NPR: What really counts as “cheating?”

I listened to an NPR podcast recently that I felt raised objectionable views and felt compelled to speak out against it. The transcript is linked here: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5502845

I fear that victims of infidelity would come across this and so I feel compelled to speak against this particular podcast. There are a few key themes covered in this podcast, so I’ll lay out each of these and hope to debunk them.

Changing definitions of cheating

• Cheating has broadened from physical acts to include emotional bonds and minor intimacies, shaped by personal expectations and social norms.
• Many now count flirting, hand holding, and intense emotional attachment as cheating.
• This shift turns relationships into rule bound agreements, where breaches feel like breaking a contract rather than moments of uncontrollable desire.
• The use of definitions can narrow romance into checklists and compliance, where unmet needs equal violations, and nuance gets lost.

This cheating-is-broad-grey-area argument is problematic. Just because an activity lies on a spectrum (as do most activities), doesn’t mean that we should open ourselves up to accept it. 

Curiously, Jezer-Morton doesn’t take a clear stance on what she believes should happen, but instead laments the trend of boundary setting has resulted in “romance has been a little bit, like, sapped out”. There isn’t much to rebut, since she’s entitled to her own thoughts, but I will say it’s odd what she would talk about boundary-setting ruining romance. Doesn’t this acceptance of multiple forms of cheating spur the boundary setting and hence the declining trend of romance?

Luze touches on emotional cheating: Flirting, holding hands, and forming an intense emotional attachment with another person. She says this: “I am married very happily, and I’d have a problem with some of this if my husband did it, but I don’t think that I would consider all of these things to necessarily be cheating.”

Dig a little deeper and you will find that her comments lack substantiation. First, she acknowledges that whether to view something like that is cheating is subjective choice. She also acknowledges that she wouldn’t be fine if her own husband does this. This logically means that she would also be setting a boundary with her husband to inform him in advance to refrain from doing these things.

The hosts present contradictory positions, platitudes that sound reasonable at first glance until you really drill down into the “so-what”. Yet, the podcast format means that unless you look at the transcript, it really just eludes you how flawed the points made are.

While a relationship may be difficult with an absolutely prescriptive level of what can and cannot be done, setting boundaries should not be discouraged. Knowing what are each other’s red lines will help each party modify their actions so that they know what they can and cannot do without having to feel like they are walking on eggshells or inadvertently hurting their partner. As the podcasts hosts seem to discourage a healthy form of communication, I think it is important that we push back against such notions.

Red flag culture and cheating as abuse

• Some communities frame infidelity as abuse, seeking strong labels to match pain. Online discourse prizes quick red flag verdicts and prescriptive rules.
• This encourages expecting the worst, flattens messy human dynamics, and can make people exit rather than work through problems.

Jezer dismisses the label of abuse on cheating as “therapization of the self, which is like, I’ve been harmed. I’m in pain. Therefore, I must be able to accuse them of something. I must be able to apply a label to them that characterizes them as, like, fundamentally harmful.”

I cannot understand her point. If someone has caused you pain, surely you are well within your rights to call them out for it. Being stabbed causes pain, and I don’t see anything wrong with labelling that person an assaulter. Jezer also states that she’s not comfortable equating cheating with abuse, though she doesn’t provide any supporting elaboration. There’s really nothing for me to rebut, because she provides nothing but her own unsubstantiated opinion.

Keating chimes in by saying that “Conflict is not abuse”. It sounds reasonable, but one must wonder, what then is the line between conflict and abuse? Is a person slapping their spouse expressing themselves in conflict? If a partner picks up an STD from an affair partner and passes it to their spouse who is unaware, is this abuse? 

They bring up another tired perspective that cheating defies the notion of rigid labels, describing a spectrum of cheating.

“LUSE: But making out with someone drunk at the club is not exactly the same as maybe, like, your partner moving their way through seducing all of your friends and getting them to gaslight you about it. Like, those are not the same thing to me.”

It’s a fair comment but insufficiently addresses their attempted refutation on the notion that cheating is abuse. Again, being slapped by your drunk partner once is not exactly the same as maybe, like, your partner beating you with a tire iron. At the same time, I would consider any form of violence to be abusive.

Jezer then makes this statement: “There could be so many different negative dynamics that are going on that maybe a couple affairs weren’t the worst thing that ever happened to you, you know? I mean, there’s so many different ways that we as people can betray each other and let each other down.” Definitely true. Instead of a couple affairs, your partner could have had an affair throughout your relationship, while beating you with a tire iron.

Again though, Jezer isn’t saying much here. To illustrate the absurdity of this statement, being repeatedly beaten with a tire iron isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you, you know? Your partner could have ran you over with a car and gaslight you, while beating your paralysed body with a tire iron. Doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t leave somebody who is just beating you with a tire iron. To paraphrase Leo Tolstoy: All loyal partners are alike; each unfaithful partner is unfaithful in their own way. You can still call them unfaithful and abusive.

Cheating can vary in severity, and can also be considered as abusive – since by definition cheating would involve at least one of: gaslighting, potential spread of venereal disease, and withholding of information. These are not mutually exclusive concepts – it seems almost patent that any form of abuse will exist on a spectrum.

The hosts bring up the Chump Lady community and position it as a community that labels cheating as abuse. Unfortunately ,the hosts fail to consider the sizeable body of academic literature showing that cheating is abusive.

One piece of research has found that discovering your partner’s affair results in a higher chance of depression (Whisman, 2016). Another research links infidelity to post-traumatic stress and psychological health (Roos et al., 2019).

To say “conflict is not abuse” without defining the boundary is to dodge the question. If a partner deceives, gaslights, or exposes someone to disease, these actions go beyond ordinary conflict. At minimum, they can cause profound harm. The attempt to downplay that harm, or to argue over semantics, can compound the pain of those living with the aftermath.

Surveillance, privacy, and distrust

• Phone snooping, shared passcodes, and location tracking normalise mutual monitoring, where privacy is undervalued and trust erodes.
• Hypervigilance is reframed as care, yet it entrenches anxiety and tit for tat checking.
• Being a fool for love is stigmatised, being a simp is mocked, and risk taking in romance is recast as self betrayal.
• Attempts to eliminate uncertainty also drain romance of its spontaneity and tenderness.

It’s very very sad, I do agree, that people have to be on guard against cheating. I am also quick to point out that it is unhealthy for people to infringe on their partner’s privacy if the partner has not been found to have cheated before. In fact, I would argue that a person surreptitiously spying on their partner because of ungrounded suspicions of cheating is as abusive as a cheater.

That said, I can fully understand why people go to such lengths especially if they are aware of the risks. It’s a great pity that we have to install surveillance cameras around each corner to deter shoplifters. It does ruin the romantic charm of a city like London. That said, a society that does away with security cameras might instead be considered foolish.

The hosts make a few assumptions here, which I hope to unpack:

• Uncertainty in a relationship makes love beautiful and exciting and romantic – Perhaps, but given that cheating is a broad spectrum (also agreed by the hosts earlier), surely it makes sense to state upfront what is acceptable and what is not?
• If you want to experience love, you will suffer – very bold proclamation, but not supported in any way. There is no support for this statement, yet it remains pivotal in the host’s thesis. 

It befuddles me what these folks are hoping to arise as the implication of their words. They maintain that you should allow for some room to get hurt in a relationship, and that it is inevitable that you will be hurt. Yet, they also maintain that you should acknowledge that such hurt lies on a spectrum and downplay the hurt faced. Are we hence destined to suffer, regardless, and can only embrace it? Such defeatism doesn’t seem like a healthy lens through which we view relationships.

The more sensible approach is to agree boundaries in advance: what level of openness feels fair, what counts as unacceptable intrusion. Monitoring of personal devices should only come into play when trying to reconcile after cheating.

Social media amplification and public judgement: Tea App

• Personal grievances can be publicised instantly, drawing crowds who affirm the poster and condemn the partner.
• This reduces the space for private repair, grace, and long term perspective, and raises the stakes of ordinary mistakes.
• The Tea app is a cheat-catching app pitched as a safety tool for women, essentially a formalised whisper network, raises concerns about public shaming, mislabelling, and fuelling suspicion.
• Reflects and amplifies an obsession with infidelity stories, where catching out cheaters becomes a cultural pastime.

I agree with the harms of a anonymous doxxing app. I’m definitely not a fan of the Tea App. Even as I’m resolutely opposed to cheating, I would never support the facilitation of an anonymous accusation of someone who cannot defend themselves against slander.

However, as long as someone is willing to describe the situation anonymously, or put their name to the publicised grievance, and allow themselves to be sued for defamation if they are lying, I see nothing wrong with sharing about the pain. That’s what people go to therapy for, though not everyone can pay for it. It’s a fallacy to say that those who spread their story want everyone to agree with you; many simply want to seek a perspective. 

I think it’s particularly galling how they talk about the “presumption of privacy” or the “trust that you’ll be able to work something out with your partner directly and figure it out and give each other grace for tough stuff”. This sounds awfully like the boundaries they were railing against earlier for the lack of romance. Furthermore, it holds the victims of infidelity to a high standard of morality, while seemingly excusing the cheater. Not only are the cheaters not held accountable for breaking the trust on monogamy, but their partners are then shamed for violating their privacy in a bid to recover from the betrayal.

Conclusion

I really regret writing out this piece. Many times, I write as a way to think and process (Paul Graham style!). When I saw that this was an NPR-piece and the hosts sounded pretty glib, I had thought the arguments would at least have some logical flow.

Unfortunately, only upon investing a couple hours of writing this, do I realise that there are multiple inherent contradictions within this piece. The central theses of the hosts also sit on pillars of sand; comprised of statements that sound axiomatic but are often unjustified sweeping assertions.

What disappointed me most about this podcast is that it dressed contradictions and vague platitudes as insight. At one moment the hosts caution against rigid boundaries, at another they scold people for not trusting their partners enough. The net effect is to suggest that if you have been cheated on, you should tolerate the pain quietly, accept that “hurt is inevitable”, and avoid holding anyone to account.

That message is harmful. Victims of infidelity should not be made to feel that their hurt is excessive or their boundaries unreasonable. It is perfectly fair to set clear lines, to leave when those lines are crossed, and to seek support without shame.

Infidelity is not a trivial lapse. It leaves real scars. Any conversation that blurs or minimises that truth risks doing more harm than good.

Citations

1. Roos LG, O’Connor V, Canevello A, Bennett JM. Post-traumatic stress and psychological health following infidelity in unmarried young adults. Stress Health. 2019 Oct;35(4):468-479. doi: 10.1002/smi.2880. Epub 2019 Jul 26. PMID: 31199042.
2. Whisman MA. Discovery of a Partner Affair and Major Depressive Episode in a Probability Sample of Married or Cohabiting Adults. Fam Process. 2016 Dec;55(4):713-723. doi: 10.1111/famp.12185. Epub 2015 Oct 30. PMID: 26519354; PMCID: PMC4919212.