "outlet" or harmless flirtation, and would not be considered as cheating.
It's my guess that Weiner's wife is more hurt by the fact that he lied to her about the photo, and nationally embarrassed her by his pathetic cover-up attempts than she is by the fact that he is continuing the same online flirtations that she knew about prior to their marriage. This is just one of those things that couples have to communicate to each other at the beginning of the relationship.
Just sexting? I think perhaps it's a betrayal of trust, and I suppose some could say that's cheating. But it did lack the physical act itself so it could be said that technically (if you like those terms) it wasn't.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
depends on one's definition of cheating.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.