Are men (and women) who habitually cheat just creeps?

My dislike for a behavior is usually in pretty direct proportion to the pain it causes. Speaking for myself, I dislike alcoholism for the same reason as I dislike "cheating", and in fact have stronger feelings and more personal experience with the former.

I think that also habitual/ compulsive cheaters are arguably on the less hurtful end of the scale -- if they are truly habitual, there is an element that the cheated-upon person knows what they are getting into. The woman in my first example was regularly getting involved with men while still being involved with the last, which the new men knew. And it is the habitual ones who better fit the addiction and recovery model.

Just for the record, those people who are cheated on don't bother me, neither do the cheaters.

The part about the person cheating at card games being on topic was a reference to the fact that I think that cheating in other walks of life is related.

For e.g. I couldn't care a whit about whether someone was in a monogamous relationship with me or not. I have no plans to enter one.

So if I am "cheated on" in this sense I'd not really care.

But if someone borrowed a CD without my permission I'd be pissed.

What I'm saying is that if I promised someone that I'd not sleep with someone else I wouldn't do so because this is important to them. But it's not important to me.

Cheaters exist in all walks of life, and to me it's the cheating aspect of it that is wrong, not the details of where and with who one made whoopie.

If you agree to play a game and break the rules it's a breach of an established trust.

If you agree not to make whoopie with other people and do so it's a breach of an established trust (and a painful one to many).

Now there's a card game I know of that's almost as about cheating as anything else. You are supposed to try to hide cards, mark 'em etc.

In a game like that I dont think cheating is wrong at all. Because it's understood to be a part of the deal for involved parties.

For this reason I don't think the act is wrong unless you've entered a deal wherein you agreed not to do so.

And the reason I raise this point is because I know of many situations in which people think said deal has been made but their significant other doesn't.

Some women think that having sex with them automatically implies exclusivity, even if you barely know each other. I know a couple of guys who alledgedly "cheated" on "girlfriends" they did not even know they had and certainly didn't want.

What sozobe said, since someone not being sexually exclusive with me causes me no pain I don't care about it.

But if you've entered a "deal" in which monogamy is the rule and you break the deal (causing such pain) I think it's wrong.

But what I'm getting at is that some people assume exclusivity with no right to do so.

not JUST creeps...horny creeps....

I know someone who is a true philanderer... married but almost always looking. It is interesting to see him at parties & to see the women who flock around him. I've noticed that it helps, if you are a philanderer, to be exceedingly handsome and a gentleman. He isn't a creep though, he is quite interesting and wonderfully polite and fun to talk with. I like him. I can only imagine that he & his spouse have reached some sort of agreement. He seems to have a code of honor -- not interested in pursuing his friend's wives, doesn't embarass his wife in public. Who am I to look down on his behavior?

If his wife is fine with it, there ain't a problem.

It's not the behavior per se, it's what the results are.

I like Craven's point about assuming sexual exclusivity, though. I would like to see those guys MAKE it clear -- just 'cause we had sex doesn't mean we're exclusive, OK? -- but if this was never explicit, it's a different ballgame.

Soz,

I go out of my way to make that clear. But it's about as comfortable as getting written agreement to have sex in the first place.

"So babe, we'll do this every which way from Sunday, but don't you go calling me tommorow saying I'm yer boyfriend ok?"

It is a rejection of sorts, when all it's meant to be is helpful in clarification to avoid the other one being hurt.

It'd be interesting to examine what people here think is the line after which an contract of exclusivity is reached.

Anyone remember the Sienfeld where George is shown to be in a relationship when he hadn't known?

"Is a Saturday date arranged or implied?....."

"Well you have a girlfriend!"

Hee hee!

Um, when the line is reached. Gee. I've had a boring enough life that I think it's usually been after sex, at least unless there has been an actual break-up. After dating, no, after kissing, kinda, after sex, yeah.

But depends on your social milieu.

I hate the "implied"" stuff. I've been on the wrong end of both.

Once after sleeping with the most beautiful woman I'd seen she made it clear that she wan't interested in anything serious right after I'd embarassingly assumed we were going to start dating.

I've also found out that two different girls were calling me their boyfriends even though I had very specifically said I wasn't interested (they said they thought I was joking).

We all need to get together and agree on something, see if sozobe is saying that having sex implied exclusivity (in her experience) that is a perfect example of a situation I'd have walked into unawares. It certainly isn't entering an exclusivity deal for me.

Doesn't count with hookers does it soz?

Payment does tend to negate the exclusivity thing, yes.

I dunno, this stuff is a long time ago now. I think there had to be more cues than just the sex in and of itself; "So, can you get together tomorrow? Wear that red dress..."

My very first boyfriend asked me to be his girl. That made things pretty clear. Why don't people do that anymore?

A problem with people who are either addicted to sex & emotional highs or feel the compulsion to have serial "affairs" or relationships:
I know of a man whose basically used women (one after another) for his survival, his self esteem. In each case the current woman believed (in the early stages) that she was becoming involved in a committed, loving relationship, only to become yet another victim of his "problem". Which apparently was that he couldn't "commit". The same story, over & over! (this man is now in his mid forties) By this stage of his life he would surely be aware that there's a pattern of destructiveness & cruelty (to others) in his behavior, but still he persists, looking for that elusive right person. Surely by now he would have enough insight into his behavior to understand the pain he's caused? I can't understand why a person with this disposition doesn't do something about it ... take some responsiblity.

Lola

A very thoughful response. Thanks.

Oh, by the way, the person I referred to not only has serial relationships, but also has affairs at the same time! Insatiable!
I find myself wondering: Mad or bad?