CAN THIS BE CONSIDERED CHEATING? (read below for article)

Sunday, February 13, 2005
E-Love: Pair caught in a Web of deceit?

By Nat Irvin
JOURNAL COLUMNIST

This is a true story. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. I agreed right away with my wife's position, but for the purposes of argument in this column, I decided to explore the other side just to see what may be out there. Now you be the judge, rabbi, preacher, priest, imam or whatever.

Here is what happened: The marriage of Karen and John had grown stale. Both became vulnerable to the possible siren calls of another lover. However, since Karen and John were members of a faith community and not divorced, they both decided, unbeknownst to each other, to take their wandering eyes to the anonymity of the Internet.

Karen gave herself a new name, Isolde, and assumed a new identity as an unmarried woman who loved reading. John did something similar - Tristan - and presented himself as a man of culture. It was just talk and fantasy. At this point in our story, would you say either had sinned?

My wife said yes - that the sin began when they both went on the Internet and assumed new identities.

Love at first click

The anonymous cyber-relationships went on for months as both parties shared their hearts' desires, perhaps talking about their love for pina coladas and getting caught in the rain, like that old Rupert Holmes song. You get the idea. No kisses. No hand-holding. No talk of sex. Just sharing hopes and dreams, disappointments and building a new friendship. But because of their faith, everything was close to being improper behavior.

Finally, our two cyber paramours - Tristan and Isolde - decided that they should meet face to face with their cyber identities and perhaps then they would get married. John suggested a public place such as the bus stop, where they would be inconspicuous. When they met, it turned out that the man with whom Karen, aka Isolde, had been having an "affair" was indeed her husband, John, aka Tristan.

My wife says that this was adulterous and was nothing but deceit. I argued hey, wait, how can either of them be guilty of anything but falling in love again - with each other? How could a man be charged with adultery when the woman he is said to be having an affair with is indeed his own wife - or some version thereof? Are you saying that because she assumes a new name, a new identity, that she is now a new person - legally and morally?

Presidents do it?

My wife recalled Jimmy Carter's interview in Playboy, in which he declared that even he had lusted in his heart - and that that in itself was committing the sin of adultery.

For her, it was all about the intention to deceive. Technically, John was not having an affair, but he thought he was having an affair.

I countered by saying yes, you are right. But which identity did he intend to deceive? The one with whom he lived or the identity that she presented to him through the Internet? How could John be blamed for falling in love with Karen's new identity, which, as it turned out, was a version of the identity with which he first fell in love? How could Karen be blamed for preferring John's second identity as opposed to his first identity?

And how is this any different than what happens when one party may be tempted, but in the end turns back as he or she realizes that betraying one's spouse is too great a burden to bear?

As to what actually happened in our story: The man was so outraged to discover that he was flirting with his own wife that he, a Muslim, declared publicly the Muslim word for divorce three times, but apparently not before his wife called him a liar and then promptly fainted.


(coincidentally, this column was written by one of my professors)