Automatic scape-goating

One of the things I hear quite often in regards to non-monogamous relationships is how a particular person can't get involved because they don't like cheating.

Someone unwilling to aid and abet cheating is someone to be applauded. On the other hand, attributing such a term on anyone in a dynamic of being involved with more than one other person tends to not only be inaccurate, but slanderous.

The definition of "cheating" as listed by Webster's is:

transitive verb
1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>
intransitive verb
1 a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>
2 : to be sexually unfaithful -- usually used with on cheating on his wife>
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area cheating toward second base>

Assuming that an adult person is conducting themselves by the agreements and rules of their relationship, there are no actions or statements counter to the spirit of the relationship they have entered, let's tackle the definition point by point.

To deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud. Given the situation listed above, everything is out in the open and above board; therefore there is no deceit or fraud.
To influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice. Again, everyone is informed, thus this condition is not met.
To elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting. That would imply there was some sort of gamesmanship going on. Since looking for loopholes or exploiting a grey area would tend to breach the spirit of the relationship sketched above, this definition also does not apply.
To practice fraud or trickery, to violate rules dishonestly. Nope, specifically addressed prior. Not relevant.
To be sexually unfaithful. Since "unfaithful" is defined as "not adhering to vows, allegiance, or duty" from the same source I used earlier and since it was stipulated that there was no deviation from the vows, allegiance, or duty, this point is consequently irrelevant.
To position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area. I would state that however humorous it may strike a given person, relationships are not a sport thus rendering this point of definition as not pertinent to the context.

Alright, so where does that leave us in the application of "cheating" to those participating in a responsible non-monogamous relationship? It doesn't. There is no cheating so any statement terming or describing the actions of those involved in the relationship described above would be defamatory and prejudicial. It would be like saying that anyone who owns a dog or cat practices bestiality. The presumption that anything that is not monogamous is cheating takes a high degree of liberty in assuming facts which are not in evidence. It's bloody rude.

None of this is to say that one has to be into open relationships. Some folks have enough on their plate just concentrating on one partner. There are those that find even that to be too many people involved.

The point is that instead of maligning the characters of people involved in relationship automatically because it's not something that is personally comfortable or realistic, you should state it as such. Far better to be honest in your dealings than commit an unfounded attack upon another and their loved ones.

People have enough problems trying to keep their relationships happy and healthy without aspersions being cast from the sidelines.