Is it cheating if it follows the local rules?

No, I’m not talking about the “California Stop Sign”—a joke applied mostly to metro areas rather than whole states, referring to the white line around the sign as signifying that it’s conditional: this sign only applies when there’s a traffic cop around.

I’m talking about infidelity. And the most eye-catching title I’ve seen in weeks: Lust in Translation The Rules of Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee

And it’s ostensibly non-fiction.

Reuters has a fluff piece about the book. The New York Times panned it, while admitting it was entertaining. (Registration-required link) Amazon reviewers were split.

What is this book? A geographical review of modern infidelity. Oh, come on. Tell me you’re not intrigued!

Me, I was interested for professional reasons (too), after a recent CFS listed “cheating” as a whole sub-genre. That venue publishes what might generously be called stroke fiction—she says while trying to decide which of her unsold pieces they might buy! . Certainly not the sort of place to pitch the romance with no sex until the third act, or the fetish fiction with half a book’s worth of build-up before there’s any physical contact at all. But, still, I should have a couple of shorts to suit their needs, right?

Um. In other categories. Because I’ve never considered cheating a good thing. Makes it hard to write, y’know? Actually, just seeing that item listed has made it hard to write the past few days. Picture me: Cheating as erotic? How would one write that? Give me examples! Oh. Ick. This...people get off on this? But they’re cheating!

Etc.

Now, I distinguish between open relationships and cheating. Hey, that’s between you and your significant other(s). But infidelity? To me, that’s the stuff done without the knowledge or consent of your partner(s), and it’s a bad thing. Which, says Lust’s author, is a very American attitude.

First time in a long time I’ve been a member of the local mainstream!

I feel sort of silly posting anything about a book I haven’t read, but perhaps I needed to vent a little about that CFS. It’s not often I wince away from any area of sexual exploration, and this might be the first time a simple list-item has gotten under my skin, but it did. Which might seem a little funny to folks who routinely complain that I don’t use a second pen name for my non-romantic pieces. “And why do you have to write that stuff anyways?” goes the plaint.

Because. Which is probably what some of those people Druckerman spoke to said, when asked why they stray. (The least loaded term I could think of!) Because something intrigued me. Because I was bored. Because it was there...

As I said, I haven’t read Lust in Translation yet. Can’t say I’m all that likely to, based on those reviews—I tend to prefer my social science to have a more rigid methodology than this seems to have—but now that I’m aware of the title, I’ll be on the lookout for it. So if I happen to stumble upon a copy...

Oh, dear. Is that a cheater’s mentality?