Is This Man Cheating on His Wife?

Remove all ads!

@Mountain Hare: I take it you hadn't read my post before you finished writing out this one? Because my complete Webster's didn't list sex as a requirement.

 

Too bad the Merriam-Webster online dictionary doesn't back you up, eh?

 

Whatever. I don't need to convince you that I'm right, Mountain Hare. You're going to think what you're going to think.....and I imagine you have access to a local library or book store with a copy of the latest and greatest dictionary available where you can look the word up in more detail if you really want to. Do whatever you want.

 

@Drew: You do have a point there. I was trying to get some substance in the concept of cheating while getting over the ambiguity of the phrase. It was like trying to rescue the unrescuable. I don't actually feel home discussing "cheating". I can discuss if it was adultery, if it was a breach of trust or if it was moral or not, but ambiguous unprecisable terms aren't really my homeworld.

@TMH: I will decline the pleasure of further conversation.

 

Good god. You know that people are set in their ways when they refuse to acknowledge that the 5 dictionaries I referred to all point out that in the context of marriage, there must be sexual activity for cheating to occur.

Talun:

Umm, any definition of 'cheating' I supplied was relevant to the context of 'marriage', and EVERY definition exclusively stated that sexual activity was a prerequisite for cheating. Is that just a coincidence?
Note that I selected the first 5 online dictionaries I came across: I didn't trawl through them selectively to find definitions which suited me.

chev:

That's good, because I don't wanna talk to you anymore.

 

Hmm, seems my dictionary defines cheating as having a sexual relationship with someone other than one's spouse too.
Then again, it was a free download. Dare to be different, eh kids? Allow this humble man his own viewpoint, though I'm vastly unqualified to pass judgement on such a case.

I reckon while he's not breaking his vows, he's breaking the spirit. He's obeying the letter, rather than the spirit of his marriage vows, which is as bad as cheating. While he may not be sloping off to some squalid lovenest, he's spending more time with a woman who isn't his wife, and they're engaging in a relationship, even if he hasn't played 'hide the sausage' with her.

 

Aside from the fact that you are ignoring the definitions that I provided......Online dictionaries like Merriam Webster only provide full definitions of words if you are a paying customer. Dictionary.com, on the other hand, merely spiderwebs their definitions from other dictionary sites like the free sites run by Merriam-Webster and other dictionary companies like them, who also don't provide full definitions unless you are a paying customer. If you want to make a fool of yourself by relying on limited sources that don't give you all the information in an effort to show that the words of our fluid, constantly evolving language don't shift over time and don't carry multiple meanings in both text and subtext, through pre-suppostions and context, connotation and denotation, colloquial usage and formal versus informal use, knock yourself out. I don't mind if you choose to make yourself look like a fool and, I imagine, no one else on this board particularly minds, either.

You are free to make your semantic arguments as much as you want, but you need to remember that most of us aren't actually trying to get you to agree on exactly what cheating is. We are trying to get you to acknowledge that the matter is open to honest debate and that the meaning behind the colloquial usage of a word in our ever-evolving language isn't engraved in stone. Were such meanings engraved in stone, they would cease to be colloquialisms and would, instead, be part and parcel of the word's meaning.

[ August 26, 2007, 12:49: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I'd say this man isn't cheating his wife.
There's a big difference between the real life and the second life characters, and whatever his avatar does is not real.
Hardly anyone would consider talking with a real life friend (at work, a club or elsewhere) of the opposite gender on a regular basis as cheating, playing a computer character is even less.

He doesn't hide what he's doing, he even invited his wife to share his hobby.

The problem rather seems to be something different according to this passage in the original article :

It seems like she dreams of him watching TV with her while he dreams of her playing SL with him.
For his wife it would be the same core problem if he'd spend all his days working, reading books, doing or watching sports or doing another activity she doesn't share. Doing hardly anything together doesn't qualify as cheating, at least how it comes to mind when reading this question.

 

Drew:

Why can't you lose gracefully?

 

I lost? The fact that you are unwilling to either pay for a dictionary subscription, buy yourself a decent dictionary, or go to the library doesn't mean that I lost. That.....and, even if looking the word up in a complete dictionary didn't (which it does) support my point of view, that still wouldn't mean that I'm misusing a colloquialism.

 

Because that would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Or maybe it's just stubborness. Who knows on this crazy ball of rock and water we call Earth?

 

Idiot plaque? Doesn't that amount to an ad hominem, which is expressly against the rules of this forum?

[No. Read up. -Tal]

[ August 26, 2007, 20:32: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

For the Christians, it's simple, yes, it is cheating.

Matthew 5:28 sums it up nicely:

While he is not directly looking at her, he is in some way lusting after her (a fantasy marriage counts). By that, he is cheating on her.

 

Absolutely. It seems clear to me that, from a Christian perspective, this would also qualify as adultery (since I don't buy his "I have no sexual interest in her" argument for a second). From a secular perspective, though, it's a bit more hazy.

 

The Mountain Hare:

So a supermod who strictly forbids personal attacks is more than happy to give an 'Idiot Plaque' to diligent posters. What an insult.

Oh wait, sorry. Perhaps your definition of 'insult' varies from mine. I'd quote dictionary definitions, but apparently they don't hold weight in this forum, which is the equivalent of 'The Twilight Zone'.

 

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

To get technical, since an Ad Hominem is actually a response to an argument and the idiot plaque is used not as an argument but as a punishment for repeated breaches of the forum rules, it does not in fact, qualify as an ad hominem. It does, however, qualify as a plaque.

 

It is an ad hominem when you bestow the 'Idiot Plaque' to discredit a poster.

 

OK, Mountain Hare. You obviously know better than me.

[ August 27, 2007, 13:33: Message edited by: Drew ]