Sex outside marriage

Interesting post Hamster.... and I was just trying to point out the fact on your original comment of the movie, you are only mentioning the 'good' part of the movie, saying that it's ok because the wife is the only one to stay in bed at night. The movie is very complex, wonderfully dark, and has more layers. So that's why I wrote a bit about the 'down side', and how we can take anything we like and use it to suit our situation - like you did.

It's a total myth. It's a lie, it's stereotyping, which is ignorant. Please stop taking references from tinseltown, some ramblings on the internet or novels otherwise I will have some stereotypes of American people of my own! Having affairs is just as damaging and frowned upon here in Europe as it is in America. Have a look at the book 'Lust in translation' - I know you like to read well Hamster, I may even get it myself - looks like a good read.

In Britain alone for example, we've had high-powered people who have had affairs who have then lost their position of power. For just an example, as an ex member of the press, I myself worked for a month on a story with one powerful MP who was at the top of the food chain who was having an affair with a married woman. He fathered a kid, and he then lost his job after it hit the paper because cheating is frowned upon. And he was single! The papers run scandals all the time with powerful people cheating, it is so frowned upon. They lose their jobs because they preach the importance of family values and honesty when they, themselves are being anything but and are considered untrustworthy - at best. Britain is not alone in this kind of reaction - the only real one I can think of that is different is Italy's PM, when the affairs hit the press, he did not leave, but that's not because of the thoughts of the Italian people (they disapproved), but more because he pretty much owned the press and culled stories. He's on his way down now tho, at last.

And even as youngsters, the difference in America when people date - in the UK we do not even have the 'exclusive dating' issue. When we date someone, they are and are expected to be the only person. We do not multiple date, and even when things are not serious, any other dating, esp if involves sex, is considered cheating.

Sure, there are parts in the world where it's ok to have multiple partners, or should I say women or where polygamy is legal. But there is very little difference in Europe and America and values are the same. Cheating is not acceptable. I would take a few tentative steps to say that perhaps the difference is Europeans do not go to therapy etc over it, couples therapy, although available is not widely used. I'd say in the UK we tend to just leave our partners, quietly. Sure hurts the same tho..?

I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. How does love and honour have anything to do with who you have sex with? (The obey part of the vows should just be taken out entirely. Marriage does not constitute submitting yourself as a slave)

I completely agree. Sex is simply a human biological need. It's like eating food. Yes, eating a meal with your partner can be a very romantic and fulfilling way to spend time together. However, what is the problem if I decide to eat a meal with someone else now and then? Some people are intent on making sex the center of the relationship and if one partner has sex with someone else, the whole relationship is fouled. What utter nonsense!

For many people, you're quite correct.

I can only speak for myself, but sex for me is a very emotional connection, the most emotional connection I can ever give. So if having sex with me is the same as sex with Dexter La Jock down the street or eating dinner then it's best we go our separate ways. We wouldn't be sharing a relationship and I've got better things to do like breathe and drink water.

Now is it the center of the relationship? No. It's one part of the relationship for me and the most delicate part. It all really just comes down to how different people view that act.

You have to be a wind-up High Treason.

And please do not get married. Ever. There is no point in you getting married with this attitude? I hope too that you have an open relationship from the off - so she can agree upfront. You would be more suited to have lived 200+ years ago with your attitude towards marriage, (and from your other posts about not knowing how to date, just having hook-ups from bars etc) and I guess too that you'd never be man enough to be upfront, with your own admission of not letting a girl know where you are etc and being sneaky.

Marriage is, in our societies, is now a union - an equal union. If you stray, and want to stray, you owe it to your wife to tell her the truth and let her decide if she wants to accept your extra relationships or let you go. If not open and honest with your wife about this or anything else important, you are taking away her power to choose what she wants in this relationship as well, and that really isn't what being in a marriage is about. Anything less makes a mockery of your wedding vows, and shows very little regard to your wife, and just shows selfishness. Not a great quality in anyone.

Oh, we have it here a lot, in the US, but the issue is not cheating - the issue is the duplicity. Such people, I agree, should lose positions of power because they preach something they do not live. If a politician is engaged in his or her work and strictly that, and does not preach family values and all of that, I do not think that his private life should even come into the spotlight. Say, Clinton, I think, should have been left alone because he minded his own business - I do not recall him preaching. He minded his own business and I, as a member of the general public, should not have been made aware of that business as it was not relevant to his duties as the President.

But those guys who preach and then get caught with escorts - sure those deserve to lose power and be the object of public ridicule. Not for hiring escorts, but for double-dealing.

Yes, as I already said, but they also lose the respect of the people, not just because of the hypocrisy. Cheating is frowned upon, and also they are mocked. People do like a scandal! But famous people aside, Europe is not the capital of mistresses.

I have deep doubts that if people like a good scandal, that they do deep down lose the respect for the scandal-providers. The scandal generators must be filling some role in society. But I in general find it unsettling that people like scandals. Say, I do not follow famous people, but I do stare at the tabloid covers when I wait in line for my groceries (I do not know about London but we have glossy magazines, women's magazines, and tabloids stuck right in front of us near the checkout lines at grocery stores, so that has been my window into the world of famous people), and see headlines such as "he cheated on X with their kids' babysitter", and a picture of a distraught woman, I wonder - why do I have to learn of it? Why do people enjoy reading about it? Public humiliation is eye candy? Why do they have their fix of gossip at the expense of this woman? Or is it a clever promotion - an attempt to revive a flagging "rating" of that celebrity? I dunno.

My only problem with Clinton's affair was him saying to the public, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Okay, at that point he lied to all of us. If he had fessed up, my reaction would have been that it was between him and his wife. But don't lie to the world about it. That was my problem with the situation.

I see you're advocating having sex outside marriage again and playing verbal ping pong. Didn't you say enough on your other thread bashing monogamy? Who made you the relationship expert and invalidating those who've been hurt by cheating. Having sex outside a monogamous agreement can't be compared to food. Sharing a meal with a person, isn't the same as sharing body parts/fluids. The wife becomes the maid who washes stained underwear and cleans the house.....while the cheater gets the best of both worlds.

You can't tell this OPer to go ahead and do this. What if his wife finds out and becomes terribly depressed and ends her life. What if she flips and does something violent. Stick to your polyamorous perfect life.

To the OP, if you have no problem being a deceitful, untrustworthy husband, I will not attempt to tell you to stay faithful. I will say this though. I wish you would stop being a bloody coward and tell your wife the truth. Tell her you're miserable, you need sex to survive and that this marriage is now killing you slowly. You're a grown man, I suggest you act like one, instead of frantically avoiding consequences like a 5 yr old would.

Man up.

@lynn; LOL LOL LOL! I can't see HT's posts (by choice) but I see the quotes

Well you see if my boyfriend was having dinner with another women but not sex... I would then have to question why des he want to spend his time and money on her and not me! I am ok about having our own space because I hang out with guys I know from work. I invite him to join but if he can't I don't see a reason why to have to cancel. I give him the same freedoms he gives me. Plus, having a meal at which you fully intent to have sex after isn't just acing a meal with another woman.

This makes me think of you being like my ex husband! He would say things like this and how his world didn't have to evolve around mine. Which I would answer with "no but we have meet at least somewhere in them"

I think he should have been asked in the first place. He does not owe a duty of disclosure to me (I use myself as an example of a member of the general public). I think the society that believes that such questions that are private in nature can be asked of public figures is at fault, so in my book he did nothing bad. You are saying "fessed up" as if he had owed a duty of disclosure to ME - he did not. I never ask about politicians' private lives and nobody owes the duty of disclosure to ME (again, using myself as an example of a member of the general public). he minds his own business and I mind my own business, and he can deal with the issues that I or most other people who elected him are not equipped to deal with (think domestic and foreign policy), then great, and I am only interested in his record of dealing with those issues. So I needed to be informed of what was going on in Yugoslavia, sure, but not of his private dealings with women. Unless of course he'd rape someone - that is criminal. But private encounters with consenting adults are not my business.

the only exception I make is for people who actually preach "values" to the public - those deserve being mocked when caught. Since Clinton was not known for that, and was, kind of, trying to deal with domestic and foreign policy as per his call of duty, he does not fall into that bucket, in my book.

That tax payers' money was wasted on investigating his private affairs was really sad. And we have homeless people living in the streets. But we spend taxpayers' money asking Clinton about his private life. So, it follows, that this society cares about blow jobs more than it cares to help its homeless members. That is good to know.

To me, what he said should be translated as "**** off and do not ask me questions that probe into my private life because you have no right to do so."

With which I fully agree.

It is unfortunate that he said it the way he did, and not directly as "**** off", but - he probably said whatever his damage control / PR team came up with for him to say. The damage control team probably investigated the state of public opinion and made the judgment that that thing was the best thing to say. So he complied with their recommendation, probably.

I was referring more so to 'kept women' of the wealthy and powerful, at a historical level. Certainly, not thinking of movies, or anything of a fictitious nature.
Royal Mistresses, do afford these privileges that I refer to. And that's not to say that the Legal Husband and Wife, actually share a bed.

Believe me, I've given lots of thoughts to what is a Mistress. What is a side Lover. And how on Earth can one morally work through such a proposition?

I'll say one thing, I couldn't stand by and play second fiddle. And I certainly, wouldn't stand by and exist in an intimate-free relationship either.

If you are going to stop sleeping with you husband, then honest to goodness, expect he's going to look elsewhere!
Mistress (lover) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia>>Historically the term has denoted a "kept woman", who was maintained in a comfortable (or even lavish) lifestyle by a wealthy man so that she will be available for his sexual pleasure. Such a woman could move between the roles of a mistress and a courtesan depending on her situation and environment. In modern times, however, the word "mistress" is used primarily to refer to the female lover of a man who is married to another woman; in the case of an unmarried man, it is usual to speak of a "girlfriend" or "partner." Historically, a man "kept" a mistress. As the term implies, he was responsible for her debts and provided for her in much the same way as he did his wife, although not legally bound to do so. In more recent times, it is more likely that the mistress has a job of her own, and is less, if at all, financially dependent on the man.[4]<<

I think you'll find that gossip and the love of a scandal is as old as the hills. It's a way to bond, make alliances, share information (correct or incorrect). We still do it now on a local and grand scale, the woman at number 23 who left her husband, the child who looks like it's been neglected.. whatever. Scandals are just gossip.. think how people in the past have shared a common gossip. Watergate scandal, Iran-Contra Scandal and of course, Clinton. You personally may find nothing interesting in these scandals, and that's absolutely fine, and good on you, but proof is there that a lot of people do find these things interesting. Sorry Hamster, but gossip and scandal are human traits.

By the way, I am with you somewhat.. the reason I gave up press work is because I got tired of celebrity. When I first started, I did proper press work, covering news stories... and now the thirst for celeb stuff is so very great, that the papers cover more and more. It is supply and demand am afraid, and it's what sells. I may not like it, but I can't deny it.

Edited to add: And I think those people in power and influence should live with decent morals. It's an extra responsibility they take on when they take on the job.

Honest, goodness. Not the right words?!
Does the reason why sex has stopped carry any importance? She's finds it too painful, no fault of her own. This is the only issue - it's not rejection. Does in sickness and in health mean nothing?

I completely agree, with Obey in Marriage. It opens up so many aspects of what can go wrong. When we neglect to uphold the Honour portion of the marital vows, does anyone really win?? Sure, one can get their 'rocks off' (men or women), but does anyone really win here?!

Honour, on the other hand.
Dr Samuel Johnson, in his A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), defined honour as having several senses, the first of which was "nobility of soul, magnanimity, and a scorn of meanness." Honour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnanimity comes to play in the notion of Honour.

Noah Webster of the American Language defines Magnanimity as such:

MAGNANIMITY, n. [L. magnanimitas; magnus, great, and animus, mind.] Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnanimity

It does mean something!! If the woman is sick, and for whatever reason, cannot accept sexual relations, then, obviously, there are other means to bring intimacy back to the relationship.

Some people withhold sex, in a manipulative way. Those are the ones, that should expect a man or a woman, to look to leave the relationship, one way or the other.

I agree with you. LarSo mentioned AFFORDING - not FINDING but AFFORDING more women partners. So that is squarely within the framework of a more powerful, wealthy man having side relations.

Such language is actually quite unusual these days, but I do appreciate LarSo's frankness with which he used this language.

Hey... something just popped up in my memory .

So I went to this party in 1995, in America, and the Americans at the party (all academics) were gossiping about the Brit who engaged an American prostitute in LA! I do not remember his name, or his girlfriend's name, but the girlfriend was a spokeswoman for one of the couturier companies. Was on perfume ads. One of the older, major couturier companies. On the tip of my tongue! Who was this guy? It was a big enough scandal!

At any rate, I must say that Americans at the party took great pleasure in discussing the little indiscretions of an iconic Brit. And I remember how they looked - both the British actor and his British gf. I just do not remember the names.



Speaking of Americans and Brits .

I get a chuckle that a more powerful, wealthy man(or woman) can 'afford' outside relations, but cannot 'afford' to just end the vows?!

I very much do not think so. I would rather they actually do the job.

Example - I am not following politics, but I happen upon a random piece here and there. So, Obama talks about faith. How faith inspires and even INFORMS his decision making. Public prayers. And all of that.

To me it is horrifying. Jimmy Carter was known for his religiosity but he kept it PRIVATE. PRIVATE!!! Hello, ever heard of separation of church and state???

just a blurb from Wikipedia:

"In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

Obama went to Harvard Law School - did he somehow skip the notion of separation of church and state? He did graduate fine, so I would expect him to know the basic foundation of American society. It is 2013 - how many years since 1797? So it is not some kind of a NEW thing yet to be tried - it is a cornerstone of American political system. And we have public prayers. OMG. And faith informs his decisions - how about that? Faith informs his decisions. INFORMS. I would much prefer that he base his decisions on something a bit more rational.

Of course, I do realize that he is doing all of that to win public appeal, so I am not exactly faulting him, but for me blow jobs in the White House are way better than public prayers. Way better. Plus, I actually liked Monika - I did not care for all the other women that were implicated as being sexually connected with Clinton, but I did like Monika. So I am cool with that. But hate public prayers. Also, it does not say anywhere IN WRITING that the president of the united states should not have relations with interns, but it very much says IN WRITING that we have separation of church and state here, so they all should pray in private away from the public eye. It is fine with me, I am fine with all faiths, but people should do all of that stuff in private.

Let's be completely honest here. I'm willing to bet that OP's wife's problem is solvable, but that she is just unwilling to take the effort to solve it. This is what is most often the case. I won't go so far as to say that her vaginal dryness is only an excuse not to have sex, but if she wanted to have sex, she would figure out a way to fix the problem. Humans are natural problem solvers. In fact it's pretty much the only thing we do better than other animals. The fact that this problem has persisted this long is a testament to the fact that she likely is not trying that hard to fix it.

Hey HT - I think you're on to something.... A totally free society - we just let the beast in us out .. why even wear clothes? Like these Bonobo Chimps - feel the urge? Just grab you someone & get to humpin,....