Anarchy! (Um . . . Relationship Anarchy, that is.)

You missed the point altogether. "Fake it 'til you make it" isn't about lying at all. Sheesh, where did you come up with that? It's about giving oneself certain self-motivating cues when one feels less than confident, capable, or secure in new situations. Basically asking yourself what a confident person would do or say, or what a wise person would do or say, and then emulating that kind of person and doing those things to find your own sense of confidence from doing/saying those things before you actually feel confident. It is a way to become more grounded in expressing and/or living with your choices by using an exercise that is about practicing what you preach, and building a foundation from the outside in.

As long as you're not actively telling other people things that "aren't yet true" then you are right: this isn't lying.~

I do know what you mean though: if you are normally reserved and not prone to speaking your opinions in public because you are afraid to do these things and you decide to be the opposite of what you are usually like: you will still have that fear, but the hope is that the more you keep doing this the less afraid you will be until that fear is gone and you become closer to being like the person you really want to be.~

I'm also honest with people, if some one were to ask me if I ever get afraid to speak my mind and be myself in public (as I am often flamboyant, loud, and my opinions are usually the opposite of what is considered "conservative"): I would answer them honestly and say "yes", but I would also tell them that courage is not the absence of fear, but the realization that some thing is more important than fear and to keep going even with that fear present.~

I do this almost every chance I get for the above reasons to.~

Thank you for clearing that up, I think I understand it better now.~ ^_^
 
Last edited:
It all depends on the person and I know plenty of people who subscribe to relationship anarchy have thriving, successful relationships. The risk, from what I've seen and experienced from people who subscribe to this model, is that the person lets a partner down and then uses this relationship anarchy theory to tell them why they didn't let them down and also why they were pretty stupid/naive/controlling to have that expectation of them in the first place.

It does ultimately come back down to partner selection, that is true, but it makes me uneasy to let go of the idea that people have any obligations to those they have relationships with.

You're lucky to have met others who live by Relationship Anarchy because I've only met one other person who knew what it was without me telling them. And yes, you are correct that some people use it as an excuse disregard the desires and boundaries of others. Relationship Anarchy is about choosing commitments as opposed to have them pushed upon you and conforming your relationships to a cultural script.

There are many overlaps, but Relationship Anarchy involves the emancipation of love from all hierarchical, social, and power imbalances. For instance, I have what many would call a "primary" partner. Although I don't call him my primary partner (and I DO call him my boyfriend), he is the main love interest in my life because Relationship Anarchy promotes judging your relationships soley on their individual qualities and depth. There's no couple's privilege - I value all of my relationships, romantic and otherwise, on a qualitative basis as opposed to assigning one to be my main while all others come "secondary." The ones that other would consider "secondary" are individually valued based on the quality of our connection. I've yet to meet someone whom I bond with as great as I do with my boyfriend.
 
Here's another good example that I just thought of:

I've noticed that in the United States - notably, among my peers (people in their late teens to early/mid twenties and beyond) - people get squeamish about developing emotionally intimate connection with individuals who aren't "exclusive" with them or on the road to being exclusive. I've noticed that they divorce any emotional connection from non-monogamous people or even outright objectify them if they are in a casual relationship. Any kind of connection that is personal and beyond the physical makes them automatically assume that the infatuated party is trying to make them commit, or that they want "more" from the relationship than what the other person has to offer. Y'know how the ever-wise "they" say that you shouldn't sleep with someone who you see as a potentially serious partner on the first date because there's nothing to discover after? I feel as though they often bar any emotional connection from developing under the delusion that it always forecasts clingy behavior and expectations that they cannot fulfill. Basically, emotional intimacy is reserved for more serious relationships and if any develops in casual relationships, it is ignored or shunned because they assume that it means something that it doesn't always mean.

Please don't mistake Relationship Anarchy as a justification for people to be selfish and negligent in "untitled" relationships, something that has become more frequent especially in people who prefer monogamy. As my friend Will said prior to my discovery of Relationship Anarchy, "People get in 'relationships' all of the time - They just don't call them that." Just because you don't call that person your "significant other" doesn't mean that your relationship doesn't have all of the content of a emotionally and sexually intimate relationship. It's best explained by the concept of an "emotional affair," infidelity which takes place not physically but mentally. For example, think of the spouse who regularly sends steamy e-mails to another person and remains infatuated with them while claiming to be in a monogamous relationship. Even if no one knows about it but the person who's committing it, it's still there.

What do you guys think? Personally, the label "polyamory" always felt a little cumbersome to me and the relational structures involved didn't feel natural, even if my own relationships happened to fall into that format. When I discovered Relationship Anarchy, I understood where the innate discomfort came from. Personally, I feel as though Relationship Anarchy is my true emotional orientation.
 
Here's another good example that I just thought of:

I've noticed that in the United States - notably, among my peers (people in their late teens to early/mid twenties and beyond) - people get squeamish about developing emotionally intimate connection with individuals who aren't "exclusive" with them or on the road to being exclusive. I've noticed that they divorce any emotional connection from non-monogamous people or even outright objectify them if they are in a casual relationship. Any kind of connection that is personal and beyond the physical makes them automatically assume that the infatuated party is trying to make them commit, or that they want "more" from the relationship than what the other person has to offer. Y'know how the ever-wise "they" say that you shouldn't sleep with someone who you see as a potentially serious partner on the first date because there's nothing to discover after? I feel as though they often bar any emotional connection from developing under the delusion that it always forecasts clingy behavior and expectations that they cannot fulfill. Basically, emotional intimacy is reserved for more serious relationships and if any develops in casual relationships, it is ignored or shunned because they assume that it means something that it doesn't always mean.

Please don't mistake Relationship Anarchy as a justification for people to be selfish and negligent in "untitled" relationships, something that has become more frequent especially in people who prefer monogamy. As my friend Will said prior to my discovery of Relationship Anarchy, "People get in 'relationships' all of the time - They just don't call them that." Just because you don't call that person your "significant other" doesn't mean that your relationship doesn't have all of the content of a emotionally and sexually intimate relationship. It's best explained by the concept of an "emotional affair," infidelity which takes place not physically but mentally. For example, think of the spouse who regularly sends steamy e-mails to another person and remains infatuated with them while claiming to be in a monogamous relationship. Even if no one knows about it but the person who's committing it, it's still there.

What do you guys think? Personally, the label "polyamory" always felt a little cumbersome to me and the relational structures involved didn't feel natural, even if my own relationships happened to fall into that format. When I discovered Relationship Anarchy, I understood where the innate discomfort came from. Personally, I feel as though Relationship Anarchy is my true emotional orientation.

I honestly already saw love and relationships this way as every time some one tried to tell me "you have to have these rules if your going to do that" I always asked "why?".~

I decide what to do with my relationships, I feel how I feel, and I see things how I see them and no matter what any one else says no one is ever going to control me unless I let them.~

It doesn't have to make "sense" to other people, it is what it is, I don't live to please others all the time.~

Others don't like me: fine, don't talk to me if you don't want to, you don't like how I kiss a man on the lips because I am a man myself, you don't like the way I dress or walk around naked, then don't look, your (other people's) issues are your's to deal with, not mine.~


I don't know why a lot of people need these "terms" like Relationship Anarchy or "Radical Honesty" to be their own persons and retain their individuality no matter what their societies think of them.~

But if it helps, then more self-empowerment to them!~ :)
 
I decide what to do with my relationships, I feel how I feel, and I see things how I see them and no matter what any one else says no one is ever going to control me unless I let them.

Are you in any relationships right now, ColorsWolf? Have you been in any besides the online ones you had from playing Second Life, since starting to post here? You said back then that you had never had any real-world relationships yet, so I was wondering if that changed for you.
 
Are you in any relationships right now, ColorsWolf? Have you been in any besides the online ones you had from playing Second Life, since starting to post here? You said back then that you had never had any real-world relationships yet, so I was wondering if that changed for you.

That's the nature of things isn't it?~ I don't see things as 'being in a relationship or not'.~ I honestly don't know.~

I don't consider connecting with some one offline to be "more meaningful" than online and to imply that my online interactions were "not in the real-world" is highly disrespectful of that.~
 
But we will always be friends and even lovers

The wind and the river may dance away and come and go as they please and I may or may not ever see them again, but we will always be friends and even lovers.~

I really like this quote from November. ColorsWolf, is it yours?

I've been wondering if I've been thinking about my old boyfriend Jacques too much. It's not clear that we'll ever be in _any_ kind of communication again, because his wife was so freaked out over e-mail on even everyday topics like the weather. This quote gives me a nice way of looking at the situation.

A few things have come together to make me feel better about things. One was this thread. I like the idea that each relationship iis unique and doesn't have to fit any pattern that you've ever heard of.

Another was an article in the Boston Globe about the myth of closure from 2011 (it was in a pile of old newspapers in the bathroom). Part of what I'm getting from that is that it's OK to not "get over" Jacques. Things keep coming up that make me think of Jacques. Fortunately, Clyde says it's OK - he's not bothered by this.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/09/04/the_myth_of_closure/

And this thread, while a totally different story, gave me some hope because people are getting together 1 1/2 years after it seemed hopeless.
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28525&page=6

Hope this isn't _too_ far off topic.

FAL

--------------------------------

M - Me - female, 59 - _trying_ to figure out if I'm poly
Clyde (previously B) - 56 - my husband for over 34 years
Jacques (previously JP) - 58 - my high school boyfriend, newly appeared in the picture after 38 years; very long distance; haven't actually seen him
Artemis (previously A) - 65? - Jacques's wife of over 30 years, who's not cool with things
 
I'll check the links in a minute but your post already gave me much to think. After the break up with Salamander I tried to google stuff about closure and how to move on after cheating. I really hated that most articles were about getting back together or about how to remove the person from your life completely. It was all about how to pretend that you've never been better, no matter how sad or messed up you really are and there were actual instructions to start hating the other person.

None of this fits me as I'm not about to fake anything for other peoples sake and I'm not going to hate someone just because they are my ex now. But is this really the relationship stereotype? The model for everyone to follow? Because thinking so makes me sad. I wish more people had the courage to shape their own relationships, even the ex-ones and see how they become post-lover-new-and-improved-friendships or something.

I don't expect the pain to go away any time soon. I expect to live through it until it fades away one day.

Too many thoughts filling my head right now. I'll have to sort them out before I ramble on about anything else.
 
That's the nature of things isn't it?~ I don't see things as 'being in a relationship or not'.~ I honestly don't know.~

Well, that is a non-answer, isn't it? You don't know if you are in a relationship or not? You often write about how you want your relationships to be or how you want to conduct your relationships, so I was curious if there is anyone you are intimately connected to. Why don't you know whether you have a relationship with someone or not? Is there a grey area in your interactions that you can't figure out?

I don't consider connecting with some one offline to be "more meaningful" than online and to imply that my online interactions were "not in the real-world" is highly disrespectful of that.~

"Real world" is a common term often used to mean the opposite of "virtual world." You can take offense at the question if you want, but I didn't say anything about real world relationships being "more meaningful," so that is totally your interpretation - however, you were the one who stated, when you first joined this forum, that your virtual interactions were painfully dissatisfying for you and that you wanted a relationship with someone "here" in "this world," which obviously means "offline," in "meat space," the "real world," etc. :

I've had sex before but it was online in a 3D virtual world (Second Life), I thought why not try out this whole "just bang anyone thing" and it was just like I thought it would be: briefly satisfying but cold and hollow afterwards...so cold *shiver*.~

I stopped playing Second Life, because even without the sex, the things I was doing in that 3D world I wanted to do here in THIS world: I wanted to hold someone, to kiss someone, to touch someone, and the more I realized I had't done that yet here the more depressed I became. So I stopped playing Second Life because it had lost its' appeal to me and it was just too painful to bear anymore.
 
I really like this quote from November. ColorsWolf, is it yours?

I've been wondering if I've been thinking about my old boyfriend Jacques too much. It's not clear that we'll ever be in _any_ kind of communication again, because his wife was so freaked out over e-mail on even everyday topics like the weather. This quote gives me a nice way of looking at the situation.

A few things have come together to make me feel better about things. One was this thread. I like the idea that each relationship iis unique and doesn't have to fit any pattern that you've ever heard of.

Another was an article in the Boston Globe about the myth of closure from 2011 (it was in a pile of old newspapers in the bathroom). Part of what I'm getting from that is that it's OK to not "get over" Jacques. Things keep coming up that make me think of Jacques. Fortunately, Clyde says it's OK - he's not bothered by this.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/09/04/the_myth_of_closure/

And this thread, while a totally different story, gave me some hope because people are getting together 1 1/2 years after it seemed hopeless.
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28525&page=6

Hope this isn't _too_ far off topic.

FAL

--------------------------------

M - Me - female, 59 - _trying_ to figure out if I'm poly
Clyde (previously B) - 56 - my husband for over 34 years
Jacques (previously JP) - 58 - my high school boyfriend, newly appeared in the picture after 38 years; very long distance; haven't actually seen him
Artemis (previously A) - 65? - Jacques's wife of over 30 years, who's not cool with things

Yes, yes that is quote of me saying that.~ I'm glad you like it~ ^_^

And I'm glad you found this topic comforting, it brings me such joy to make other people happy!~ ^_^

I'll check the links in a minute but your post already gave me much to think. After the break up with Salamander I tried to google stuff about closure and how to move on after cheating. I really hated that most articles were about getting back together or about how to remove the person from your life completely. It was all about how to pretend that you've never been better, no matter how sad or messed up you really are and there were actual instructions to start hating the other person.

None of this fits me as I'm not about to fake anything for other peoples sake and I'm not going to hate someone just because they are my ex now. But is this really the relationship stereotype? The model for everyone to follow? Because thinking so makes me sad. I wish more people had the courage to shape their own relationships, even the ex-ones and see how they become post-lover-new-and-improved-friendships or something.

I don't expect the pain to go away any time soon. I expect to live through it until it fades away one day.

Too many thoughts filling my head right now. I'll have to sort them out before I ramble on about anything else.

Thank you for sharing that, sending love your way!~ ^_^

1. Well, that is a non-answer, isn't it? You don't know if you are in a relationship or not? You often write about how you want your relationships to be or how you want to conduct your relationships, so I was curious if there is anyone you are intimately connected to. Why don't you know whether you have a relationship with someone or not? Is there a grey area in your interactions that you can't figure out?



2. "Real world" is a common term often used to mean the opposite of "virtual world." You can take offense at the question if you want, but I didn't say anything about real world relationships being "more meaningful," so that is totally your interpretation - however, you were the one who stated, when you first joined this forum, that your virtual interactions were painfully dissatisfying for you and that you wanted a relationship with someone "here" in "this world," which obviously means "offline," in "meat space," the "real world," etc. :

1. I don't know what to say other than what I've already said.~

2. How common a word is used does not make it any less insulting.~ It's strange, I don't like interacting with people in a 3D online world intimately like hugging and kissing because it makes me depressed about what I want to do in the offline world but haven't done yet; but I do value the conversations I have with people in a mostly text-based way because to me that is very intimate to me.~
 
Last edited:
What do you think of the idea of 'relationship anarchy'? Does it make sense? Is it tenable? Do you want to start storming the barricades of off-the-shelf thinking in relationships? Or do you want to resist, to hold on to something you see as good in more conventional categories of relationship?

Do 'polyamory' and 'relationship anarchy' really come to the same thing? Or is 'relationship anarchy' - as I suspect it might be - more radical than 'polyamory' is generally conceived to be, questioning assumptions even those committed to polyamory often still make?

And is 'anarchy' really the best term?

I dig these questions. I like all the conversations that happen about labels in this forum; language is so important, isn't it?

That said, I think we rely too much on labels for comfort. Or rather, I personally don't like to rely on labels for comfort. I shouldn't say it's a negative thing, because it's not. It is what it is. Conventional categories and polyamorous categories are meaningful and helpful. Just not for me right now.

I like the idea of RA and I think that it fits under the umbrella of polyamory, which is huge. To me, poly is simply making your relationships work in your own way without regards to social rules. RA is one way of doing that. I don't think it goes "further" than poly because there are as many definitions of poly as there are practitioners.

I think I'm doing relationship anarchy without having consciously decided to. I don't like hierarchy and I don't want to label my relationships. I don't want to follow any of society's rules for their own sake. I'm making my relationships up as I go and it's working really well. James and I and Elemental and I are taking care of each other and communicating well and being open and honest, all without the need for labels or an approved structure.

That said, someone mentioned above (sorry I lost the exact quote) that labels are useful for things like online dating. I totally agree. I have to use labels when I'm talking about James and Elemental because otherwise it would be a five minute conversation to explain what we're doing. So I've just been saying "partners". Although I do like "special gents" as well :). If I was to describe them specifically on my OKCupid (probably wouldn't, that seems like TMI for a basic profile), I'd call them romantic partners.

Final note: the word 'anarchy', of course, is most often associated with politics. For people who are using 'anarchy' to describe themselves, they might have to explain how their own anarchy is linked or separate from political anarchy. That's just a normal part of the way we use language: it's ambiguous, like, most of the time. No big deal, IMO.
 
My identity as a relationship anarchist is in its infancy, so I can't really speak for anyone else, but the only way for my partners to "cheat" on me in my consideration is to be dishonest with me or omit information from me that is pertinent to my bodily health.
 
I am curious about something - how do Relationship Anarchists regard cheating, for the most part?
I'd hazard a guess that there's not a universal view among anarchists about much anything. ;)


From this specfic RA here... copy and pasting from what I said in another thread:

I don't think you owe the partner of the cheater anything, so that bit can be safely disregarded. The duty of keeping the promise and not hurting the other partner lies with the cheater, not with the one they cheat with.

What is not as easily disregarded, however, is the risk involved. How high is the risk you will end up lying to the other partner? (i.e., do you know them personally, especially as a friend? I'd personally rate that as a huge no-go - any lies you end up telling yourself will ethically discredit the arrangement.) Do both you and the cheater have a realistic idea of the potential drama this can cause? Are you ready to live with that risk, and humbly accept the damage it can cause you (i.e., prepared to not hit back if the cheatee chooses to beat you up, and treat their blows with acceptance, forgiveness, apology, and a promise not to turn them into the cops over a few bruises and a broken bone? Big go for it, IMO, if that's the case, but I doubt many people have it in them to swallow their pride that much.)

From a simple risk/gain point of view, I don't think there are many scenarios where I could ever see myself going along with it. I'd likely insist that the other partner should be informed about it right from the beginning, if for nothing else than the plain and simple sake of sheer convenience (risk minimization, ease of time scheduling, etc.).


Also, I agree with MusicalRose.

Cheating == dishonest breach of a relationship agreement... whatever the specific agreement in question is.

Obviously, sexual/sensual/romantic stuff with people outside the 'ship is not automatically cheating (well, duh! seeing as we're all poly here :)), nor vice versa - if there's an agreement on whatever other thing that doesn't involve relationships with other people at all, and one partner breaks it and is dishonest about it, then yes, they've been cheating, and I'd personally be pretty pissed at them if they were in a 'ship with me.
 
. . . the only way for my partners to "cheat" on me in my consideration is to be dishonest with me or omit information from me that is pertinent to my bodily health.

Cheating == dishonest breach of a relationship agreement... whatever the specific agreement in question is . . . if there's an agreement on whatever other thing that doesn't involve relationships with other people at all, and one partner breaks it and is dishonest about it, then yes, they've been cheating, and I'd personally be pretty pissed at them if they were in a 'ship with me.

Okay, well yes, I do have a clear understanding of what cheating is. However, in light of the following contributions to this thread, which I quoted below, I have other more specific questions (to follow the quotes).

I think both RA and poly provide a strong impetus to examine what your assumptions are about relationships, and evaluate how valid or useful they are . . . allowing relationships freedom to develop in whatever direction seems to work . . . The key is that you have freedom in your relationships, but you also allow it to others, so you can't throw bombs into their traditional structures just because you don't want one.

. . . assuming a reasonable person of good will makes a principled commitment to living by the idea of relationship anarchy, how viable might that idea turn out to be?

For the sake of argument, I'm taking at face value Nordgren's statement that RA is about commitments to other people based on principles or, as the Manifesto would have it, "core values".

RA aims at dissolving the rigid relationship categories . . . One of my SOs has said that RA means a "bottom-up" approach to do relationships: Forget about all the pre-set categories and what a relationship is "supposed" to look like; instead, just work out the terms and conditions of each individual relationship based on the participants' unique needs. Hence the "customized commitment" idea in the RA manifesto.

The core concept which most people agree on is to exist without the burden of external rule; all other discussions usually build from that foundation. The hope is to live a genuine existence, to develop ones own values and traditions based on how they see the world. Relationship anarchy, as with anarchy as a "political stance", should be approached as a guiding principle more than something to actually attain . . . As long as I strive to let people be who they are, live by my own values, do no harm, and respect the fact that my fellows should be enjoyed - not controlled, I think I'm doing alright.

To me, anarchy is a pretty simple concept. It is nothing more than the idea that nobody needs to be in charge . . . applying that idea to relationships, I guess that I would take it mean that the key thing with relationships is that a freedom must exist to set things up so that they work for the people involved. Through discussion, reflection and a critical look at how the relationship is going and what is wanted from it, people should be free to decide for themselves.

. . . anarchy . . . just means that one is shrugging off the agents of authority that predetermine one's life. It means the shrugging off of the traditional order of things.

. . . Relationship Anarchy involves the emancipation of love from all hierarchical, social, and power imbalances . . . Relationship Anarchy promotes judging your relationships soley on their individual qualities and depth.

I don't want to follow any of society's rules for their own sake. I'm making my relationships up as I go and it's working really well. James and I and Elemental and I are taking care of each other and communicating well and being open and honest, all without the need for labels or an approved structure.

Basically, most of the people who have posted in this thread see RA as a stance or philosophy that is about living up to your own standards/guiding principles/ethics rather than following someone else's rules about how to conduct relationships. So...

Let's say there is a person who practices polyamory and has always understood and agreed with the idea that poly relationships require full disclosure about what is going on and complete honesty with their partners or lovers. But they are starting to feel hemmed in by all the dogma that gets thrown at them by many polyamorists who insist poly should be a certain way. And they long ago let go of the need to fit into societal expectations about relationships! So, they start to look into Relationship Anarchy as an ideal, because this person likes the idea of no externally-enforced rules about how to conduct their relationships. Okay...

Let's also say that this poly person is pursued by someone who is legally married but not in an open or poly marriage. The married pursuer has no intention of opening their marriage, but because of certain circumstances in their life, is quite unhappy in their married life. Let's say this person's been married 25 years or more. They married young, the love is gone, there are commitments or properties from which they cannot easily extricate themselves, and they feel trapped and suffocated by having conformed to external expectations so long ago, so they look for happiness with someone else in secret. Basically they desire to make choices that are outside the expectation for marriage, and wish to create their own parameters, direction, and terms for this second relationship (as in Relationship Anarchy), because they see potential for not just sex but love as well in this second relationship, and hope to find the happiness they do not get in their marriage. However, they would still be living within the confines of the first, very limiting marriage that brings no happiness or satisfaction, and somehow balancing that marriage with the clandestine affair in their life.

If the poly person -- the one who is now beginning to embrace Relationship Anarchy because they are tired of other people's rules telling them what to do or how to be in relationship with someone -- agrees to have a relationship in secret with this married person who is essentially cheating, and also feel that the cheating person has their own choices to make and no one else can impose rules on that person (to be simplistic), how would that stance be viewed by most Relationship Anarchists, in that kind of scenario?
 
Last edited:
I think at a basic level that relationship anarchist position wouldn't have a problem with that (from what I understand) so long as the individual isn't themselves lying. They can choose to get involved with liars, as long as they themselves don't get to a position of dishonesty.

On a personal level, I wouldn't choose that. People that are are not brave enough to be their real selves end up causing problems, pain, and drama.
 
Last edited:
Good question nyc ... I'm not a Relationship Anarchist myself so I wouldn't be qualified to answer ... but I might guess that the answer will be based on the pro's and con's for the would-be RA person given the specific circumstances, rather than by any "rule or principle" about cheating in general per se.
 
I think at a basic level that relationship anarchist position wouldn't have a problem with that (from what I understand) so long as the individual isn't themselves lying. They can choose to get involved with liars, as long as they themselves don't get to a position of dishonesty.

I haven't read up on RA myself, other than what I've read here, but are you saying that honesty is a basic tenet of RA?
 
I don't have an in-depth knowledge of it myself, but I did read someone else saying I think in this topic that honesty was one of the standards of consent, and that consent is required for RA. But I'm not an expert and am just starting to explore the idea myself.
 
I'm surprised by how close I come to being a relationship anarchist :D I thought I wouldn't fit the description that well.

I would never date a cheater, but it's not about the person being cheated on… well actually it is, my empathy extends to so many people, I would never want to put somone in a position I wouldn't want to be in. So back to my original thought… It's not so much about the person being cheated on as it is about lying in general. I value honesty and openness and would not want to spend time with someone who is capable of lying like this… in essence they'd be living a lie. And if I was ever to meet their spouse, I'd have to make a choice about being honest myself or becoming a liar for someone else. The choice wouldn't be difficult but I wouldn't want to face the consequences.

I was cheated on in a poly relationship, and although I've been a bit hysterical about STD's since, the sex wasn't what hurt or bothered me the most. It was being lied to (by both parties, as I knew them both) and that Salamander didn't respect the agreements he had chosen to make with me. So like others, I'd define cheating as not being honest about the relationship. So cheating is whatever breaks the agreements made in a relationship. Hmm… this means that if someone has three relationships that person would have three different definitions of cheating actively in use. Interesting thought.
 
Back
Top