Slashdot Mirror
Is Computer Sex Adultery?
Falling in love with strangers on the Net poses a whole set of special problems, says Dr. Esther Gwinnell, author of Online Seductions. Her book takes a shockingly businesslike and useful look at cyber-romance, the unheralded killer app of the World Wide Web.
When technology and romance mix, the result is explosive, many of the participants in need of a good shrink. Usually, the subject is treated phobically -- predators, stalkers, porno-peddlers, even cyber sexual assaults. But as more Americans go online, it follows that more are finding their ways into chat rooms, IM's and video-confs and trying to seduce each other, digitally and literally.
Gwinnel, an Oregon therapist, and other shrinks, report growing numbers of marriages in trouble because one or even both spouses are having online affairs. In her practice many patients are encountering some kind of problems with Net relationships.
For instance, they tend to falling in love with someone they meet online while other relationships flounder.
Or they fall in love with people who don't return their affection. Or think they're in love, but they're not sure.
Sometimes, of course, things get really ugly. An online romance turns into a frightening or pathological relationship. Or somebody has a pseud or doesn't tell you it's a same-sex relationship. Or that they're much younger or much older than you are. Or life outside the Net gradually shrivels and shrinks for the lovestruck.
People drawn to long distance romance used to fall in love via the post office or on the telephone. The Net obviously permits strangers to find one another more easily, get to know one another better and faster, and in a variety of ways, from chat rooms to IRC to video encounters.
A number of people in Gwinnel's practice have met online, fallen in love and been happy together for ages. It isn't rare any longer. Others get disappointed by flamers, fakers, and stalkers, or by role-players who aren't looking for real relationships. Seduction online lends itself both to experimentation and misunderstandings, and to the complications anonymity can breed.
Gwinnell gives advice on how to protect yourself online: how to spot trouble, to figure out when you've gone too far or when someone is going too far with you.
Where she scores highly with me is that Gwinnell brings a sensible, even historical approach to the topic of seduction. The Net may be new, she writes, but the issues she writes about are not. People have been meeting and falling in love in odd and unconventional ways ever since people have been falling in love.
Online relationships are still considered odd, despite their exploding numbers. Sex, as educators, parents and pols talk about it, is such a scary taboo that little useful information has emerged about how people meet online and conduct their seductions and affairs.
Gwinnell warns to be careful about taking too much advice from online therapists, and even though some of her patients suffer from Net addiction and obsession, she believes that for the majority of people the benefits of seeking romance on the Net outweigh the dangers. "And for those who are seeking a romantic companion, the Internet offers many opportunities to make emotional connections outside of those that hitherto have been available," she writes.
She also asks some interesting questions: is computer sex "adultery?" (Yup. Being unfaithful hurts relationships, no matter where it's done).
This perspective is quite different from the stream of alarms about perverts, predators and porn online.
Falling in love with strangers isn't talked about in proper society much. But it may soon be one of the primary means by which people seeking romance meet for the first time.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
I divorced my Ex-wife based on this. The court recognized it, as well as the church. Sorry, cyber sex is cheating on your significant other. Those that believe that it is not is just trying to quiet their own concience.
Some of those /. moderators better look out then!!
Back in late 1995, when I first began my online adventures, there wasn't the proliferation of online dating sites like there is now. At that time, people pretty much relied on newsgroups and a few web sites devoted exclusively to providing seekers of love a means to find it.
Our advice applies to meeting someone through any of our numerous opportunities (personals, discussion lists, chat, etc.) as well as anywhere else on the Web. If you are worried about safety issues while looking for romance online, consider these tips to ease your mind:
Tip #1: Keep Your Personal Information Private
Unless you know who you're dealing with, do not provide your personal information such as full name, address and phone number. This will ensure your physical safety. Most people are harmless and genuine about seeking a partner in love, but the Web is full of individuals with ill intentions. This is not to say that these individuals migrate to our site, but common sense in any arrangement must be applied. This same advice would hold true for meeting someone through the newspaper personals and other options.
Tip #2: Carefully Choose Your Online Name
If you are female and you intend to spend your time online in various chat rooms or signing up for various free e-mail accounts and you don't want to invite sexual inuendo or the virtual equivalent of a whistle and an uninvited sexual reference, then choose a gender neutral name. Of course, if your intention is to invite advances from men, then choose a feminine name, but be prepared for an onslaught of advances. This tip doesn't apply to women only, though, as the Web is full of very assertive women who will target nicks of the male variety. By choosing a gender-neutral identity online, you afford yourself the option of revealing your gender identity (or more) when you're comfortable in doing so.
Tip #3: Have Your Wits About You When Meeting in Real Life
If and when you decide to meet your online friend, don't go alone. Bring a group of friends along with you and schedule your meeting during the day and in a public place. The person you are meeting, if they are worthwhile, will agree to your request to meet in the safest possible surroundings.
Tip #4: Trust Your Instincts
Too many of us don't trust our instincts and betray them, often to our own detriment. Our instincts are always trying to tell us something. Learn to trust your instincts. If something about your online encounters feels uncomfortable, you can almost bet that an in-person encounter will feel the same. With this in mind, don't lead someone on in e-mail. If you get an immediate sense that they are not your type, let them know politely by giving them the digital equivalent of "let's just be friends." If you lead someone on and their emotions get the best of them, there will be trouble. If they persist even after you have proclaimed disinterest, ignore them. This includes their repeated e-mails. If this doesn't work, retain their messages and forward them to their online service provider. It is rare that situations ever get to this point, but if they do, retaining such information will assist you should you ever have to take further action.
Tip #5: Be Weary of Totally Free Personals Services
Sure, there are an abundance of free personals services across the Web. Many of the larger Web directories offer such services. When a service is entirely free, be cautious of the quality of the individuals with whom you correspond. Free services are easy targets for devious or insincere types because of that fact: they're free. More often than not, individuals who opt for a pay service are usually seeking quality, not only in the service itself, but in the other people who also participate.
As with any online activity, the best advice for online dating is pretty simple: exercise common sense. Think of the Web in terms of a large city. If you were a tourist in California, you wouldn't give your name, address, phone number and credit card number to just anyone on the street. Right?
29: If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
30: And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
31: It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
32: But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
And lest we forget, Leviticus 20:10:
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
Hey, I quote this not as scripture, but just as one possible viewpoint and answer to the question. If you commit adultery in your heart, your eye has offended you; pluck it out. I guess if you commit adultery in a chat room, you should cut of your internet connection and maybe a few fingers.
And if you've lusted after that neighbor, one possible viewpoint is that you should be put to death.
Good luck. I would avoid the neighbors completely just to make sure.
Is something invalid just because it's in the Bible? (And, for that matter, who are you to ridicule somebody for their religious beliefs, as your post implies?)
Further, this belief is in more publications, if you will, than simply the Christian Bible. The concept of "thinking it is as bad as doing it" has been around for longer than the Bible. Just how much longer is left as an exercise for the reader; Greek philosophers may have had something to say on the subject of ethics and morals.
Living by "rules" in the Bible doesn't require that you accept that there's a God as defined in said book; it just requires that you do unto others as you would have them do unto you, take personal responsibility for your actions, and other similar ideas. (But these are obviously silly and outdated in a day where the person opening an attachment maliciously sent to them is at fault for getting a virus... sorry, that's a different rant.)
If old books seem stupid, you could try reading, f'rinstance, Robert Heinlein, he held a few of the same beliefs. Or you could work out your own set of beliefs to stand by; provided they don't break any laws, there's no harm in that.
You could even post on slashdot, for all the world to see, your personal beliefs so that somebody else can take potshots at them because they happen to be based on a book. (I find it quite likely that, no matter what your beliefs, they've been previously published somewhere, so it should be fairly easy.)
you're married to another computer.
--
But just curious, where do you draw the line? If you consider pure 'computer sex' to be adultery (not talking about a computer relationship, just talking to someone while masterbating) ...
What about a computer program that 'talks to you'?
Or calling a late night 1-977-xxx-xxxx number?
Or looking at pornographic material?
I think most typical people's responses would be that neither of the last 3 are 'adultery', so then why does option 1 count?
People seem to think that the rules are different, that somehow the people they meet over the net are magically different from those they'd meet in real life. A woman meets a guy who admits to being married, but adds "Oh, I'm going to divorce her" and naturally the woman believes. These days, forget it -- ask for a picture and get a picture of a different person.
Once upon a time having long distance romances was ok -- you spent all your time talking and learning about the other person. These days people think they can use the net like a springboard into a new pool of eligible singles from around the world. The first conversation usually involves "Where are you from and how much do you weigh?" I mean, let's be frank -- people are still as much about the shallow and material things as they've ever been. At least the kids have it right -- they just blatantly running around asking "age sex location check?" (In my day it used to be just 'morf', for male-or-female, but I guess age and location are important now).
Once upon a time, when cyberspace was young and underpopulated, you had a very good chance that the person you were talking to was a kindred spirit. They'd probably come to the net (or other online world) for similar reasons that you had, work, school, whatever. And in those days you connected brain to brain, soul to soul, and you learned really fast who you were attracted to. We talked about religion, or philosophy, or math or movies or books. Maybe, eventually, out of curiosity, you'd ask where the other person was from. Maybe, eventually, out of curiosity, you'd think about meeting. That's all gone now. I know a young lady who trolled the net looking for a date for my wedding, and was prepared to bring someone from the opposite coast until he made it clear that if he shelled out for a plane ticket he was looking to get some. She was offended, but what did she expect? Is she blind? She'd talked to him for a week.
The net has turned into the singles bar that we all hated. What's the big complaint about the bar scene? That it's a meat market, all about looks and shallow people? So the first thing we do when we get on the net is ask for a picture and go to amihotornot.com? We've done it to ourselves. I know so many people now that are looking for love on the net. For years I've been telling them the same thing -- "Stop looking. Find a topic you are interested in. Find a forum or mailing list where they talk about that. Start talking. Before you know it you'll find someone you're attracted to, and guess what, they've got something in common with you." It works. I met many, many nice young ladies while hanging out in alt.romance (several of whom are still very dear friends, but my favorite was the one who emailed me "WHERE ARE YOU AND ARE YOU SINGLE???" :)). But nobody wants my advice. They want to get laid. And right now.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Actually, I'm quite happy to agree with that sort of thing. I'm a Christian myself and don't think overly literal readings of the Bible help anyone. People, remember it's translated from languages we're not always that sure about - you will not find anyone who's a native speaker of Aramaic, 2000 year old Greek and current English, after all.
:)
The reason I was researching this was after a wonderful post from a friend to a mailinglist. I'll copy it below:
Subject: Why can't I own Canadians?
Background: Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an abominaton according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on
the Internet
Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
At this point it's normally worth reminding people that Leviticus is part of Old Testament Law and that Christians aren't subject to it, it's mostly there for historical reference...
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
This went on for a good 6-8 months. We became the pseudo-boy/girlfriend even though we were fifteen hundred miles from one another.
Over time, you realize how close and dependant you get to certain people, especially in online relationships. And since you don't have to go through the butterflies or nervousness that comes with meeting people in real life, the anonymous exotic world of IRC (among other utilities) gets you past the horrid beginnings and right into the good stuff--getting to know the person for who they really are.
Sometimes, it backfires. Mine didn't...much.
We met that September (of 97). She flew to see me. We had a great time the week she was here, but...when it was time for her to go home, it simply tore my heart out--I'm sure those who've been through this sort of thing know what I mean. So, after she went home, a month went by and the phone bill skyrocketed from our constant calls and the plain ole missing of one another.
After many calls and discussions, me and her finally agreed to end it.
Of course, she didn't tell me at the time she was gay.
Nope, didn't mention it at all.
Damnit.
Consider this: A married man has "cybersex" on an IRC channel. Unbeknownst to him, his "partner" is actually a sophisticated bot written in Perl. Is that adultery, since there is no "other woman?"
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
...if your spouse or S.O. is unaware of it, or does not approve. If they are both aware and approving, then there is no cheating involved, just as in real life relationships.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
I think the important thing, if you are thinking about falling in love and having a relationship, is to meet them in person, and get the relationship off-line as soon as possible. As long as it's on-line it's too easy to idealize the relationship. I mean really, if you think typing to another person online is a meaningful relationship, that alone is not really true.
Online, the other person appears to us how they think we want them to (and vice versa). The Desert of the Real can be quite desolate in comparison.
(of course the usual cautions about meeting strangers applies, even if you think you know all about them.)
Shouldn't this be a slashdot poll?
:-)
I just asked this very question of my wife, my mistress, and my current girlfriend. Its two votes no, one yes. But now they want to check my history file and drop a sniffer on my local segment. Thank god for IPSec tunnels
the AC
Add my no vote to your tally
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I like 28 : "we know what you think, who you are, and you are all guilty and shall worship me if you want any hope of saving your miserable life" (booming voice)
No one would ever accept that from anyone, but of course if it is written in a very old book it has to be accepted as the ultime truth...
She wasn't all that impressed, it was just a brief note to compliment my page, and I get such notes all the time.
What mattered was that we began corresponding, and after a month or so I asked for her phone number, and we began talking on the phone occassionally. I really impressed her by calling her in Nova Scotia while I was visiting a friend in Rome.
She lived in Truro, Nova Scotia, I in Santa Cruz, California. I soon discovered the need for cheap long distance - before I got my rate lowered I received a $2500 bill for just one month, and even after getting AT&T one rate international my bills were running $1100 per month.
She didn't own her own computer so voice over IP wasn't an option, and I tried to make it one by sending her my old 486 and Speak Freely. While she was able to negotiate Speak Freely's complex UI the 486 wasn't up to the task of the signal processing.
I also made three visits to her (the first on January 18, 1998, in wintry Canada from sunny California, bringing a rose with me all the way on the plane), and she made two to me.
It was when I offerred to buy her a brand new Pentium-II machine to run Speak Freely on that she decided to finally come out to Santa Cruz and live with me.
She soon found work doing biotech and was able to stay for a year on a TN-1 visa, an option also available to americans and mexicans in each other's countries who hold bachelor's degrees and work in various professional fields (tip - computer programming qualifies).
We were married July 22, 2000 in Pippy Park, St. John's Newfoundland just outside the Fluvarium where we held our reception. It was a beautiful day - outdoor weddings are not common in Newfoundland because of the northern climate, and in fact we rented a big tent.
We moved back to the U.S. a few weeks ago and now live in Owl's Head Maine in a house we could have never hoped to have afforded in Santa Cruz.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Except maybe over the photocopier...
take a triptonica to subthunk
Your first sentance is a lovely idea, but the second is just plain wrong, unless you meant to say "perfect people" or "really intelligent, totally emotionaly mature people." Real people write letters to Ann Landers saying things like "I had assumed this would stop after the wedding, but then it didn't" or "how could she not know I would be upset by...". Real people have unspoken agreements that they find out later were agreeing to two different things. Real people make assumptions that their definitions are accepted by the other person.
Very few people sit down at the start of a relationship and go over the multitude of grey areas to see where thier partner stands. Those that do may find they change their mind over time but don't realize it until a situation presents itself. In the real world, complications happen.
Thus, these kinds of discussions are useful, not only to build up a societal "baseline assumption" for the majority who do not have these conversations, but to provide a starting point for the discussions of those that would be willing to negotiate their own dynamic.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
No, but neither is a foot massage.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
he separation of Church and State in schools has led to a vacuum where once children were taught the proper ways to behave.
Blame the Constitution. Personally I like the fact that religion wasn't forced on me as a child. Teach your kids morality at home, don't blame the schools for your shortcomings.
--
That's true, but in my book it is possible to be unfaithful to someone without having sex with someone else. Being unfaithful has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with the other partner feeling betrayed. If what you do feels like a betrayal to your partner, pay attention to their feelings. Talk about it.
The rule being, If it gives you wood, and you keep doing it, then it's cheating.
If you're a woman and it gives you wood, Then I'd suggest double checking your gender.
Yeah, but a foot massage is touching a woman in a farmiliar manner. Marsalis knew it, Mia knew it and Tony should have F'ing known better...
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
This really depends on your beliefs, and those of your partner/spouse.
Is emotionally investing yourself in someone other than your partner cheating, even if no sex occurs? Is it different if you've never met face to face?
Then ask your partner/spouse for their answers to these questions.
Cheating is really decided by the person who feels cheated upon. If your partner/spouse feels you're cheating when you cyber, then you are, even if you don't think anything significant happened.
Once that hurt is established and the cause is believed to be cheating, it is. You can't fight feelings with logic. They just don't respond.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
I thought I was in love, and it turned out to be just a bad case of heart burn.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
In my experience, most Christians act according to their own beliefs, which are moderated by the Bible. Indeed, since the New Testament in particular is full of ambiguity, it can be very interesting to witness the particular ways in which people find means of justifying by the Bible their own particular take on life. If this were not the case, how could you account for the number of different factions within the Christian faith? I don't believe I know a single Christian who practices unthinking adherence to any dogma contained within the bible. Christ himself was quick to challenge such dogma which, he claimed, was more often born of man than of God. Indeed, if you're a Christian (I'm not, incidentally,) Christ came bearing not peace but a sword -- Christianity has been marked by division, by persecution; it is therefore naive and overly simplistic to think that Christianity is a crutch, or to rehash the old "opiate of the people" mantra. On the contrary -- in today's society I think it often demands considerable courage to become an avowed Christian. Also, it's all very well to criticize the "it's in the Bible, it must be true" idea -- but one should also be willing to consider that the Bible contains many valuable lessons and teachings that might be useful to us all. Beware tarring everybody with the same brush and suggesting that all Christians needs must be mindless, subservient buffoons -- remember that many incredibly intelligent people have become Christians. I agree, of course, that it's always useful to challenge assumptions and question what you've read. I think most Christians would also agree, though. And, again, remember that Christ did criticize much of what mankind had derived from the scriptures -- I think many of the Christians who exhibit the kinds of behaviour you hint at do so more because they seek fulfilment in symbols and tradition than because of anything the Bible might have taught them.
The concept of "thinking it is as bad as doing it"
Now which man is stronger? The man who isn't tempted and faithfully stays with his woman, or the man who is tempted but makes a consciental decision not to do it. That ability to make that choice is what makes you human, and the making of that choice itself is what makes you a good partner. Nuf said.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I've read the opinions of a few people who insist that cyber-sex is pure fantasy. They don't see the interaction as being real since there is no physical contact. Each new "adventure" is usually with a different person, rarely the same person twice. The two do not develop a friendship prior to engaging in the act. It's much akin to a real time "one night stand." Neither party is interested in maintaining contact beyond the time they spent in a private room online. This sounds like harmless entertainment. I suppose this would depend on whether or not the people involved are in committed relationships, and if so, whether or not the significant others know, and/or approve, of the activity. Frequency might also be an issue. If cyber-sex is happening once a month it may be acceptable to a partner, but if happening three or four times a week, may not.
If I view cyber-sex, taking a religious stance (which is endlessly amusing), and understand the Bible correctly, its states that adultery begins in the heart, without ever having to physically perform the deed. If a married person is exchanging words describing sexual actions they're performing on someone else, even if it's all in the imagination, my guess is they're guilty of adultery. Likewise, if I were unattached and engaging in this behavior with a person who is married, it would be a wrongful act. If both parties are unmarried, I suppose it would fall under the category of fornication. I agree, if looking at cyber-sex from this perspective, it's wrong. These acts hurt, and go against, not only the scripture, but also the covenant of marriage.
Some say that engaging in cyber-sex has helped their relationship. Of this group, I've found that usually both partners are knowingly engaging in cyber-sex, usually in private, but sometimes together, often later sharing bits and pieces of their verbal exchange. They've allowed each other to explore their sexuality online. Sometimes one or the other will learn a new or different sexual technique and bring it to the bedroom, eager to experiment. If two people agree this behavior is acceptable, then who am I to disagree?
notabene: I'm unmarried but have a strong relationship since over 4 years (and yes, it's woman, you goatse pigs)...
Cui peccare licet peccat minus. -- Ovid, Amores.
I notice the much lauded Katz mentions roleplaying. If you're playing a MU* (or god forbid, Evercrack or some other MORPG) and you actually ARE roleplaying a character, is there a difference? Granted, most people who play these games don't really 'roleplay'. The people who do, however, would contend that the character is not the player - and on their terms, roleplaying a character who is in love with another character is not the same as online romance. Any comments, dotters?
As a recovering chataholic (uninstalled ICQ 19 months ago) I had to adopt the rule: would I do this if my wife was in the room? Online friends, sure. Cyber, no way.
This is another example of how morals have slipped in the current generation of techno-weenies, and how the separation of Church and State in schools has led to a vacuum where once children were taught the proper ways to behave. In case you don't get it, let me spell it out.
Adultery is intent as well as action!!
There, got it? Just because you're only typing at a keyboard, the intent is still there. It's just as immoral to try and fuck someone over the net (if sadder admiteddly) as it is in real life. In both cases, you're guilty of wanting to do something that you should only want to do with your partner!
And it's far more humiliating than just staring at other people is for your partner. I mean, how can people find a few words on a screen more appealing than their partner? It all seems pretty damn tragic to me, but then again, I have a life outside of computing.
And you can't use as a defence the fact that you aren't getting along with your partner. For a start that doesn't excuse immoral behaviour, and besides that if they really are that bad, find another partner! Nobody should be with someone they don't want to be with 100%.
I mean come on, this is a stupid question.
Adultery always begins with the adulterer(s) claiming to themselves and to others that the relationship is "harmless" because it hasn't crossed a certain line. The line where it becomes wrong is the line where you start having to rationalize like that.
Online romances are more risky than the real life equivalent for a number of reasons, even if you ignore the risk that your virtual snugglebunny is really an ax-wielding maniac.
Most significantly, no matter what it feels like, you just don't know somebody until you've met them face to face. Even if you've seen pictures, talked on the phone, and even if all that is accurate, your impression of that person in live interaction might contradict all of what you thought you knew about him or her. It's impossible to determine whether an online romance would "work" in real life before you actually meet.
The biggest problem with online romance is how easy it is to fall for a stranger based on some exchanges of text. The reason this happens is that you fill in the gaps in a very narrow communication channel with your own expectations and assumptions. When you fall in love online, you're in love with yourself as much or more than you're in love with the other person. You automatically read the stranger in terms of your ideal romantic partner.
Adultery's most frequent cause is the fact that life with a spouse can't be kept in some dreamlike ideal state. People have foibles and they will have conflicts with each other. In an adulterous situation, the spouse is seen in terms of his or her faults (realistic, if pessimistic), while the lover is seen in terms of his or her virtues (ideal, and naively optimistic). It's hard for the spouse to compete when someone starts thinking this way.
The tendency of people to map online correspondents onto their own romantic ideals exacerbates this problem greatly. It's easier to view someone as your ideal, therefore easier to get into an adulterous situation, and easy to rationalize it because real life sex is not taking place. The worst part is, the online adulterer doesn't really know if the online relationship could carry over into real life. So his/her existing marriage suffers for the sake of a relationship with someone who is far more a stranger than s/he imagines.
I'm pretty sure that in 20 or 30 years, parents will be explaining the oddities of online infatuation to their kids along with the birds and the bees. It will just become basic advice, which of course most kids will ignore initially until it bites them once, but at least after that they'll have a grounding to understand what's going on, whereas our generation is having to figure this stuff out as we go.
Matthew, Chapter 5:
27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Just a thought.