From: afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: a question  (AN ANWSER, Not even a smartass one:-))
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:38:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.6APR199217385456
Organization: Lessee ... I had it here a minute ago ...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr6.195925.29906@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, hjanssen@cbnewse.cb
att.com (hank janssen) writes...
>From article <1992Apr6.134409.1@runt.appstate.edu>, by grs01153@runt.
appstate.edu:
>> Some smart ass 

Not just *any* smart ass, Shannon... *the* smart ass. Learn to read the 
attributions and you'll be able to better direct your comments.

>responded to my question with something about a jack in the box.

Well, Shannon, implicit in the jokes were your answers.  Since you gave 
virtually *no* parameters with your ambiguous question, I used (or rather 
wasted) humor to request some `bracketing in' of the question itself.  

>> Well perhaps I should ask it again. What exactly constitutes cheating on 
>> someone with whom you are in a relationship?.....

If you mean `cheating' on someone that you are in a relationship with (
something you didn't include in the original question) , then it 
simply involves the breaking of stated or implied trusts.

>>I am asking because I am curious...

Uh ... right.

>>I realize everyone has a different definition, but it will be interesting 
>>to see the differences and similarities between (among?) parts of the 
>>country and sex...-- 

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, Shannon, but anybody that interprets 
cheating other than what I stated above, no matter how `interesting' you 
might find it, is simply changing the rules to conform to their needs of 
the moment. 

>> And to the smart ass, I hate to call you names, 

My *own* would do nicely ...

>>but I call a spade a spade, 

..but in a manner that's likely to get you `clubbed', metaphorically speaking 
of course. :-)

>>to continue your earlier card thread...

Good way to get `decked'. :-)

>> 
>> `'Shannon Frady                          |     This is not         `'

..again, I'll resist the Frady-Cat joke, but I *was* tempted. :-)

> 
>I wasn't the smartass, 

Don't you wish ... :-)

>But you migh interped the next as beeing a smartass remark.
> 

*Count* on it !

>If you have to ask what cheating is, don't you already know the anwser
>to it.???

Is *this* a trick question ? :-)

> 
>No seriously, what is cheating.?? 

Oh, OK. Your serious. Makes *one* of us.

>Is  it  cheating  when  you  look  across the street to a good looking
>male/female (depending on your gender) why  you  have  a  relationship
>with somebpdy else.???

I don't believe so.

> 
>I would think that is kind of steep.

Me too... I *think* .
> 
>I would consider it cheating if:
>1) The person that you are having a relationship with is spending more
>time with somebody of the opposite sex than you.  

Well, let's see, that qualifies a *large* number of working married people 
as cheaters then. *Many* of them spend *way* more time with an opposite-sex 
co-worker than they spend with their spouse, at least while concious.
>(Even  if  they  are suppose to be only friends)

Nope.  If the couple have no rules regarding not having friends of the 
opposite sex, that is if each is secure in their own self image, then no 
cheating has occurred in this scenerio. 

>2)  Goes  out  on  a  date  more than once with the same person of the
>opposite sex. 

But dating within the same sex is ok ? :-)

>3) Sleeps, (you would have never guessed) with somebody else.

*If* not sleeping around is part of the agreement,,,

>4) Does anything seriously physical with the oposite sex.

See above...

>5) Is more open in converstation with the opposite sex than with you.

BZZZZZZT. *Big* time... Unless, *again*, there is an explicit or implicit 
agreement *not* to share with opposite sex friends. 

This *last* one, however, *is* an indication of potential problems within 
the relationship, IMHO.  Each relationship is different, but in a 
relationship built on mutual trust and communication, having to go 
elsewhere for meaningful conversation should be an alarm.

>I could go on, but i am sure that the above is enough  to  spark  some
>flame of some sort. :-)

No flame, Hank, just food for thought.

> 
>Just my debt's worth.....

-- Stephen 

(The only two valid e-mail addresses from now on are ...)
afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov,  afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
.. boring .sig follows, press n to skip it.


		Love shares at least *one* common trait with the Great
		White Shark. When it *stops* moving forward, it dies.
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6914 soc.singles:10926 soc.couples:2035