Actually, a woman following a vaginal delivery without some horrendous complications can have sex within a couple of days of giving birth. I had intercourse probably on day 3, after a homebirth. That this myth of lack of safety of intercourse following a vaginal delivery is perpetuated is rather sad.

It is true that a Cesarean section is a major surgery and the post-op after a C-section includes a great many restrictions, and one of them is not having sex. But for normal delivery, sex after birth is like sex during a menstrual period - there is blood flowing, but it is OK. Prohibiting sex for 6 weeks postpartum as a RULE - not as an exception for post-C-section recovery or recovery after a complicated birth with tears or what not or maybe episiotomy which unfortunately is practiced all too widely still - is a practice in hospitals to avoid liability. The only thing that is special about the 6-weeks postpartum mark is that for the most part the blood is gone and the uterus is almost back to the pre-pregnancy size. For that reason, the placement of IUD (coils) post-birth is timed to that 6 weeks postpartum mark. But having intercourse does not involve the insertion of a coil into the uterus so those requirements of having the uterus fully contract need not be met for the intercourse to occur safely.

Another reason, besides liability, for that 6 week prohibition probably (I am not positive, but given the history of childbirth and childrearing in America, it is a likely hypothesis) is that when this prohibition was thought up, women habitually bottle-fed. Thus, their uteri did not contract normally after the birth. Women are not "designed" to bottle feed and their bodies/uteri are not "designed" to go through the post-partum period without nursing. Nursing on the nipple causes the uterus to contract. Each suckling motion initiates a contraction. If an infant is nursed on cue (and for many infants this means round the clock...), he causes such powerful contractions of his mom's womb that the lochia (postpartum blood) very quickly get expelled. If a woman does not nurse, that mechanism is not set in motion, and the uterus would take MUCH longer to return to the original size. When that 6-wk-postpartum prohibition was established, possibly again, the OB-GYNS habitually saw bottlefeeding women and simply did not have a first hand knowledge of how the postpartum period NORMALLY should unfold.

The 6-wk postpartum prohibition on sex as a rule (as opposed to some high risk scenarios) is an epitome of stupidity, because little babies sleep a lot and do not crawl. They also do not turn over. They also do not yet have a tendency to put interesting small objects into their mouths. They sleep a lot. Those qualities of tiny babies make the period of early infancy perfect for 2 things:

- air travel (traveling with a 1 month baby is a breeze compared to traveling with a 11 month baby bent on exploring)
- sex

So basically this unwarranted advice causes marital trouble, because when things are easy, sex is prohibited, and when sex is allowed, babies start being more demanding and things are no longer easy.

This long write-up is more for OP - OP, I think that your wife is simply not in good hands in terms of her prenatal care. It sometimes happens that women shun sex during pregnancy, but it does not HAVE to happen. Same for postpartum. Maybe she should read some books that present pregnancy as a normal stage in a woman's life and not a medical condition, or at least think about how peasant women gave birth in the past. They worked in the fields during pregnancies and shortly after birth, too - nobody tiptoed around them during their pregnancies.

As for your plan to tell her what you have been doing only after the birth, I think it is wise - she does not need extra stress now. I do not know if she cares; from what you are describing, she likely does not care, but still, you never know - people differ so much in that respect. Plus, if she decided not to have sex while pregnant EVEN THOUGH she used to have a high sex drive, something in her head must have changed profoundly. She seems to be operating in a crisis mode rather than breezing through pregnancy with delight. In a crisis mode, she does not need more crises, right? Your telling her MIGHT (or might not, but better be safe now) become another crisis for her.

Overall, the most striking part of your account is how dispassionate it is. You describe things rationally fine - prefer not to have a double life, like this but also like that, wife had a high sex drive fine, wife has no sex drive now fine, this way fine, that way fine, whatever. The only mention of her pregnancy is in connection with her not having sex. You show no emotion (negative or positive) on account of the upcoming birth; you do not report attempts to have non-vaginal sex with wife (as would have been reasonable as the first thing to try before abandoning the idea of continuing to have sex with her altogether, but you did not even think about "workarounds"); keep living with her fine, splitting up with her fine, no mention of whether you plan to parent the baby if you split up...

... frankly, it is kind of boring and repetitive:

1) OK, she cannot have sex now so I will have sex with this guy.
2) Oh, she is ready to go back in bed, bye-bye that other guy because I prefer monogamy.
3) Oh, she is pregnant again... I hope she does not go back to her ways of abstaining while pregnant, but I won't tell her that I want her to continue having sex with me - why would I bother when I can just watch things unfold and act accordingly (go back to (1) above).

It is almost as if the people you are describing were almost interchangeable; almost without their own will, passions, desires, insecurities, preferences, fears, and the rest of the stuff that makes people unique humans.

Also, it is almost as if you were resigned to just let life happen to you. Pregnant? Parents wanted you to marry? Sure thing. Something is not working out? You defect because why would you try to solve puzzles and clean up messes?

You are taking the path of least resistance, to sum up. It may be convenient, but ultimately it is a waste of life, I would have thought.

PS I do not mean to say that you are an amoeba. You do talk about PREFERENCES - e.g. you prefer monogamous sex with high frequency, and a lot of women would like that preference of yours while yet many others would not. But it is so... tepid. So-so. Nothing strong. Yeah, this way is much better than that way, but not to the point of your passionately fighting to get it the way you like.

So you are dispassionate, just with weak druthers, but without a passion. Have you always been like that, just going with the flow?

I am thinking that sex with strangers has figured out so prominently in your life because people you describe appear interchangeable. As long as it is a human, you do not really mind having sex with him or her. If the same person sticks around, all the better - it is simpler this way anyway (no complex logistics, streamlined reliable processes), but if not, it is OK, too. I know that now you are having sex with a man and like him physically, but I know nothing at all about who he is. The wife - you mentioned only the high sex drive before and no during pregnancy and the situation with her parents. Who is she? You did not describe her. No quirks, no character... like an automaton. What drew you too close? You say that you always use protection with sex, but she is pregnant, so you must have deliberately made her pregnant (the failure rate of condoms in skilled hands is very low, and your hands ought to be skilled ). Why did you deliberately make her pregnant? And why now that she is pregnant you say absolutely nothing about the baby who will arrive. And you do not care if you stay together. So what was going on in your mind when you were making her pregnant? You also write so coldly and rationally that it is hard to imagine you doing anything compulsive or under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

SO WHY DID YOU DELIBERATELY MAKE HER PREGNANT?