My Responces to the responces:
I know all three of you ranging from fairly well to extrodinarly well. So I can say with confidence that you all have diffrent idea of what a relationship is, what goes into one, what you can get out of one, and how one works.
I also see from the general responces that there is a great deal of disjunct from what I think is going on in relationships as a whole and your perceptions. So it is time to do some house cleaning.
I'm going to do Dana first because I can (that's what she said). Dana's ideas of intent are foward thinking and provide me for the foundation of what I am going to be writting about latter today but I ultimatly disagree with them strongly. Cheating based on intent, is a far to solopsistic view of relationships. Now lets all keep in mind that we are expected to keep a healthy amount of common sense when I am talking about this sort of stuff. If some drunken albino were to suddenly latch onto you and leave you a hicky from hell, then it isn't cheating. It is being attacked by a drunken albino. While Dana's model is simple enough to be functional it starts to fall apart when I start to talk about things like, "The human minds infinate ability to delude itself" as well as problems with excessive guilt even in the absence of crime". It is extreamly self reliant, which is cool, its one of the reaons why I like Dana, but to come up with an idea of what cheating is it isn't going to work. It doesn't adiquetly cover our societies inability to conceptualize cheating outside of certain boundaries: see pulp fiction and the foot massage. So the net needs to be cast outwards in order to better find where guilt comes from and how it functions within a relationship as a whole.
Marianne takes the opposite extreame and lists black and white rules under which things are just wrong. This is something she does. This view is far to restricitve though, and it is the sort of thing I gleefully crash throuigh. The whole thing sounds like a life or death contract thing. It isn't fluid and as situation as actual relationships are and as a result problems constantly crop up with her line of thinking. I could list a dozen or so but you'll all just have to trust me.
evan is in a similar situation that I tend to wander into. I tend to cuddle with people and then wander away because while I think it is nice I don't derive anything paticularly sexual from it, nor do I turn it into a sexual thing. It is just something that I end up doing with variouse people and I tend to not think anything more of it once I am done. Life has taught me that it is something I need to be wary of because people don't think like me, and I may be leading something on or fostering something that doesn't excist. However, it isn't something I am over bothered with. However, it is something that I would attach kinda wierd arbirtrary rules too. For example I would prefer if she didn't cuddle with other people while I was there without seeing if it is okay first or something like that.
So to make all of this work together I came up with VOCABULARY words! Woo! I also realized that starting with the idea of cheating is the wrong place to start. See I realized that people have only the fuzzest ideas of what relationships are and how they work. So they just muddle through them head first and everyone gets hurt in the end. These things happen.
In order to deceide what actually defines cheating, it is nessiary to do three things. One avoid the draconian law of marianne, Two avoid the rampant subjectablity of dana, and three we need to conceptualize what relationships actually are. So I've taken old words and given them new definitions.
Politics: politics is the new word for relationships. I need to make a clean break from the R word and so we are. Politics covers a far wider set of implications than the R word, including friends with benifits, poligamy relationships, friendships that acidently advance, and the whole range of other incidents that cause for two people to interconnect but relationships fail to cover. This does not include one night stands and the like but the sort of on going thing that your wider range of social contancts pick up/know about. NOTE it is not nessisary for there to actually be anything between two people in order for them to be in politics. I think the prime requisite of politics is that the greater social network takes notice of it. I'm not sure of that though and I think I am going to change it...when I need to.
Hooray for digital media!
The Outer Church: Or the OC for when I am feeling lazy. The outer church is now the greater social network that surrounds you and your partner(s). Sociologists define this phenomina as the tribe instinct and most people have on average of 250 people with whom they interact with in some form or another. Some people have more some less. The OC encompasses friends, family, thouse co-workers you talk to, and other people who are in a position to note the change in your relationship status.
We are going to have to do some bullet biting here. So when half of the anime club thinks Dana and I are dating because of the way we interact we have politics. The anime club is functioning as part of the outer church, when we explain that they are wrong and that we are just friends our politics comes to an end when the OC accepts the facts that we are just friends. As a possible addendum to the politics definition I might want to include the actual relationship as the final, least interesting, part of the idea for me. I'll figgure that out latter though.
If that example isn't clear then I'll add others once the confusion starts rolling in.
Now the outer church is the most important part of what I am going to be doing here today because it is the Outer Church that is most often neglected when the relationship comes up. It is important to distinguisth the diffrence between the outer church and society. They are two utterly diffrent things and it is perfectly possible to have an outer church that functions outside of society.
...you know this is 4 pages double spaced I am getting tired. I'll work on this more latter.