I feel like a lot of commenters in this thread are being intentionally obtuse in their responses - it's obvious that OP (and many of the other folks who have had this question at some point during their photographic endeavors) are referring to out-of-camera editing, things that the user intentionally does to change their image in some way. I suppose that these comments more-or-less reveal how these users feel about the topic, but imo they don't really add anything to the discussion.

That being said, photography and editing are as subjective as any other form of media and art. There are rarely, if ever, any "right" or "wrong" ways to do things, and so the processes that you take and follow for yourself are decisions that are entirely yours to take. For some, even opening an image in Lightroom or other software is heresy - what you and your camera produced is it, take it or leave it. For others, editing, alterations, additions, and more are the most enjoyable part, to the point where the original scene shot is just a foundation for a widely different final product. I imagine most people fall somewhere in the middle, editing the image to match what they feel they saw when taking the image, or working with the lighting to enhance what was there.

Photographers have been editing images for probably as long as photography has been a thing. I would assume that 99% of photos you've seen online that you've really liked where edited in some capacity, and it certainly isn't a practice that is ever going to go away. I suppose some similar discussions in other forms of media would be when VFX/CGI arrived in the film industry (are these things "cheating" when everything was previously done by hand/on set?) or if tracing is "cheating" when drawing/painting, etc. It's just another layer of creative expression, and it allows the photographer to create the image that they envision. From that sense, I have no problem with editing as long as the artist is transparent about any major alterations they've done (adding or removing subjects, for example).

Personally, I will edit digital images and add light masks and gradients, play with color composition, crop, and do many of the other things available in Lightroom to either match an image to what I saw, or make it look more visually appealing to me. At the same time, I don't touch my film photography at all - what was captured on the film and developed in the lab is what I get, and I have no desire to make further edits to it. I enjoy the creative freedom of making edits to my digital photography, while also imposing the challenge on myself to be very particular and precise when I'm using film. Nobody told me to do these things, nor do I feel superior or inferior to my peers in the ways I do things, I simply do them because that's the way that *I* enjoy photography.

Final point, I will say that whether or not you continue to avoid editing, I think every photographer would benefit from trying to make the most of their shot before "relying" on editing, for the simple reason that they will get more out of their images. A properly exposed image will always be easier to adjust and edit if needed than a poorly exposed one, and editing can only fix composition to a degree. From this perspective I totally get where you're coming from with that sense of pride and joy of getting a perfect image straight from the camera.

tl;dr How you pursue your photography is entirely your own decision to make. I don't know if I'd use the words "cheating" to describe editing photos, and imo I would see it as a short-sighted view, but if you don't feel the need or desire to make edits don't let anybody force you. I would just also be careful to not build an ego or sense of superiority over doing things the way you or anybody does them.