Fidelity

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well, is vagina that important? If you're married and love the other one, you can always go and spank the monkey. That's what you should do, if it doesn't work, then learn to do it properly.

Good answer-- In theory, I agree but I wonder how many people could keep that resolve for 40 or 50 years

[Sava]

I think the amount of time we have been together would be a factor. In Meldor's situation, I would undoubtedly stay.

[Q Classic]

there's no reason to seek love outside of the current relationship if it is working flawlessly on an emotional level.

i can't imagine having an affair. as for sex, well, that's what the the five sisters are for.

[Skanky Burns]

Stay, but possibly outsource the sex part of the relationship. With her permission.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Flubber
In the poll question, consider it only intercourse that is not possible but tell me, does it change your answer if NO sexual intimacy is possible-- ( any number of degenerative diseases, paralysis. burn victim etc)

I don't think it does, no. But then I think that infidelity isn't infidelity if you agree that's within the boundaries of your relationship, and I don't see why alternative groupings other than just two people aren't valid assuming everyone involved is happy with the situation.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I'm unattached at the moment.

But if my future wife got hurt and couldn't have sex, the last thing I'd think about is leaving or screwing around.

I'm attached and I can understand never leaving but are you telling me that the THOUGHT of another woman would NEVER occurr to you as the years slipped past. ten years, twenty years . . . Admit it, the thought will occurr even if you have no serious intention to act

I would hope to be strong enough, its just I see so much infidelity among people when both parties are healthy and presuamably sexually willing. Is it realistic to think you can last years.

Perhaps the trauma of a striken SO removes all sexual thoughts and makes it less likely that someone will cheat as opposed to a healthy couple ?

[Pekka]

Flubber, that I don't know.. But it is not necessary for you to live normally, you can release the pressure yourself but naturally it gets kind of not interesting.
I don't know how many people can do it, or how many people can't do it, but I think that should be the hypothesis and square one to start from.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MikeH


I don't think it does, no. But then I think that infidelity isn't infidelity if you agree that's within the boundaries of your relationship, and I don't see why alternative groupings other than just two people aren't valid assuming everyone involved is happy with the situation.

Thats why I looked at cheating as intimate contact with another without the consent of your partner. If everyone is happy with multiple partner groupings then I guess consent is there and we have no issue.

Mrs Flubber and I could never consider an " open marriage" or swinging . . its just not our relationship. I was just curious as to how people feel on the fidelity issue when presented with an extreme test.

[Pekka]

But humans are greedy animals sometimes. IMO it's not an excuse for most mistakes, but that's the way it is sometimes.

For example: You see your best friend in trouble, and he/she is going to die. You are the only one who can help him/her. But you have to make a long leap to do it, and you're definitely NOT sure if you can make it, and if you fail, you'll die yourself. But, there is a chance that you'll make it and you figure you can do it, but you can't afford any mistakes and you need just a little bit of luck as well. What are you going to do? You can't call for help, you have to act in few minutes. Most people would think a little bit, maybe 30 seconds or more, but they'd go for it and try to rescue their buddy. At least that's what I believe and I'd like to believe.

Now, there's the same situation, but the leap is little bit longer, but there's kazillion trillion dollars hanging there instead your buddy. You think 10 seconds and risk it. Because you're greedy bastard.

If you're married, you have more time to think and rationalize if you should go and have sex with someone else. Assuming you're greedy bastard, you still have the time to think it over many times. You should rationalize it through, and think 'hmm.. I could go and have sex, but how can I live afterwards with myself and look my wife in the eyes, is it worth the guilt and the wrong?'. Guys, no ***** is worth that. No *****.

[Flubber]

The early voting is interesting to me-- I am a little suprised at the high proportion of faithful forevers ( higher than most statistics I have seen about how many people remain faithful generally) and that NOBODY thus far thinks they would cheat, knowing it was wrong and feel bad about it. I figured on the minority of " dump her" replies, likely coming from those in shorter term or less stable relationships.

I would like to think I would stay faithful forever. Fidelity has NEVER been a problem for me in the past. Its a simple issue for me. But thinking over the scenario and considering one example I have seen at a distance, I question the absolutism of my views-- On the flip side, being a happier husband can by itself be no valid excuse, otherwise it would be "right" for husbands everywhere to be bonking anyone that made them happy. IN all honesty, I would be in the stay faithful column, unable to raise the issue and fearing that I would cheat while knowing it was wrong.

To the "stay faithful forever" voters, I want to make the example harder-- your partner is in a coma for years-- it is possible but very unlikely they will ever recover. Death has not parted you, yet. Would you be as sure that you would maintain your vows in that case ? ( Note, if you are a "sex only in marriage" person, falling in love is just another form of cheating.)

This example is harder since it isn't just about sex-- you have lost companionship, emotional intimacy, best friend . . . everything that made your relationship.

I wonder where most people fall on this . .. I know widows and widowers that can't imagine themselves with anyone else ( physically or emotionally) after 15 years alone. Obviously everyone is different

[FrustratedPoet]

Faithful forever. Otherwise what's the point?

If I wanted or needed to **** other women I wouldn't be in a long-term relationship at all.

[Pekka]

Sure love and marriage needs good sex too, but if you can't have sex because the other one is unable.. then you having sex with someone else is not about love because that's is supposed to be between you and your partner. And if you love enough, then you won't have sex with others either.

If you dump her, then you don't love her. Sure, the sick one can say 'I love you so much that I let you go because I want you to be happy'.. but that's BS. So she loves you, but you don't love her, because you let yourself go too?

Nah, it's about sticking together, and what you do when times are bad, that's what really counts.
I ****ing hate quitters in every sense of the word quitters.

[Ben Kenobi]

Basically we are talking situations where staying faithful would mean 40 or 50 years of celibacy.

This assumes that you get 40 or 50 years. None of us really know for sure what we get, or what our partners will get. You take it one day at a time, and be thankful for the time you get to share.

If she died, I'd have no problem with someone wanting to remarry, but I also understand those folks who are happy as they are. They've had a lifetime, and tend to enjoy the memories.

Slowwy:

"In sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse, for as long as you both shall live."

[Dis]

If my wife was physically incapable of having sex, I would get her permission to screw around.

If she really loved me she would give me permission to have sex.

I would never leave a sick wife though. Didn't Velerie Bertinelli leave Eddie Van Halen when he was going through colon cancer? WTF!!!! . Though she may have left him after he recovered. But you don't do that to a person. Morale and support is so important in recovery from such things.

[Dis]

There are so many scenarios.

I always thought to myself if I had a wife who didn't give me oral sex, I would go outside the marriage for that. But I doubt I would actually do that. But I would consider it. This is the Bill Clinton scenario. Would you do what Bill Clinton did? (because we all know Hillary doesn't blow him)

Also some women just don't like to have sex with their husbands. This may apply to Hillary Clinton as well . Some women are cold, or have been abused, and just don't like sex. Would you go outside the marriage for that?

I don't think I would do it behind their back in both the above cases. I would give them an ulimatum. You either put up, or I'm getting it somewhere else. Sex is an important part of a healthy marriage.

But some people can be married and not have sex. I know one woman married to a guy who is paralyzed. But I always think it's easier for a woman to go without sex than a man . But it depends on the woman. Some women I have met are as horny as guys are.

As for the Coma one, that is tricky. Because the person could come out. In fact I think this happned recently with that guy in the coma for 20 years. I think his wife remarried and moved on I'm really not sure what I would do in that situation. I would most certainly have sex with other women. but I don't think I would get attached to another woman. I would remain attached to my SO in a coma.