When does self pleasure, become cheating

[wolfhnd]

I'm mainly concerned here with delayed gratification so will address that in more detail at some future time unless there is no interest.

Well, this is what hasn't been made clear.
What gratification needs to be delayed, and for how long, in order to promote a stable relationship? What has self-control got to do with IQ?

I've already mentioned religion. The most intelligent and best educated segment is less religious in general, and of the self-professed religious, the less clever and accomplished people are more sincerely observant.
So why would not-so-bright people with limited means exercise less restraint in gratifying their desires than clever people with surplus income?

BTW - "economic factors" does not automatically translate to "poverty". I tried to indicate the complex of situations, relationships and social effects that stem from economic arrangements, and these effects are not manifest only in the lower income brackets. It just happens that, at this particular juncture, all of the working and lower middle class are insecure and anxious at the same time, with the middle-middle soon to follow.

I'm going to give you the last word on the economic issues, it is extraordinary complicate and we will never agree.

On the religious issue I suspect that is a recent development. Unless of course you want to argue Newton was not so bright. I would argue that the shift in religiosity is evidence of the ability to adapt and succeed in any environment. That is a characteristic of higher intelligence. Again Nietzsche predicted almost 200 years ago that the masses would be most negatively effected by the death of God. People that can maneuver threw complex social changes are not as dependent on convention as those with limited abstract reasoning.

If you are an atheist I wouldn't give yourself too much credit since science that developed over several centuries made that deduction a lot easier. I would also caution that mythology may not be as simple minded as it first appears. Cultural evolution because it is so defused gives the illusion of progress through the great man theory.

[Athena]

[How the hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions in a structureless social fabric?]


How in hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions? This is done through the powers of reason and it is because we have the powers of reason that we have democracy. Also is there any doubt how I will react if someone disrespects me? There is a direct relationship between respect, liberty, and equality and education is how to establish a culture that makes liberty possible and raises the human potential for all to achieve their potential and enjoy the happiness of which Aristotle and Jefferson spoke.

All this may be so, but non-sequitur to my comment. In order to reason out a probable scenario, you need more than intelligence. You need some landmarks: constants that will still be in operation two weeks from now. When a social fabric is unraveling or being rewoven, there are no such constants. The consequences of your actions may well be beyond your control - or even any control at all. Your resources already are at the mercy of other people, can be bulldozed, seized or rendered worthless with a single stamp thumped onto a document you're not allowed to read, in a city you can't afford to visit. Your options as presented one month may have closed by the time you prepare to implement a plan.
Doors slam; bridges go up in smoke.

Anyway, until see compelling evidence, I still take exception to the claim that responsibility, reliability, caution - and particularly marital fidelity - are proportionate to intelligence.

At the moment my life is unraveling because our social fabric is unraveling. Trump's idea of how to make America great again, is shaking things up a lot, and at the same time, over population has pushed up the cost of living and reduced our quality of life. I am swinging between sheer delight and sheer panic. I don't know what the folks who voted for Trump thought would happen, but I bet a lot of them are going to regret that choice. I am so glad I read "War and Peace and War" by Turchin and that I studying history and philosophy because I think this knowledge helps me cope with the moment. This mess is not my making, and isn't this different from predicting the results of my actions? I know I am very glad so many people like me and this would not be the case if I did not have a good character and had not developed my knowledge of life. I can not control all things, but I can control myself.

I have said, studying history and philosophy has increased my ability to cope with life and my understanding of virtuous has lead to being well liked and this also increases my ability to cope with life.

For darn sure, with our survival getting more challenging, we need each other, and this is a piss poor time to destroy a relationship because of sexual desire. Perhaps if our mate doesn't care what we do for sexual gratification it doesn't matter how we achieve this, but if our mate does care, then it may be very important to respect that, just as I insist it is important to respect each other, because such things are what good relationships are about, and good relationships are important when times are hard. What matters in the decision of cheating is how the mate feels about it, not what people on the internet think.

Our social structure must be built on virtues and things will get better when we understand this and return to transmitting a culture based on virtues.

[Athena]

I'm mainly concerned here with delayed gratification so will address that in more detail at some future time unless there is no interest.

Well, this is what hasn't been made clear.
What gratification needs to be delayed, and for how long, in order to promote a stable relationship? What has self-control got to do with IQ?

I've already mentioned religion. The most intelligent and best educated segment is less religious in general, and of the self-professed religious, the less clever and accomplished people are more sincerely observant.
So why would not-so-bright people with limited means exercise less restraint in gratifying their desires than clever people with surplus income?

BTW - "economic factors" does not automatically translate to "poverty". I tried to indicate the complex of situations, relationships and social effects that stem from economic arrangements, and these effects are not manifest only in the lower income brackets. It just happens that, at this particular juncture, all of the working and lower middle class are insecure and anxious at the same time, with the middle-middle soon to follow.

I'm going to give you the last word on the economic issues, it is extraordinary complicate and we will never agree.

On the religious issue I suspect that is a recent development. Unless of course you want to argue Newton was not so bright. I would argue that the shift in religiosity is evidence of the ability to adapt and succeed in any environment. That is a characteristic of higher intelligence. Again Nietzsche predicted almost 200 years ago that the masses would be most negatively effected by the death of God. People that can maneuver threw complex social changes are not as dependent on convention as those with limited abstract reasoning.

If you are an atheist I wouldn't give yourself too much credit since science that developed over several centuries made that deduction a lot easier. I would also caution that mythology may not be as simple minded as it first appears. Cultural evolution because it is so defused gives the illusion of progress through the great man theory.

Our amoral society is not progress.

I like what you said about mythology. Jean Shinoda Bolen’s books "A Goddess in Every Woman" and A God in Every Man" are excellent explanations of the wisdom on Greek mythology. Greek mythology is the language of a developing civilization, with each god and goddess representing interacting concepts. It has not been presented well in our Christian nation.

[Sivad]

The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.

How do you know they are? I'm not doubting, just asking where the information comes from.
Seems to me there must be approximately the same number of eligible individuals of each sex and orientation in every percentile. It's longer odds for people on the skinny ends of the Bell curve to find a compatible partner, because fewer of them are scattered through the population.

So, if people of median and below average intelligence have difficulty with lasting marital bliss, I would imagine the reason is neither sexual nor psychological, but economic and perhaps cultural. Since both persons and partnerships have a finite capacity to withstand stress, I would look for the causes of stress - on adolescents, couples and families.

I'm not so sure high IQ people really are enjoying "long-term happy sexual relationships"? Is there some science on this or are we just making assumptions? This sounds like a Jordan Peterson factoid. It's crazy how people are soothed and encouraged by whatever nonsense the opposition is pushing. Jordan Peterson is about as sensible as the people he's criticizing. God help us.

[Serpent]

[ s - What gratification needs to be delayed, and for how long, in order to promote a stable relationship? What has self-control got to do with IQ? ]

I'm going to give you the last word on the economic issues, it is extraordinary complicate and we will never agree.

I didn't have an economic issue. I only said that economic and cultural factors should be considered in observing stresses on relationships, and that environmental stress is a more significant variable in the stability of relationships than IQ.

On the religious issue I suspect that is a recent development.

I don't have a religious issue, either. You have cited traditional values as a positive influence on relationships, and it seems to me that religious people would be imbued with those traditional values and trained from childhood in resisting or deferring gratification. I don't see either of these traits as a product of intelligence.

Athena --- For darn sure, with our survival getting more challenging, we need each other, and this is a piss poor time to destroy a relationship because of sexual desire. Perhaps if our mate doesn't care what we do for sexual gratification it doesn't matter how we achieve this, but if our mate does care, then it may be very important to respect that, just as I insist it is important to respect each other, because such things are what good relationships are about, and good relationships are important when times are hard. What matters in the decision of cheating is how the mate feels about it, not what people on the internet think.

Huh. Could have sworn I said something like this.

[Athena]

Serpent...Huh. Could have sworn I said something like this.

We were arguing predicting the consequences of our actions. For me, moral is a matter of cause and effect, and I continue to argue that, and you argued things are unpredictable. For sure many things are unpredictable, but perhaps we can predict on how the people who are important to our lives will react to what we say and do? Of course, only an android would be completely predictable, humans can respond in surprising ways.

As this discussion has evolved, I am wondering why we are even discussing the issue? Is there anything inherently wrong with our private sexual decisions? Like I never wanted to risk pregnancy outside of marriage, and I no sooner made sure I could not get pregnant and the risk of herpes and AIDS resulted in my decision to be celibate. But is a god going to disapprove of my sexual behavior if I chose to sleep around? I don't think so and never did. But growing up female with the double standard, I am sensitive to a possible social consequence to sleeping around. Another problem was wives being jealous. That could ruin friendships even if nothing was happening. Laugh, getting jealous because a man is turned on by a picture in a magazine is really going too far with the jealousy thing and perhaps counseling could help?

[Serpent]

We were arguing predicting the consequences of our actions. For me, moral is a matter of cause and effect, and I continue to argue that, and you argued things are unpredictable.

Some things are unpredictable. That statement was a specific response in a specific context. What kind of economic and cultural stresses might there be on marriages and families? Insecurity and anxiety are major sources of stress. So are the loss of livelihood and social status. These factors have a deeper impact on people in the working and lower middle class, who have less education, fewer resources, fewer options in adapting to external change, more competition for fewer opportunities, and less recourse to the law than people in the professional strata. This doesn't reflect on their morals or their intelligence; it just means they have a harder time keeping their lives together in an unraveling social fabric.

Good behaviour is not the exclusive domain of of smart people or those who have read books about ancient Greece; it is also available to religious people and simple ones. People can be frugal, loyal and considerate, even if they're not terribly bright or financially successful. I was arguing against the charge that people in the lower half of the IQ range can't control their urges, defer gratification or figure out what might happen if they have indiscriminate intercourse.

For sure many things are unpredictable, but perhaps we can predict on how the people who are important to our lives will react to what we say and do?

And that's exactly what I said on Page 1.

[wolfhnd]

I'm busy with my kin selection thread but I hope everyone is familiar with the "marshmallow test".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanfor ... experiment

I see the results have been disproved by a host of researchers that just can move on past the blank slate :-). The cult of nurture is emotionally appealing and will never go away.

In any case having self control is an asset in almost every aspect of life.

[Serpent]

So, like, at 4 years old, you take a marshmallow while the takin's good, cos you don't trust the adult to give you two marshmallows later - and that's it? No happily ever after for you! Might as well drop right out of the race....

.... unless you live in the Amazon rain-forest and haven't met any Europeans.

I just don't follow the cause-effect sequences.

[Athena]

I'm busy with my kin selection thread but I hope everyone is familiar with the "marshmallow test".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanfor ... experiment

I see the results have been disproved by a host of researchers that just can move on past the blank slate :-). The cult of nurture is emotionally appealing and will never go away.

In any case having self control is an asset in almost every aspect of life.

So if the husband or wife is quite sure of getting the reward s/he is less apt to cheat? I don't think it is that simple because sex may not be the desired reward. The desired reward may be psychological rather than sexual.

[Athena]

So, like, at 4 years old, you take a marshmallow while the takin's good, cos you don't trust the adult to give you two marshmallows later - and that's it? No happily ever after for you! Might as well drop right out of the race....

.... unless you live in the Amazon rain-forest and haven't met any Europeans.

I just don't follow the cause-effect sequences.

You do not believe what happens is the result of a cause? I can not comprehend that. What could possibly happen without a cause?

[Serpent]

You do not believe what happens is the result of a cause?

I do not believe that what happens, in the cases here cited, are the necessary and consequent results of the causes to which they are attributed.
A cause, possibly. Some causes, certainly.
That cause - I'm not convinced.

By the age of three, your most formative social history has already been written. Not as extremely as this, I hope but, yes, nurture makes a difference.
http://www.bucharestherald.ro/front-page/front-page/152-most-interesting/30720-experiment-on-romanian-orphans-they-have-lower-volumes-of-gray-matter
No innate characteristic is being - or can be - measured by the marshmallow test. Moreover, I assume the test subjects are returned to the same environment from which they were drawn, to continue being 'nurtured' in the same way, by the same people; having their future formed by the same socio-economic circumstances.
That's not exactly ruling out environmental factors.

Also, Wolfhnd previously alluded to the happy state of hunter-gatherers who had not come into contact with wealthier societies. Even though, one would have to assume that their population distributes on the same Bell curve as any other population, their relationship failure rate doesn't seem to break along the IQ median.

So, I don't follow the logic that correlates these citations, or their significance.

[Athena]

You do not believe what happens is the result of a cause?

I do not believe that what happens, in the cases here cited, are the necessary and consequent results of the causes to which they are attributed.
A cause, possibly. Some causes, certainly.
That cause - I'm not convinced.

By the age of three, your most formative social history has already been written. Not as extremely as this, I hope but, yes, nurture makes a difference.
http://www.bucharestherald.ro/front-page/front-page/152-most-interesting/30720-experiment-on-romanian-orphans-they-have-lower-volumes-of-gray-matter
No innate characteristic is being - or can be - measured by the marshmallow test. Moreover, I assume the test subjects are returned to the same environment from which they were drawn, to continue being 'nurtured' in the same way, by the same people; having their future formed by the same socio-economic circumstances.
That's not exactly ruling out environmental factors.

Also, Wolfhnd previously alluded to the happy state of hunter-gatherers who had not come into contact with wealthier societies. Even though, one would have to assume that their population distributes on the same Bell curve as any other population, their relationship failure rate doesn't seem to break along the IQ median.

So, I don't follow the logic that correlates these citations, or their significance.

Wolfhnd's link explained a continuation of the marshmallow test, in which the determining factor tended to be trust. The researchers preconditioned the subjects to trust the researchers or not trust them, with the expected result of decreasing or increasing the number of children who waited for the bigger reward. Isn't that interesting?

To get back on topic, why might a spouse get upset if the other one is intentionally seeking pleasure with a picture of someone else? What is the cause of the emotional distress? The behavior of the spouse of who is getting turned on, or the insecurity of the spouse who wants to be the center of attention? What if a spouse doesn't care if the other one is seeking pleasure else where? Might this also be a signal that something is wrong?

[Serpent]

To get back on topic, why might a spouse get upset if the other one is intentionally seeking pleasure with a picture of someone else? What is the cause of the emotional distress?

The main cause is the probable sequence. Notion > desire > fantasy > intention > action. No infidelity takes place until after the unfaithful person has first considered the idea, then wished to do so, then imagined doing so. This last is the picture stage. The next step, if it is taken, will be the decision, which then leads to at least some attempt at a real liaison outside the marriage.
The wife now knows - rather than merely suspects - that her husband desires sexual gratification with someone else; that is, with someone specific and real. If she has hitherto been confident in her attractiveness and sexual competence, this puts her self-image in grave doubt. If she has been confident in her partner's devotion, that is no longer the case. She has no concrete basis for accusing him of a breach of trust, which would almost certainly cause disruption in the relationship and the household - and yet, if she doesn't confront him at this stage, she may miss her only chance of preventing the next step.
And if the next step, and the one after, are taken, she will have to decide what to do about it. Stay, leave, fight, forgive, reconcile, exact promises, exact revenge... what?
That's quite enough distress for one Thursday evening.

The behavior of the spouse of who is getting turned on, or the insecurity of the spouse who wants to be the center of attention?

Both. The partner who is being replaced by a picture feels justifiably insulted and angry. If his wife has been telling him that he's all she needs or wants, she's been lying to his face. For how long? Since the beginning? Is their whole relationship based on falsehood? Has his trust been misplaced? What else is she lying about? What other secrets and surprises wait to jump out at him?

What if a spouse doesn't care if the other one is seeking pleasure else where? Might this also be a signal that something is wrong?

It might. But I'd need a lot more information regarding the union. In the cases I've known, this attitude has been unevenly distributed - one cares more than the other - and that's always trouble. If the host is a wearing a teeshirt that says "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" and his partner has a gig in Montreal on his birthday, that's conclusive.

[Athena]

I don't know Serpent. We are all different. I can't image Hillary Clinton being too concerned about Bill's messing around because the marriage was about something much more important. But for sure they both had to hate the political ramifications. But self-pleasuring? That is something to get upset about? I guess maybe if it is as you say that first step to a more series relationship with someone in the office or down the street. But what if it is porn and there is no chance of a next step, or a devise that is used because there is a long seperation or one just wants more sex than the other?

In my crazy head I like to think of the kingdom. As with the younger man I shared a period of my life with. If we think of our homes as kingdoms and ourselves as kings and queens what is important is the kingdom, and that is not something to throw away for minor offenses. I think family is more important than individuals. Once a child is concieved, following decisions need to be based on what is good for the child. Some people are smart enough to know things go better when the man and woman live to please the other and for the benefit of the child. If this is happening and someone has a need for self-pleasure, don't make a big deal about that. Sex is a bodily function and the kingdom is about so much more.

[BadgerJelly]

Self pleasure is cheating when it is done for you by someone else without consent of your partner.

Obvious surely?

[TheVat]

If it's done "by someone else," then that's not "self pleasure" as I understand the term. It's a euphemism for masturbation, folks. Whacking off. Floggin' the log. Chokin' the chicken. Beating the meat.

Like Athena, I have difficulty figuring out what there is to get upset about. As she observed, it's generally a function of one partner having more libidinous drive than the other, i.e. wanting release more often than the partner can provide. Seems far more courteous and kind than demanding sex from a lover when they are perhaps tired or not in the mood.

[Serpent]

I don't know Serpent. We are all different.

Correct, on both counts.

We don't know everything about other people, though we find it easier to imagine how some other people feel than how other other people feel, according to what we know, or think we know, about them and their relationships. Me, I don't speculate much about Clintons.

And we are different. You asked what might cause distress. Maybe it's a legitimate cause for distress; maybe it's all in their heads; maybe the relationship wasn't any good in the first place. (For the bright young doctor in the teeshirt, it ended very badly. His unfaithful lover gave him AIDS and he died at 32.)
Since we don't know everything about one another, all we have to offer is opinion.

Mine, for what it's worth: Don't do anything that will hurt your partner or jeopardize the union; or if you've already done it, don't tell your partner.

[BadgerJelly]

Biv -

Give me some credit! XD It was an obvious joke at the absurdity of the proposition ... or less than obvious if you assume I am dense (which is a fair comment)

[TheVat]

Got it. I wondered if your comment might be in jest. I was more responding to the plethora of posts, not yours, that seemed to be taking a wider definition of "self-pleasure" than I was famiiar with.

I am sure there are gray areas to be found. E.g. a masseur who offers happy endings. Are you cheating with the masseur, or is he/she merely a proxy for your own hands? Are you cheating.....or just too lazy to do the work yourself, heh heh? OK, clearly I am not taking this topic seriously enough. I guess the criterion, for me, would be if there is any accompanying emotional intimacy with someone other than your significant other. This has already been covered in the thread, I gather.

[Athena]

I don't know Serpent. We are all different.

Correct, on both counts.

We don't know everything about other people, though we find it easier to imagine how some other people feel than how other other people feel, according to what we know, or think we know, about them and their relationships. Me, I don't speculate much about Clintons.

And we are different. You asked what might cause distress. Maybe it's a legitimate cause for distress; maybe it's all in their heads; maybe the relationship wasn't any good in the first place. (For the bright young doctor in the teeshirt, it ended very badly. His unfaithful lover gave him AIDS and he died at 32.)
Since we don't know everything about one another, all we have to offer is opinion.

Mine, for what it's worth: Don't do anything that will hurt your partner or jeopardize the union; or if you've already done it, don't tell your partner.

For sure those social diseases need to be taken seriously. I don't think we list MRSA as a social disease but maybe we should, because couldn't sex be one way to spread it?

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an infection caused by a type of Staphylococcus, or staph, bacteria that's resistant to many different antibiotics. ... MRSA is very contagious and can be spread through direct contact with an infected person.Jul 11, 2017

Having sexual contact with another human being is surely more concerning that self-pleasure. And for being discreet about private matters, absolutely! I like a birthday card my son gave me. It basically says, I know you think I have caused you a lot of stress, but I really did you a favor. I didn't tell you everything. If you know everything I did you would have been in the crazy house long ago.

[BadgerJelly]

Athena (in reference to cheating I hope!) -

Having sexual contact with another human being is surely more concerning that self-pleasure.

Weeeeeeeell ... depends how creative/degenerative your imagination is! haha!!

btw you have let slip a few details of your private life over your time here so I guess you can maybe imagine ;)

[Athena]

Athena (in reference to cheating I hope!) -

Having sexual contact with another human being is surely more concerning that self-pleasure.

Weeeeeeeell ... depends how creative/degenerative your imagination is! haha!!

btw you have let slip a few details of your private life over your time here so I guess you can maybe imagine ;)

I can imagine many things and what I imagine is pretty liberal. However, most the time what I do is pretty Victorian. I think there is an important difference between what we imagine and what we do. Just because we imagine something, that doesn't mean we will do it.

I think if there were a god there would be no socially spread diseases. I don't have one and don't want one, and fear of them put me back in Victorian mode. I am glad for some memories before I became aware of the diseases that can't be easily cured. Those diseases are just wrong.

On my list of don't's is getting involved with a man who is in a relationship with a woman. I don't want any part of cheating because that can seriously hurt people. Hey, on being jealous, an experiment with very young children and also with dogs, indicates it is in our nature and the dog's nature to be jealous and compete for attention if Mom is holding a new baby or the master of dog is giving attention to another dog. I thought that was really interesting that even dogs became demanding of attention if the master is giving attention to another dog.

[edy420]

Ok let's ramp it up a level.
Future technology allows me to download a Facebook photo of my neighbor and turn it into a full figure A.I 3D virtual sex slave.

Just a bit of fun?
Should my partner be offended or embarrassed?

[Serpent]

Ok let's ramp it up a level.
Future technology allows me to download a Facebook photo of my neighbor and turn it into a full figure A.I 3D virtual sex slave.

Just a bit of fun?
Should my partner be offended or embarrassed?

Your partner should immediately show you the door and throw your suitcase after.
And then your neighbour should have you arrested.

[edy420]

For what reason.

No one is harmed?

What moral boundries are being crossed here?

[Serpent]

For what reason.

No one is harmed?

You mean no-one is directly, physically harmed.
Well, then, to be fair, the neighbour should only have a virtual image of you arrested and humiliated - though they may also have grounds for an actual lawsuit, if not criminal proceedings.
As to the partner, he or she didn't harm you, either. They merely protected themselves from any further emotional damage caused by living with a callous jerk. That doesn't need to be a moral decision - it's a natural one of self-preservation.

The two main moral boundaries having been crossed:
1. marital contract - whether written or culturally understood
2. identity appropriation; unauthorized use of a stolen image; defamation of character *
(and, no, you can't make a clone of their DNA, either, even if it was from a discarded toothbrush)

[edy420]

1. marital contract - whether written or culturally understood
2. identity appropriation; unauthorized use of a stolen image; defamation of character *
(and, no, you can't make a clone of their DNA, either, even if it was from a discarded toothbrush)

1. A marital contract varies from couple to couple.
Some only allow the male to have sex with others.
In the western world, some allow both partners to have relations with others, or even to have relations with a third person at the same time.
If a marital contract were less flexible then I could accept your argument here.
(unless we only accept the religious version of marriage?)

2. A clone is different.
It actually has your exact DNA, but even then I find it hard to think of unauthorized cloning as some kind of copyright.
An interesting discussion, perhaps another topic?

We are allowed to take photos of others in public without their consent, and do whatever we like with those photos, as long as we do not post them publicly.
I dread the thought of others taking photos of my children and doing disgusting things behind closed doors, but I can not stop others from taking photos of them.
I will step in front of tourists who blatantly point their cameras at them from a couple meters away, but long distance photos with today's cameras are just as good.

What should be done about people who copy photos of them from Facebook?
Charge them?
Arrest them, Ridicule or publicly name and shame etc.
Harmful countermeasures for a harmless act, seems immoral.
Legally Facebook can take your photos and do whatever they like with them.

copying a photo is the same as making a virtual copy, its a digital fake of the real thing.

[Serpent]

Moral codes, just like laws and contracts, vary.
I can only act and respond according to my own.

[edy420]

An interesting thought, perhaps another topic.
Richard Dawkins says a two person contract goes against our natural being.
I suspect our modern view of a two person marriage is a watered down indoctrin of a religious marriage.
It's a deep part of western culture now, but that doesn't stop us from trying to change our societies view of gay marriage.
Judging how society in general views a gay marriage and an open one, perhaps changing our point of with a two person marriage will change once gay marriage is normal?
It seems like they are equally unacceptable in general, though gay marriage is becoming more acceptable, slowly.

Serpent,

Some relationships are ok with pornography and even flirting.

But IMO the point where it gets physical is when it becomes cheating, even if some couples are ok with it.

VR experience is just another version of TV.
It's just more in your face.

So then I think it fair to say "morally", couples who aren't ok with pornography, won't be ok with VR and vice versa.
But neither are cheating.