Women, Do you consider a handjob cheating or just being friendly ?

[Filipinawife]

A good way to introduce myself

 

[UtilityCurve]

My wife has explained this to me in similar ways lol

Mine explained that to her, cheating meant we didn't know/gave each other permission.

She meant in the "hall pass" kind of way, not the "each circumstance to be judged beforehand." To her, sexy fun had to be at least a little spontaneous!

 

[SexyVita]

Mine explained that to her, cheating meant we didn't know/gave each other permission.

She meant in the "hall pass" kind of way, not the "each circumstance to be judged beforehand." To her, sexy fun had to be at least a little spontaneous!

For me and my hubby, it's more of a general thing, we tell each other about major changes like, looking for a new partner, dating someone, having sex with someone, classifying someone as a 'partner', etc. No approval is required, but we try to keep each other informed.

 

[RachelWalsh]

I think guys just want to gaslight us into thinks it's okay.

 

[BrandNewKelly]

‘Friendly’ is opening a door for someone.

 

[policywank]

Yes, I can agree with all of that, except maybe the last sentence. I agree that if you believed that your partner would not find porn (or handjobs, or whatever) as cheating, that your intention in doing those things should not be considered cheating. However, that does not mean that your partner may not feel cheated on regardless and it doesn't mean those feelings are invalid.

In a situation like that, there is fault is on both sides, in my opinion, the person engaged in the behavior should have clarified how their partner felt about it, and the other partner should ideally have expressed their feeling about it before it had an opertunity to become a issue in the first place. Even so, I would place a bit more fault on the active partner's side only because it can be difficult sometimes to see our own ideological prejudices. What I mean is, that someone might not realize they consider a particular action cheating until or unless they're asked about it.

Personally, I find that if you plan to engage in any form of sexual behavior outside of what you do with your partner, the wisest, and most loving thing you can do, is to discuss it with them, and that includes porn, masturbation, and handjobs.

Yes I can seee how the other person feels cheated in that scenario. And their feelings are valid. I start from the assumption that all feelings are valid. They are an involuntary thing that in many ways represent the essence of your point of view. Even if I see things differently I have to recognize their validity.

Ideally we all have good communication with our partner and to the extent that a scenario arises that we haven't talked about we make fair and reasoned judgment about how they would feel and/or err on the side of caution.

But there are nonetheless scenarios where we stumble into something with no ill intent. My response to that is "I am sorry I hurt your feelings. Maybe I should have known better, but I didn't. How you feel is valid. But it isn't fair to paint me as a cheater for doing something that I genuinely regarded as inoffensive. And having a bunch of people agree with you doesn't change that."

 

[SexyVita]

Yes I can seee how the other person feels cheated in that scenario. And their feelings are valid. I start from the assumption that all feelings are valid. They are an involuntary thing that in many ways represent the essence of your point of view. Even if I see things differently I have to recognize their validity.

Ideally we all have good communication with our partner and to the extent that a scenario arises that we haven't talked about we make fair and reasoned judgment about how they would feel and/or err on the side of caution.

But there are nonetheless scenarios where we stumble into something with no ill intent. My response to that is "I am sorry I hurt your feelings. Maybe I should have known better, but I didn't. How you feel is valid. But it isn't fair to paint me as a cheater for doing something that I genuinely regarded as inoffensive. And having a bunch of people agree with you doesn't change that."

Well, the sort of ironic thing is that sometimes even with all the best communication in the world, and no matter how well you and your partner understand and follow the rules you have set down, sometimes your partner's (or your own!) feelings can end up being surprising. In my own poly relationships, I've found that I really dislike a lot of rules about what behavior me or my partners can and cannot engage in with someone else. Mostly they seem arbitrary and foolish, but it can be one thing to say, in the hypothetical, that kissing other people is OK, and another to see your hubby performing an oral tonsillectomy on someone else for the first time. I was definately seeing green! I got over that, after thinking about it for awhile, but again not because there was a clever arguement for it, but because I trusted my husband. He wasn't going to run off and join the circus with the woman, so ultimately I was OK with it. That doesn't mean everyone would, or even should. Being poly is definately not for everyone!

 

[Erodicus]

If it's any help, Bill Clinton seemed to think that a blowjob was just being friendly.

 

[Erodicus]

Another contribution from below the equator .... A few years ago, a married female, who was well known to the public, dismissed a question about a one night stand she'd had recently as "just a charity fuck."

 

[policywank]

Well, the sort of ironic thing is that sometimes even with all the best communication in the world, and no matter how well you and your partner understand and follow the rules you have set down, sometimes your partner's (or your own!) feelings can end up being surprising. In my own poly relationships, I've found that I really dislike a lot of rules about what behavior me or my partners can and cannot engage in with someone else. Mostly they seem arbitrary and foolish, but it can be one thing to say, in the hypothetical, that kissing other people is OK, and another to see your hubby performing an oral tonsillectomy on someone else for the first time. I was definately seeing green! I got over that, after thinking about it for awhile, but again not because there was a clever arguement for it, but because I trusted my husband. He wasn't going to run off and join the circus with the woman, so ultimately I was OK with it. That doesn't mean everyone would, or even should. Being poly is definately not for everyone!

I think that is a good example. Your feelings of jealousy are understandable and it would have been incumbent upon your husband to regard them as valid regardless of the existence of a poly arrangement. But it would be unfair for you to accuse him of cheating solely because of your own emotional reaction without regard to the explicit or implicit arrangement that was in place. In this case it might be more black and white given that it sounds as though you clearly had agreed upon a poly arrangement in advance, which presumably means that kissing another woman was explicitly permitted.

It is a little less clear when we are talking about implicit parameters that have not been discussed. However, I would argue that in that "implicit" scenario the standard is that which one should reasonably have known or anticipated acting in good faith based upon the knowledge of the other person and all of their discussions but definitely not with reference to what anybody else might think.

In my porn example if the guy genuinely thought it wasn't an issue, he can be accused of maybe not thinking it through or making an incorrect judgment, but I do not believe that he can be fairly accused of cheating. Her feelings matter and are intrinsically valid, but they do not render that which he genuinely thought was an innocent act into an act of cheating. And having friends or people online share her view doesn't change any of that in my opinion.

Back to the OP I find it hard to believe that any reasonable woman would think that their bf/husband would regard her giving a handjob to some other guy as just being friendly unless it was something that they had already discussed. Just because she thinks it is or wants it to be isn't the reasonability test. The reasonability test is whether or not she honestly would think that he views it that way. And obviously this isn't really something to be left to chance so she should just ask him before hand.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I would argue that in that "implicit" scenario the standard is that which one should reasonably have known or anticipated acting in good faith based upon the knowledge of the other person and all of their discussions but definitely not with reference to what anybody else might think.

The whole "what other people think doesn't matter" factor really resonates with me.

Imagine if I told my new bride that I got a blowjob at my bachelor party but I talked to all of my buddies and we agree that is a special situation so it doesn't amount to cheating. The obvious assumption in the absence of clarity is that in a monogamous relationship one doesn't get oral sex from strangers. Pretending to be oblivious to that is only slightly less stupid than thinking that the collective opinion of my buddies makes any fucking difference.

It is pretty much equally obvious that guys look at porn and we jerk off to it. The reference point isn't what any given woman thinks it should be or what her mom or the pope said it should be. In the absence of clarity it is society as it exists. Pretending to be oblivious to that reality is almost as stupid as thinking that the collective opinions of one's girlfriends is remotely relevant to the matter.

To be clear I don't think that society's views of our actions should decide anything. I am just getting at the issue of what would a reasonable person would think in the absence of clarity. And I making the argument that in today's society most reasonable people would think that my fiancé would be upset at me getting my dick sucked by a strange woman and she should be grown up enough to know that dudes jerk off and look at porn.

 

[NaughtyPartyGirl]

Seinfeld defined it when Elaine asked, "When do you consider sex has taken place."

So it's not cheating if you can jerk him off before he sees your nipple!

 

[SexyVita]

To be clear I don't think that society's views of our actions should decide anything. I am just getting at the issue of what would a reasonable person would think in the absence of clarity. And I making the argument that in today's society most reasonable people would think that my fiancé would be upset at me getting my dick sucked by a strange woman and she should be grown up enough to know that dudes jerk off and look at porn.

So, I'm not trying to be a asshat here, but you are saying two contradictory things here. First you say that you don't think society's views should decide anything and I agree with you there, but then you say that "in today's society" a reasonable person "should be grown up enough to know that dudes jerk off and look at porn."

So where does this reasonable person figure that out, what sources do they use? Assuming that "society" is as much "your circle of friends," or "your faith community," as it is mass media, then is it not reasonable to assume that if your friends believe that "what happens at the stag or hen party stays there and isn't cheating" that you would believe that too? Likewise, if you have a faith community that says porn is a sin, isn't it reasonable to assume that you might consider it cheating and possibly even believe that "good" people of your faith don't look at it?

You can't say society should have nothing to do with it, and then turn around and say that society's ideas form the basis for a reasonability test. I mean, you can say it, but it doesn't make sense. Especially when the messages different people hear from "society" are as individual as the people themselves. The only thing that's going to avoid misunderstanding here is good communication between partners.

 

[canopy]

Cheating

 

[SlutAddicted]

So, I'm not trying to be a asshat here, but you are saying two contradictory things here. First you say that you don't think society's views should decide anything and I agree with you there, but then you say that "in today's society" a reasonable person "should be grown up enough to know that dudes jerk off and look at porn."

So where does this reasonable person figure that out, what sources do they use? Assuming that "society" is as much "your circle of friends," or "your faith community," as it is mass media, then is it not reasonable to assume that if your friends believe that "what happens at the stag or hen party stays there and isn't cheating" that you would believe that too? Likewise, if you have a faith community that says porn is a sin, isn't it reasonable to assume that you might consider it cheating and possibly even believe that "good" people of your faith don't look at it?

You can't say society should have nothing to do with it, and then turn around and say that society's ideas form the basis for a reasonability test. I mean, you can say it, but it doesn't make sense. Especially when the messages different people hear from "society" are as individual as the people themselves. The only thing that's going to avoid misunderstanding here is good communication between partners.

You aren't being an asshat. I agree that there is some conflict in the points that I made. Maybe I can try to break it into two parts that aren't too contradictory.

Firstly, I do think that the primary consideration is whatever the arrangement is between the partners. Neither partner in my view is entitled to say well "this is the way it is supposed to be" based upon what society or my mom or the pope or my circle of friends said and therefore I am right and you are wrong. They should communicate between one another, respect each others' views and come to a common understanding. And then they should respect that understanding regardless of what others think. If they can't do that then they need to be clear as to what the consequences will be which may mean they break up.

Secondly, as much as we say that communication is the key we frequently don't do so adequately. Or we encounter circumstances that we had not previously contemplated. Or we encounter a circumstance or fact pattern that we genuinely do not think is an issue but find out later that it is. It isn't always realistic to pause and seek clarification, especially in a situation where we don't even perceive an issue. In that case we need to make a reasonable judgment as to what our partner's view of the circumstance would be. Arguably we should err on the side of caution. But I believe that the gauge of whether or not one has cheated lies in that reasonability assessment, not solely in whether or not the partner feels aggrieved.

That reasonability assessment may have reference to "today's society" not because society should dictate what our relationship arrangement is but because in the absence of clarity it may provide a clue as to what our partner's perspective might be. For instance, consider the example at hand (no pun intended). I think that in a traditional relationship and in the absence of information to the contrary that most men would see a handjob as a sex act and something that his monogamous girlfriend should not be doing for another guy. In no way does that compel this couple to be bound by that consensus, but in the absence of communication it does provide perspective on what the reasonable assumption would be. Conversely if they have communicated explicitly on the matter and she is firmly of the belief that a giving a handjob to another guy is not cheating that is her prerogative. She is not wrong because society sees it differently. They then have to figure out how to navigate that issue. If she agrees to refrain from giving anyone else handjobs then she has agreed to accept the premise that it is cheating. But if she says no I do not agree and I will do as I please because I don't think it is cheating his options are to accept that premise or break up with her.

The challenge with the reasonability test as you say is "what sources do you use?" There is no perfect answer so there is a chance that we will get it wrong. But in that case I do believe that the assessment of whether someone cheated or not does lie in a reasonable assessment of whether or not their partner would have regarded their actions as cheating and not solely whether or not they feel hurt.

Let's look at the porn example. If I am dating a woman and I know that she is devoutly religious or at least part of a regular faith based group with very conservative views on sex I should probably at least anticipate that looking at porn might be an issue for her. That doesn't mean porn is wrong - her view or that of her community does not automatically prevail. It means I should probably anticipate that she thinks it is wrong and either refrain or communicate more explicitly on the matter. Conversely, if we met in a secular environment, never discussed religion and both howl with laughter at jokes about dudes looking at porn and jerking off it would be reasonable for me to conclude that she is ok with it. Ideally I should communicate directly on the matter. But even if that doesn't happen it would be unfair of her to accuse me of cheating when she sees me looking at porn solely because her feelings are hurt. She needs to consider the question of having regard to all relevant factors should I reasonably have known that this would be an issue for her.

Whether or not someone is hurt is probably a good guide to whether or not our actions were appropriate. I just don't think that it is the trump card that defines what is cheating regardless of all other factors.

 

[SlutAddicted]

"OK, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be reasonable boundaries and all that, but the fact is that there is no one reasonability test that works universally. I know women and men who absolutely think porn of any kind, free or subscription, is cheating and feel hurt when they discover their partners using it. It's not an opinion I happen to agree with, but that does not make it less real for those who feel that way. As a society, we still often blame the victim. Just because the one engaging in the behavior doesn't see anything wrong with it, doesn't mean harm is not being done. Go through any abuse therapy and they will tell you that harm is in the perception of the abused, not the perception of the abuser. Emotions and perception are subjective, and are rarely subject to logical arguements."

==========

If one's own perception of "being the victim" is what automatically puts you in the right, and theoretically in control of what the partner can and cannot do, perhaps we should consider the case of the partner whose needs and desires are ignored or declared off limits by the loose screws rattling around in the head of the other. Maybe the partner who is limited by the fears of the other is the true victim. After all, if the other one puts his desires out of bounds, they don't have to think about it anymore unless there's a violation. But the limited one is thinking about it all the time, without satisfaction. So who is really suffering? Who is really selfish?

I have come to believe that most, maybe all, jealousy in relationships stems from fear of losing the other person to someone else. If both partners are mature and honorable enough to commit to stay together for life no matter what - and mean it - and trust that the other one means it too - fear of loss can be eliminated. With that out of the way, a lot more things become possible... even reasonable.

Exactly. Claiming to be a victim does not necessarily make it true. I understand that we have far too much victim blaming in our society but as soon as you open up the premise that anybody who claims victimhood is automatically right that becomes a power that will be weaponized and abused by somebody (Amber Heard anyone?).

I also tend to feel that the propensity to try to bolster one's own point of view with the opinions of others is often indicative of a breakdown in partner communication and an effort to be "right". In my view the kind of communication that is required embraces the premise that there is no right and wrong, just that which we agree upon.

 

[policywank]

"OK, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be reasonable boundaries and all that, but the fact is that there is no one reasonability test that works universally. I know women and men who absolutely think porn of any kind, free or subscription, is cheating and feel hurt when they discover their partners using it. It's not an opinion I happen to agree with, but that does not make it less real for those who feel that way. As a society, we still often blame the victim. Just because the one engaging in the behavior doesn't see anything wrong with it, doesn't mean harm is not being done. Go through any abuse therapy and they will tell you that harm is in the perception of the abused, not the perception of the abuser. Emotions and perception are subjective, and are rarely subject to logical arguements."

==========

If one's own perception of "being the victim" is what automatically puts you in the right, and theoretically in control of what the partner can and cannot do, perhaps we should consider the case of the partner whose needs and desires are ignored or declared off limits by the loose screws rattling around in the head of the other. Maybe the partner who is limited by the fears of the other is the true victim. After all, if the other one puts his desires out of bounds, they don't have to think about it anymore unless there's a violation. But the limited one is thinking about it all the time, without satisfaction. So who is really suffering? Who is really selfish?

I have come to believe that most, maybe all, jealousy in relationships stems from fear of losing the other person to someone else. If both partners are mature and honorable enough to commit to stay together for life no matter what - and mean it - and trust that the other one means it too - fear of loss can be eliminated. With that out of the way, a lot more things become possible... even reasonable.

I can't even count the number of guys who have talked to me about the premise that their wife isn't engaging with them sexually but is also putting other avenues (porn, jerking off, strippers, etc.) off limits. It is basically a way of saying "I won't address your sexual needs and I won't let you or anyone else do it either because they are dirty and wrong." It is clear to me who is doing the victimizing there and her transgression is far worse than some dude looking at titties and stroke one out now and then.

If you take the words "because they are dirty and wrong" out of that quote it becomes someone just being selfish and bitchy for no reason. And if you include the words then her reasons for being that way are rooted a moralistic point of view that holds that one person should be able to impose their morals on others. That doesn't exist in a vacuum. It comes from a partner letting other people outside the marriage tell them how their marriage ought to work.

 

[SexyVita]

Exactly. Claiming to be a victim does not necessarily make it true. I understand that we have far too much victim blaming in our society but as soon as you open up the premise that anybody who claims victimhood is automatically right that becomes a power that will be weaponized and abused by somebody (Amber Heard anyone?).

Alright, my assumption here is that everone involved is being honest about what happened and truthful about how they felt about it. It is absolutely wrong, in my opinion, to engage in a sexual act willingly and know that it was consual, and then turn around and claim it was rape for the purpose of hurting the other person for whatever reason.

 

[SexyVita]

You aren't being an asshat. I agree that there is some conflict in the points that I made. Maybe I can try to break it into two parts that aren't too contradictory.

Firstly, I do think that the primary consideration is whatever the arrangement is between the partners. Neither partner in my view is entitled to say well "this is the way it is supposed to be" based upon what society or my mom or the pope or my circle of friends said and therefore I am right and you are wrong. They should communicate between one another, respect each others' views and come to a common understanding. And then they should respect that understanding regardless of what others think. If they can't do that then they need to be clear as to what the consequences will be which may mean they break up.

Secondly, as much as we say that communication is the key we frequently don't do so adequately. Or we encounter circumstances that we had not previously contemplated. Or we encounter a circumstance or fact pattern that we genuinely do not think is an issue but find out later that it is. It isn't always realistic to pause and seek clarification, especially in a situation where we don't even perceive an issue. In that case we need to make a reasonable judgment as to what our partner's view of the circumstance would be. Arguably we should err on the side of caution. But I believe that the gauge of whether or not one has cheated lies in that reasonability assessment, not solely in whether or not the partner feels aggrieved.

That reasonability assessment may have reference to "today's society" not because society should dictate what our relationship arrangement is but because in the absence of clarity it may provide a clue as to what our partner's perspective might be. For instance, consider the example at hand (no pun intended). I think that in a traditional relationship and in the absence of information to the contrary that most men would see a handjob as a sex act and something that his monogamous girlfriend should not be doing for another guy. In no way does that compel this couple to be bound by that consensus, but in the absence of communication it does provide perspective on what the reasonable assumption would be. Conversely if they have communicated explicitly on the matter and she is firmly of the belief that a giving a handjob to another guy is not cheating that is her prerogative. She is not wrong because society sees it differently. They then have to figure out how to navigate that issue. If she agrees to refrain from giving anyone else handjobs then she has agreed to accept the premise that it is cheating. But if she says no I do not agree and I will do as I please because I don't think it is cheating his options are to accept that premise or break up with her.

The challenge with the reasonability test as you say is "what sources do you use?" There is no perfect answer so there is a chance that we will get it wrong. But in that case I do believe that the assessment of whether someone cheated or not does lie in a reasonable assessment of whether or not their partner would have regarded their actions as cheating and not solely whether or not they feel hurt.

Let's look at the porn example. If I am dating a woman and I know that she is devoutly religious or at least part of a regular faith based group with very conservative views on sex I should probably at least anticipate that looking at porn might be an issue for her. That doesn't mean porn is wrong - her view or that of her community does not automatically prevail. It means I should probably anticipate that she thinks it is wrong and either refrain or communicate more explicitly on the matter. Conversely, if we met in a secular environment, never discussed religion and both howl with laughter at jokes about dudes looking at porn and jerking off it would be reasonable for me to conclude that she is ok with it. Ideally I should communicate directly on the matter. But even if that doesn't happen it would be unfair of her to accuse me of cheating when she sees me looking at porn solely because her feelings are hurt. She needs to consider the question of having regard to all relevant factors should I reasonably have known that this would be an issue for her.

Whether or not someone is hurt is probably a good guide to whether or not our actions were appropriate. I just don't think that it is the trump card that defines what is cheating regardless of all other factors.

See, in my opinion the idea of a reasonibility test in this situation is just flawed altogether. I know that as humans we make reasonability tests all the time. If I look both way before crossing the street, it's reasonable to assume I can cross safely. Does that mean a car might not come from somewhere I don't expect, or faster than I expected, and still hit me? No it doesn't, but as you say in the absence of information, I have to trust a reasonable judgement.

In a loving relationship with another person, there is always a source of additional information, especially in the 21st century. Rarely are people far enough from their phones to make nearly instant communication possible. However, even if your partner is unavailable to clarify the situation, the real reasonability test is not "Do I think my partner would be OK with this behavior?" it's "Am I sure my partner is OK with it?" This should not be because your partner is in control of what is and is not acceptable behavior, but because you love your partner and it's better to turn down the immediate gratification the behavior offers, for the long term gratification that you are not hurting your partner. If you are more worried about being "right" than being "loving" that is serious relationship red flag.

Now yes, sometimes unexpect issues arrise where you might have clarified the situation and your partner still feels hurt by the behavior. Does that mean you were wrong to engage in the behavior? No it doesn't, but that's not really the point, you may be "in the right" but you still have to deal with the fact that your partner is hurting, and all the "well you said it was OK" in the world doesn't change that. Hopefully, a couple with good enough communication and intimacy to have conversations about acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior also have the emotional intelligence to navigate this. It would be disingenuous for your partner to claim cheating in this case, but not to claim to feeling hurt by the behavior anyway. If your partner does claim cheating in this case, and refuses to be reasonable, that too is a serious red flag.

 

[SexyVita]

I can't even count the number of guys who have talked to me about the premise that their wife isn't engaging with them sexually but is also putting other avenues (porn, jerking off, strippers, etc.) off limits. It is basically a way of saying "I won't address your sexual needs and I won't let you or anyone else do it either because they are dirty and wrong." It is clear to me who is doing the victimizing there and her transgression is far worse than some dude looking at titties and stroke one out now and then.

If you take the words "because they are dirty and wrong" out of that quote it becomes someone just being selfish and bitchy for no reason. And if you include the words then her reasons for being that way are rooted a moralistic point of view that holds that one person should be able to impose their morals on others. That doesn't exist in a vacuum. It comes from a partner letting other people outside the marriage tell them how their marriage ought to work.

OK, so for situations where your partner is neither meeting your sexual needs, nor allowing you some other way of meeting them, there is definately something wrong in River City. Like with any other need most people are not wired to ignore that need indefinately. Sure, for a while, maybe in extraordinary circumstances we can forgo meeting our sexual needs. Just like you could fast for say a month. Not comfortable, but doable. But I digress, the question here really should not be, "Should I engage in sexual behavior my partner considers cheating to meet my needs?" as it should be, "Why the fuck am I still in a relationship where my partner doesn't care whether my needs get met or not?"

 

[SlutAddicted]

Alright, my assumption here is that everone involved is being honest about what happened and truthful about how they felt about it. It is absolutely wrong, in my opinion, to engage in a sexual act willingly and know that it was consual, and then turn around and claim it was rape for the purpose of hurting the other person for whatever reason.

I understand. But I think the possibility still exists for misunderstanding where everyone is being honest and truthful. Consider the scenario where a woman thinks that looking at porn and jerking off amounts to cheating. I can envision a scenario where a man really and truly did not even consider this as an issue. Maybe he should have been more diligent or sought positive affirmation, but we can be genuinely thick at times. Once it becomes clear that she has a problem with these actions they need to address that head on. But I do not think it would be fair for her to accuse him of cheating because she felt hurt without regard to his genuine lack of awareness.

 

[SlutAddicted]

See, in my opinion the idea of a reasonibility test in this situation is just flawed altogether. I know that as humans we make reasonability tests all the time. If I look both way before crossing the street, it's reasonable to assume I can cross safely. Does that mean a car might not come from somewhere I don't expect, or faster than I expected, and still hit me? No it doesn't, but as you say in the absence of information, I have to trust a reasonable judgement.

In a loving relationship with another person, there is always a source of additional information, especially in the 21st century. Rarely are people far enough from their phones to make nearly instant communication possible. However, even if your partner is unavailable to clarify the situation, the real reasonability test is not "Do I think my partner would be OK with this behavior?" it's "Am I sure my partner is OK with it?" This should not be because your partner is in control of what is and is not acceptable behavior, but because you love your partner and it's better to turn down the immediate gratification the behavior offers, for the long term gratification that you are not hurting your partner. If you are more worried about being "right" than being "loving" that is serious relationship red flag.

Now yes, sometimes unexpect issues arrise where you might have clarified the situation and your partner still feels hurt by the behavior. Does that mean you were wrong to engage in the behavior? No it doesn't, but that's not really the point, you may be "in the right" but you still have to deal with the fact that your partner is hurting, and all the "well you said it was OK" in the world doesn't change that. Hopefully, a couple with good enough communication and intimacy to have conversations about acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior also have the emotional intelligence to navigate this. It would be disingenuous for your partner to claim cheating in this case, but not to claim to feeling hurt by the behavior anyway. If your partner does claim cheating in this case, and refuses to be reasonable, that too is a serious red flag.

I think we are broadly in agreement. Certainly if you are aware of the possibility that your partner might have a problem with your actions the onus is on you to be quite sure that they wouldn't in order to proceed (as opposed to just thinking or hoping they wouldn't). Likewise if you inadvertently or unknowingly do something that hurt them your focus should be on understanding and rectifying, not whether or not you were right. In fact, I don't disagree with anything about what you are saying in terms of how we should behave and prioritize our partner's interest.

However, I am addressing the very specific and narrow premise that how your partner feels about your actions is the sole determinant of whether or not cheating occurred. I don't think that is true. It is an important consideration but it doesn't stand out as the sole determinant. If it were, that conveys too much say in the matter to the person who claims to be the "victim" even if they are acting in good faith. And it encourages people to have the kind of blind spot that can stand in the way of good communication.

Blanket definitive statements tend to close the door to nuance or context. Reasonable and balanced people will see the nuance and context on their own. But those who want to buy into that kind of definitive statement will do so to the detriment of them and their partner.

 

[SexyVita]

However, I am addressing the very specific and narrow premise that how your partner feels about your actions is the sole determinant of whether or not cheating occurred. I don't think that is true. It is an important consideration but it doesn't stand out as the sole determinant. If it were, that conveys too much say in the matter to the person who claims to be the "victim" even if they are acting in good faith. And it encourages people to have the kind of blind spot that can stand in the way of good communication.

Well yes. I agree with what you are saying on the surface. For example, I don't give any partner the right to say that I can't masturbate, that's a solo act of self-care as far as I'm concerned and no partner has the right to take that away any more than taking away my right to eat. I simply wouldn't be with a partner would made that a requirement of "staying faithful." If, however, I decided that I loved someone enough that I chose to forgo masturbation not to hurt them, that's my choice and I have to accept the consquences of that.

My original point was less about a definition of cheating as the perception of cheating. I don't really think there can be an objective definition for cheating, since it means so many different things to so many different people. But for all practical purposes inside the relationship, engaging in behavior your partner considers cheating causes the same harm to the relationship regardless of whether it might objectively be call cheating or not.

 

[SexyVita]

I understand. But I think the possibility still exists for misunderstanding where everyone is being honest and truthful. Consider the scenario where a woman thinks that looking at porn and jerking off amounts to cheating. I can envision a scenario where a man really and truly did not even consider this as an issue. Maybe he should have been more diligent or sought positive affirmation, but we can be genuinely thick at times. Once it becomes clear that she has a problem with these actions they need to address that head on. But I do not think it would be fair for her to accuse him of cheating because she felt hurt without regard to his genuine lack of awareness.

I think this still boils down to a case of "Is it better to be right, or loving?" In a situation like you descibe, my first reaction would be to validate my partner's feelings even if I disagree with their definition of cheating. I would say that I understand that they feel cheated on and that I'm very sorry that I made them feel that way. I don't have to admit to cheating, but can still recognize and accept that they feel cheated on and apologize for my part in causing them to feel that way.

After that comes the harder work of both healing the rift and trying to prevent a reoccurance of the same hurt, whether by accepting their definition as my guiding principle, or explaining my own point of view and feelings in the hopes that my partner understands and is willing to compromise. If none of that works, there is the even harder step of ending the relationship altogether, which while painful on both sides, is less painful than repeatedly hurting my partner with my behavior and my own feelings of guilt for doing so.

 

[policywank]

OK, so for situations where your partner is neither meeting your sexual needs, nor allowing you some other way of meeting them, there is definately something wrong in River City. Like with any other need most people are not wired to ignore that need indefinately. Sure, for a while, maybe in extraordinary circumstances we can forgo meeting our sexual needs. Just like you could fast for say a month. Not comfortable, but doable. But I digress, the question here really should not be, "Should I engage in sexual behavior my partner considers cheating to meet my needs?" as it should be, "Why the fuck am I still in a relationship where my partner doesn't care whether my needs get met or not?"

Agreed. The point I was making though was more about how definitive ideas of what is or isn't reasonable are often what lead to this kind of behaviour. You and I can agree that the key question here is "why am I with someone who doesn't care if my needs get met?" But another important question is "why does this person feel that they can disregard my needs with such impunity?"

Frequently it is someone who combines the belief that monogamy is paramount with the belief that they should never have to do anything sexually if they don't want to and the belief that masturbation is wrong. These three absolutes add up to no sexual fulfillment for the partner whose only alternative might be ending the relationship with the many negative consequence of that action. It is easy to see that this person is being selfish. But are they just being assholes or is something else going on? It is often the case that seeing these things as absolutes is what leads to this negative outcome. As SlutAddicted noted, absolutes tend to strip all context away or worse convince people that recognizing nuance and context amounts to a compromise of some core value.

Reinforcing absolutes encourages and even compels them to ignore their partner's needs. Introducing the premise that nuance and context do matter and it is incumbent on both partners to communicate and not revert to playing the victim is critical to communication.