Cheating: A different POV

[RaysWays 31]

Everyone has a take on it, I guess.

 

No shortage of condemnation of cheaters, but it is interesting that no one condemns the spouse who chooses to stop supplying sex. In even the most vanilla marriage, the agreement and expectation are that sex is available. The spouse who unilaterally withholds by choice (I would guess that 90%+ of the time it is the woman) is the one violating the marriage agreement. Why is the other person then bound by expectation of fidelity? Anyone who knows even a little law can tell you that a broken contract is no longer binding - as, would you honor your obligation to pay the refuse company if they stopped picking up your trash?

 

Also it is interesting that some here would engage with a cheating solo bi-f, even if they held cheating to be wrong, because bi females are in short supply. The reverse argument, that married men are less guilty for cheating because females willing to engage with them are hard to find, is laughable. One of the ten commandments proscribes adultery (more male than female, nature's programming), but there is nothing comparable that tells women to 'supply'.

 

If you consider the situation a male faces when his spouse 'turns off' it is pretty bleak. Basically he can abstain, masturbate secretly (keep that damn porn hidden, mister), cheat or leave - 'beat, cheat or the street'. Ok - who endorses male sexual shutdown because of the woman's withdrawal? What percent of shut-down women would have fits about porn (my guess: high)? For a man, leaving his family (when he may well not want to) will almost certainly wreak financial havoc and create emotional devastation on a huge scale, especially to children - and to fathers (that is - males).

 

The underlying reasons for this stuff are not pretty. Reality is that women basically control sex (the powerless female), not men. So overwhelming is the power imbalance that even when the results are absurd, they seem normal, invisible, part of the woodwork. For example, consider a woman who deceives a trusting man to get pregnant (and so ensure a continuing relationship, even... marriage?). The male has no control at all over the fetus (half his) - can't even require adoption. The woman's deceit is endorsed by the system - she is awarded absolute power to decide whether to hand the man an 18-year sentence. If he at any point agrees to provide for the child, he cannot get out even when it is revealed that he is not the father! But the woman has committed no crime; a lot of women would even hold she has done nothing wrong.

 

So, folks, where does the tilted playing field (dead-ass vertical) leave the male when his partner just opts out of sex? Empowered? Consider what even a short walk in his moccasins is like before you turn him away and castigate him.

[funcpl4life 51]

No shortage of condemnation of cheaters, but it is interesting that no one condemns the spouse who chooses to stop supplying sex. In even the most vanilla marriage, the agreement and expectation are that sex is available. The spouse who unilaterally withholds by choice (I would guess that 90%+ of the time it is the woman) is the one violating the marriage agreement.

 

I think if you read sex-starved marriage sites or no more mr. nice guy sites, you will find that women aren't the only ones who shut down sexually. Sex starved marriages are horrible and usually involve some deep emotional hurts on both sides. It is NOT ok to withhold sex in a marriage. Fixing it is hard. Cheating is not a solution. Fix it, live with it or walk away.

 

What percent of shut-down women would have fits about porn (my guess: high)?

 

Yeah, I'd agree with you here. Way too high a percentage. Get over it.

 

The underlying reasons for this stuff are not pretty. Reality is that women basically control sex (the powerless female), not men. So overwhelming is the power imbalance that even when the results are absurd, they seem normal, invisible, part of the woodwork.

 

In order to fix a sexless marriage, there must be communication. Sometimes this is too much work.

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

So, folks, where does the tilted playing field (dead-ass vertical) leave the male when his partner just opts out of sex? Empowered? Consider what even a short walk in his moccasins is like before you turn him away and castigate him.

 

For us, we reject cheating males. Not because we castigate them. We do so primarily because we do not want to hurt someone else, and also because it is a situation that has a much higher chance of drama.

 

We swing to have fun. My wife having sex with another man becomes considerably less fun for her if he were cheating on his wife, regardless of the circumstances. There's plenty enough men out there that she doesn't need to be playing with the cheating male fire. For me, the thought path is the same except we don't play with single females anyways, so it's a non-issue.

 

I feel sorry for the men in the situation you describe. He is being cheated by his wife; having sex denied him. I fully agree with you that the law is severely tilted against men. It's very unfair. It is tough for a single male in the lifestyle when that single male is cheating, regardless of the circumstances as the oversupply of single males means people can afford to be picky. But however unjust this is or not, it won't change.

[Speed & Trixie 163]

Yep, I condemn the cheater.

 

I don't care WHY s/he is cheating. Of course, it's not right to "choose to stop supplying sex" to your partner. Let's not get into the "contractual obligations" of marriage, but I will say that if a (business) contract isn't being adhered to, the contract is terminated!

 

Being in a sexless marriage probably sucks. The nice thing is that you (the spouse) have options available. A person may not LIKE those particular options, but many exist. Staying with a "shut-down woman" (or man) and trying to work things out within the marriage is a choice, so is staying and cheating. Personally, I don't give a shit about someone's reasons for cheating. It's lying, it's deceitful, and it's wrong. Just because you (the cheater) are in a shitty marriage of YOUR choice doesn't mean I'm ok with you lying to your spouse.

 

Whatever the cheater's spouse has or has not done is none of my business. Just because someone is being cold/uncaring/whatever doesn't give the other person the right to act selfishly and deceitfully. It's not healthy, and I don't want anyone who would act like that in my bed. Again, how could I demand respect and honesty from someone who makes these kinds of choices?

 

If that makes me judgemental, meh. So be it. I don't deal with liars and that's MY choice.

 

Trixie

 

PS Though this post references other people's posts, it is NOT meant to be taken personally. I'm talking about my own feelings here, not trying to bash any individual/s.

[IvoryTowers 380]

Everyone has a take on it, I guess.

 

No shortage of condemnation of cheaters, but it is interesting that no one condemns the spouse who chooses to stop supplying sex. In even the most vanilla marriage, the agreement and expectation are that sex is available. The spouse who unilaterally withholds by choice (I would guess that 90%+ of the time it is the woman) is the one violating the marriage agreement. Why is the other person then bound by expectation of fidelity?

 

First of all, no part of the marriage contract includes sex. Culturally, we may all believe that sex is part of marriage, but it is not part of the marriage contract the way paying for your trash pick up is. You seem to be thinking of prostitution: the exchange of money for sex.

 

Second, your sexism in 2009 is astonishing. No doubt you believe you are arguing based on facts, but as others have pointed out, you might be deeply surprised (if you step outside your limited base) to find that many men also withhold and deny sex. I have a friend who had a child 4 years ago. Since then, her husband has had sex with her 5 times, always after her begging and pleading. Apparently, he sees her as "mom" now and sleeping with a mom just disgusts him. So don't assume.

 

Third, just how do you know every cheating man has a)tried to solve the problems with his wife b)told that he can't even masturbate c)even been denied sex! You can't seriously believe that every man who cheats or wants to cheat has a wife who completely refuses to have sex with him and won't begin to deal with the issue, but refuses to allow him any relief in other ways. Can you? Really?

 

But most important--that's not my call. Male or female, a cheater is someone who decided that lying to and deceiving their spouse is the best (easiest) way to deal with a problem or that lying to/deceiving their spouse is not a big deal (those people who figure "what he doesn't know won't hurt him.")

 

Why on earth would I want to have sex with such a person? What else is he lying about--STIs? His ability to deal with swinging? Don't tell me "I have to stay married for the children" or "He's a horrible person and deserves to be cheated on" or "I don't want to hurt her, I still love her and getting sex elsewhere allows me to keep the relationship going." I do not need, want, or allow your drama and unresolved issues to muck up my life. I don't see that as "castigation" but as practical (I protect myself from fallout) and ethical (I don't help people lie and cheat).

[Guest screaminggood]

Regardless of what we individually think, I must say "bravo" to RaysWays for his bravery in bringing up the other side of coin that most of us never consider.

[robel12550 31]

 

If you consider the situation a male faces when his spouse 'turns off' it is pretty bleak. Basically he can abstain, masturbate secretly (keep that damn porn hidden, mister), cheat or leave - 'beat, cheat or the street'. Ok - who endorses male sexual shutdown because of the woman's withdrawal? What percent of shut-down women would have fits about porn (guess: high)? For a man, leaving his family (when he may well not want to) will almost certainly wreak financial havoc and create emotional devastation on a huge scale, especially to children - and to fathers (that is - males).

 

 

What about the situation where the woman doesn't want a separation/divorce so he can't leave? Guess most people are on the side of castration in those cases. Will the government pay for that?

[CXXC 435]

I don’t have the numbers or the research totals handy, but I can pretty much bet the main % of individuals who are cheating are NOT in sexless marriages. Yes, I will agree that there are three sides to every story. However, it is my firm belief (ignorant, possibly) that these individuals have not exhausted all avenues to rectify their situations.

 

I actually speak from personal experience regarding the sexless (Virtually) marriage. My ex used sex as a tool to obtain her desires. She would lord it over me as a way of getting things she wanted or to force me to do things I did not care to do. (Nothing kinky here! Get your minds out of the gutter!!)

 

What were my options? Well, we all know the end actually. I left home, hearth and my only child, not to find sex, but to live! A person who would withhold sex has several issues. Perhaps they felt insecure. Maybe they had such a low self image, they could not see themselves as worthy of the act. I could have been such a terrible lover that she could not stand being with me. The reasons can only be discovered through communication. No one can discover the REAL reason for holding back sex without COMMUNICATION!

 

Do these individuals exhaust every possible avenue to resolve the matter? I can honestly say, I do not believe so. 4 hours of begging for sex and demanding to know why is not communication.

 

the options left to the dissatisfied individual are there. Leave, cheat, stay and be unsatisfied or COMMUNICATE correctly to resolve the matter. I had no other option but to leave. Yes, it broke my heart to do so. However, the other options were not available to me as I could not bring shame to my house by cheating. I could not stay in the marriage knowing that I would be a puppet upon her marionette’s strings. She refused to communicate with me in open dialogue with or without a mediator.

 

Cheating is a selfish act. Had I fallen into that activity, how could I expect to have the respect of anyone? I would be a liar. I would be false in my purpose. i would fall victim to lesser, more base desires. All of which would cloud my very judgment and self esteem.

 

Leaving as I did, I was able to keep my head high and today, both my Daughter and my Ex respect me. Mrs. CXXC finds my resolve and commitment to OUR relationship strengthened by my past. Had I wavered or fell in my resolve, I do not believe I would be who I am nor have what I have today!

[vanillaknot 99]

First of all, no part of the marriage contract includes sex.

 

I mean no disrespect, but you are completely factually incorrect. The legal system identifies deprivation of sex as loss of consortion. Twenty-two years ago, I served on a civil jury in which exactly that complaint was made. Sex (along with children -- I can cite resource upon resource in which infertility [on either part] is grounds for annulment) is indeed at the heart of the expectation of marriage.

 

Third, just how do you know every cheating man has a)tried to solve the problems with his wife b)told that he can't even masturbate c)even been denied sex! You can't seriously believe that every man who cheats or wants to cheat has a wife who completely refuses to have sex with him ...

 

Where exactly did the OP make a categorical, universal claim of "every man," as you cite twice in just this paragraph?

 

I've got no interest in cheaters of either sex myself. But any critique offered has to be kept in context of the scenario offered.

[RaysWays 31]

Surprised at the level of interest! When I've discussed this topic (and related ones), the trend seems to be that the men agree, the older women disagree and the younger women disagree violently. The point of my post wasn't to lay out an examination of sexually dysfunctional marriages - it was to point out that cheaters (esp. males) may be responding to impossible situations. While (as always) it is a matter of personal choice to play with them, some insight into their situations could well show you that being supportive is appropriate and condemnation is not.

 

So ok, one can hold that cheating is wrong no matter what, but I don't find this view to be very logical in a situation where the correspondent isn't operating ethically. Example: You come home and observe that thug has broken in and is threatening your spouse. You sneak in, jam a pen against his spine, tell him you have a gun and will use it. This is, obviously, lying. Does that make it wrong? Another ex. - when questioning a suspect, police will often use ruses, lies or tricks to fool a culpable suspect into believing they know his story is false (the US Supreme Court has upheld this practice). Are the police morally wrong for using deceit? Personally I would say no -- a situation's morality is not derived from the actions of the wrongdoer. So the breach of marital conduct (by the sex withholder) invalidates the existing standards as a measure of marital behavior. So I guess one's level of comfort with a cheater (assuming everyone is truthful and forthcoming) depends on one's view of the validity of a set of standards that have been breached. I'll bet the gender divide on that issue is quite large.

 

 

Some responses to comments:

 

Shutting down sexually - overall I'd guess it is much more common among women, but I've never seen any stats. 'How often do you want sex' -type studies usually seem to have the men wanting somewhat more than the woman, if that is any indicator. Of COURSE this situation isn't behind most cheating!

 

So Mr. CXCC, for you the standards were still valid and you adhered to them; more power to you. But I don't see that this would be true for everyone subjected to spousal withholding (does anal sex, um, rectify the situation?).

 

This I know: when a baby arrives (esp. the first one) things conspire against sex: exhaustion, too little sleep, new chores. I don't think it's at all uncommon for the man to get pushed aside for a couple of months because the woman is so focused on the baby. This seems to pass in 6 mos to a year, but for some women it is a new status quo.

 

Mr. CXCC, it takes TWO to communicate. Hmm... does that mean you learned this fact because of the preverbal 2x4?. (sorry, bad puns are one of my spices).

[CXXC 435]

Mr. CXCC, it takes TWO to communicate. Hmm... does that mean you learned this fact because of the preverbal 2x4?. (sorry, bad puns are one of my spices).

 

I would never commit a man/woman for the use of a good pun! In most times, they bring a smile to a stiff situation.

 

You do offer a good counter to the arguments place before you. However, each reason for cheating is as individual as the person committing this "Moral" offense.

 

I highlight "Moral" as it is just that. Our disdain for the cheater is a reaction to our moral up bringing and learned reaction. It is wrong! It hurts others.

 

Some may argue that the lifestyle is morally wrong. It is very possible that someone may be hurt by becoming involved in the lifestyle.

 

The truth of the matter is, not everyone can stave of a desire to be with another. It matters not if they are within or without the lifestyle. Their reasoning may be quite valid or so full of holes it would look more like a sponge. The end result is, they are cheating.

 

Should we judge someone who would have sex with a cheater? I don’t think we should encourage the activity. I think we should respect the desires of both individuals and keep to our own. It is, after all, a decision that they make and have to live with. We are only as guilty as we feel in our knowledge and acceptance of the act. WE cannot be judge, jury or executioner.

 

The cheater will eventually have to come to term with their activity. Those who enable or engage will receive a tainted reputation in time. The rest of the parties involved may or may not be hurt. A divorce or the continuation of the marriage may or may not happen. But those who avoid or abstain from engaging with the cheater may wake up tomorrow feeling happy and not one shade less bright.

 

Neither Mrs. CXXC nor I will ever fish in another’s pond without permission!

[RaysWays 31]

OK, IvoryTowers, it's the weekend and I've got some time to respond. Candidly, your outrage and lack of reasoning are what is most visible in your reply.

AH! Ivory tower, Philly and sloppy thinking. U of Penn?? B'gaw, fits perfectly what we thought of Penn when I was at Harvard and sis was at Penn. ;~).

 

You seem to be thinking of prostitution: the exchange of money for sex.

 

Not hardly. Of course 'available sex' is the default in marriage! Only prior or mutual agreement would override that. Withholding and refusal are wrong - at minimum a breach of implied covenants. Example (actual client of a therapist friend) - a couple had gone through a conventional courtship, etc, including sexual activity. Then, as soon as they were married, the woman simply would not have sex any more. Nothing had changed but marital status. Who would you say was in the wrong?

(FYI She turned out to be a total narcissist, saw sex only as a way to get a husband. Divorced in less than six mos.)

 

Second, your sexism in 2009 is astonishing. No doubt you believe you are arguing based on facts,

Actually it was clearly labeled a guess. Read before responding.

 

As to sexism, swinging is the most sexist activity that I can even think of - "No Single Males" & "Single Women Free Admission". We've already seen the gender divide in playing with cheating women vs. cheating men.

 

but as others have pointed out, you might be deeply surprised (if you step outside your limited base)

...which you in fact have no knowledge of

 

to find that many men also withhold and deny sex. I have a friend who had a child 4 years ago. Since then, her husband has had sex with her 5 times, always after her begging and pleading. Apparently, he sees her as "mom" now and sleeping with a mom just disgusts him. So don't assume.

I said I GUESSED 90% women. Clearly the remaining 10% meant men. And for your own example - a single anecdote does not establish a social pattern. At least I KNEW I was guessing - still a higher standard than anecdote. Gaw!

(Your friend's husband apparently has real problems... did she go the 'blimped out mommy' route or otherwise lose attractiveness?)

 

 

Third, just how do you know every cheating man has a)tried to solve the problems with his wife b)told that he can't even masturbate c)even been denied sex! You can't seriously believe that every man who cheats or wants to cheat has a wife who completely refuses to have sex with him and won't begin to deal with the issue, but refuses to allow him any relief in other ways. Can you? Really?

 

I didn't say anything like that. Pass.

 

But most important--that's not my call.

So what made it mine?

 

Male or female, a cheater is someone who decided that lying to and deceiving their spouse is the best (easiest) way to deal with a problem or that lying to/deceiving their spouse is not a big deal (those people who figure "what he doesn't know won't hurt him.")

This is quite a generalization and you present no evidence for it. For the sake of argument, say it's true. It may indeed be the easiest or the best way (why is that bad?) - that's not the issue. The issue is whether the cheating, a response to withheld sex, is wrong or not. It's like lying to an attacker that 'a pen is a gun' (see my previous response). So is it then immoral to pretend a pen is a gun to stop a crime?

 

The core issue here is not what morality says but how to apply morality to the situation correctly. I would argue that morality has to be rooted in what in the situation is right, not what is wrong. To judge the cheater's actions out of the context of deprivation is to establish a false frame of reference where moral principles become servants of an existing wrong. Any resulting 'moral' judgment lacks foundation and therefore validity.

 

Why on earth would I want to have sex with such a person?

That's up to you. But there is still more confusion.

 

Why have sex with him? Because of something that appeals? Because (for example) he is charming, funny, sexy and a hot f-ck who knows his way around a woman's body? Because it will be just plain fun?

How about because you can see he is a sweet guy caught in a place with no room, hurting and longing for intimacy and fun? Let him eat cake?

 

Why NOT is a better question. Perhaps because in your eyes it is all about what YOU (the female) want (because you can)? Your reaction to the cheater reflects the immensity of the sexual power disparity - with no personal knowledge you haughtily condemn and reject all cheaters as beneath your consideration.

 

Since his character seems to be your focus, ponder this: The real measure of character is how we act when we will not suffer consequences for our own misbehavior toward another. Example - a boss who is a sexual harasser is displaying poor character.

 

Good character is demonstrated when someone with significant power over others refuses to indulge it and treats them with consideration, kindness and respect.

What character would one infer from your venom, contempt and use of stereotyping?

 

Chill a lot and think a little.

 

I.T., it isn't personal (really). Yes this is response doesn't mince words, but remember that in here we are two avatars arguing for entertainment and enlightenment, not real people. If it matters, what I actually believe is that you are probably a perfectly good person and not like what I was describing - after all, you are open-minded enough to be in the lifestyle. So maybe you haven't really had a reason to think about these issues in depth.

[CXXC 435]

Ray

I do want to ask one question based upon the following quote from your post:

 

That's up to you. But there is still more confusion.

 

Why have sex with him? Because of something that appeals? Because (for example) he is charming, funny, sexy and a hot f-ck who knows his way around a woman's body? Because it will be just plain fun?

How about because you can see he is a sweet guy caught in a place with no room, hurting and longing for intimacy and fun? Let him eat cake?

 

Why NOT is a better question. Perhaps because in your eyes it is all about what YOU (the female) want (because you can)? Your reaction to the cheater reflects the immensity of the sexual power disparity - with no personal knowledge you haughtily condemn and reject all cheaters as beneath your consideration.

 

 

Are you making a point or attempting justify playing with a cheating spouse based upon the above quote?

 

Just wondering!

[RaysWays 31]

No, I'm not in the situation of playing with a cheater, nor have I been.

[CXXC 435]

No, I'm not in the situation of playing with a cheater, nor have I been.

 

Oops! I guess I didn't make that question very clear.

 

I wasn't asking if you were in a relationship as or with a cheater.

 

I was just wondering if you were justifying the act of being with a cheater or cheating or just making a point against the post of Ivory Towers.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[slevin 1,374]

I wholeheartedly believe that the whole idea that women desire sex less than men is a fallacy. There are plenty of polls showing that men want sex more than women, but those are heavily influenced by the perceived pressures of society on both men and woman. Women think they are supposed to be pure and don't want to be seen as sluts. Men think they need to be seen as virile. That is reflected in polls, even blind polls; those societal impacts are massive. If you look at the swinging community it seems obvious that women want sex an equal amount to men, if not more It's crazy to me to think that isn't the case in the majority of the population. There are going to be both men and women who want sex less and men and women who want it more. In general both sexes are going to have similar scales of desire. A man who truly has a higher sex drive than his wife probably isn't going to have a successful marriage with her if she is on the extreme low end of the sex drive. I don't think it's that common though. While it may be common that a marriage becomes sexless, this is more a reflection of the fact that the relationship needs work. Either one, or both, of the parties have stopped trying to seduce their partner, or have stopped trying to be attractive to their partner etc. It takes work, but this can be recovered from.

 

So, given my opinion of that, is a man (or woman) justified in cheating because of a sexless marriage? Not at all in my view. There are always options; try to fix your marriage and make it into the type of relationship you want it to be, recognize that things are not going to work and get a divorce, come to some kind of active agreement with your wife where you become roommates and parents but not lovers. Many options here, but the common thread is that it takes action and guts to follow through. The rest is just excuses for not taking control and making a decision. Even the expensive divorce stuff is just an excuse; it is very possible for a man to get divorced and not get financially screwed.

[RaysWays 31]

No, I'm neither a cheater nor a cheatee.

 

The only related experience I had was some years ago when my play partner moved away. My status changed from "with bi-female" to "single male" and the doors slammed shut.

 

What I'm interested in is how others view insiders vs. outsiders and related topics (if at all). It seems to be an area with a considerable amount hidden (and denial thereof).

[Speed & Trixie 163]

Oh Lordy, I wasn't going to post anything more on this thread, but I would like to respond to a few things here. First,

 

It's like lying to an attacker that 'a pen is a gun' (see my previous response). So is it then immoral to pretend a pen is a gun to stop a crime?

 

Cheating on a spouse is NOTHING like lying that you have a gun when someone you love is being attacked. Yes, lying to your spouse is wrong, going behind their back for sex is wrong. I really don't think anyone would agree that it's wrong to do whatever it takes to subdue an attacker when a life is in danger. Killing is wrong, too, but if the situation is "kill or be killed" (or "lie or be killed"), then the killing is justified, legally and (IMHO) morally. If you are saying that somehow lying to your spouse is "justified," by the spouse's actions or words, that's a bunch of crap.

 

 

The core issue here is not what morality says but how to apply morality to the situation correctly. I would argue that morality has to be rooted in what in the situation is right, not what is wrong.

 

"Morals" and values are fluid. What is moral for one may be completely immoral for others (many consider swinging to be immoral). The question presented is "would you swing with a cheater?" My morals say NO, period. I don't care what the cheater's morals say.

 

Since his character seems to be your focus, ponder this: The real measure of character is how we act when we will not suffer consequences for our own misbehavior toward another.

 

So, the cheater who does not get caught is still of low character.

 

I.T., it isn't personal (really). Yes this is response doesn't mince words, but remember that in here we are two avatars arguing for entertainment and enlightenment, not real people.

 

You are not interacting with avatars. These are real people on this board, and I would ask to please give them the respect they deserve. No one has attacked you personally here, though this is obviously a "touchy" subject to some degree. Please do not attack others on a personal level. Whether you meant it or not, some of your words did come across as a personal attack.

 

Playing "devil's advocate" is often fun and stimulating (and is something I enjoy doing as well). I feel that if my opinions/ views can't stand up to the debate, perhaps I should reconsider my take on the issue. Lively, vigorous debate is healthy and a good thing. Let's keep it that way here.

[CXXC 435]

No, I'm neither a cheater nor a cheatee.

 

The only related experience I had was some years ago when my play partner moved away. My status changed from "with bi-f" to "single male" and the doors slammed shut.

 

What I'm interested in is how others view insiders v. outsiders and related topics (if at all). It seems to be an area with a considerable amount hidden (and denial thereof).

 

I want to make certain I understand you correctly here Ray. Are you stating that now that you are listed as a single male the doors of communication and certain topics have been closed to you?

[RaysWays 31]

If you look at the swinging community it seems obvious that women want sex an equal amount to men, if not more

 

Swingers are not representative of the population - swinging by its very nature selects for people who are very sexual and willing to flout convention. The surplus of males and dearth of females indicates quite clearly that there is a large gender gap.

 

I would guess you are right that a lot of it is due to the traditional double standard. But there is much more to the social dynamics, especially using withholding to manipulate males. Another is what you mentioned - it seems to be almost entirely a female problem to feel guilty or inhibited by disapproval associated with her mother.

[slevin 1,374]

Swingers are not representative of the population - swinging by its very nature selects for people who are very sexual and willing to flout convention. The surplus of males and dearth of females indicates quite clearly that there is a large gender gap.

 

Well, my viewpoint that women love sex as much as men is not born out of the swinging community though. Since we're on a swingers board that is what I pointed to. I fully believe it in general and I think you can see it in the actions of people rather than their words. I know as many women cheating on their husbands as I do men cheating. Other things that lead me to the same conclusion, but its not really the point of the thread so I'll stop now

[RaysWays 31]

Oh Lordy, indeed. This response is even worse than IvoryTowers for a disconnect from content and purpose of my posts. Would you mind so much READING what I said before commenting on it? And not responding to what an angry reaction makes you believe I said? This kind of stuff drives me gaga - it derails the discussion through misdirection because of errors that are easily avoided.

 

Example:

 

Cheating on a spouse is NOTHING like lying that you have a gun when someone you love is being attacked.

 

I did not say it was or anything even close to that. Read the post...

 

'Lying about the gun' was cited as an example of the misapplication of moral principles. The immoral act in a cheating situation that I was comparing was the withholding of sex by the cheater's spouse. The comparison WAS NOT to anything done by the cheater, right or wrong, and the point I was making WAS NOT any justification of any behavior of the cheater.

 

The point WAS in the very next comment:

"To judge the cheater's actions out of the context of deprivation is to establish a false frame of reference where moral principles become servants of an existing wrong."

 

If you are saying that somehow lying to your spouse is "justified," by the spouse's actions or words, that's a bunch of crap.

If you would READ what I wrote - it is clear I didn't say that or mean that at all. Your response is outrage that blocks reason (echoing IvoryTower almost perfectly).

 

 

"Morals" and values are fluid.

My point exactly - didn't you read what I said?

My morals say NO, period. I don't care what the cheater's morals say.

That's an example of your belief that morals are fluid?

 

Or is it an example of huge female sexual power that protects you when you believe flattering but hopelessly contradictory ideas? The anger in your response I've heard before, always from younger women.

 

[Aside and off topic - my grandmother's early 20th century etiquette: "Never say someone is old or young; good manners requires 'older' or 'younger']

 

You are not interacting with avatars. These are real people on this board, Please do not attack others on a personal level. Whether you meant it or not, some of your words did come across as a personal attack.

...which is precisely why I invoked avatars to describe posting. Gaw!

 

I feel that if my opinions/ views can't stand up to the debate, perhaps I should reconsider my take on the issue.

So walk the walk.

 

 

Oy, enough of this. Let's get naked .

[slevin 1,374]

Oy, enough of this. Let's get naked .

 

I have no moral or ethical issues with this statement at all!

[IvoryTowers 380]

I really shouldn't respond, but somehow I can't help myself.

 

Okay, RaysWays, let me try again. If I understand you correctly you want to argue that in some situations, men may be cheating because the wife is withholding sex to manipulate and even hurt the husband, and that to judge him as an immoral person is wrong. That morality is context dependent and therefore in circumstances where the husband has sex unilaterally denied him, he has the right to seek it outside of marriage.

 

Is that right?

 

Here's my problem (actually, I have huge problems with your continued casual and unsupported gender claims, but neither of us is going to win that fight). How can I know?

 

Maybe the guy has been denied sex for absolutely no good reason, maybe he can't leave his wife because she's threatened to take the kids and run to Bora Bora, or the divorce will ruin him financially, or both. But I CAN'T know the truth.

 

Obviously, this guy can't introduce me to his wife to confirm that she's a manipulative bitch who won't sleep with him, cause if he could do that, it wouldn't be cheating. So I'd have to take his word.

 

I'm not comfortable believing a stranger who tells me that not only is his wife refusing him sex for no good reason (he's an innocent victim who has done nothing wrong), and that he's tried other solutions before cheating (he's tried or suggested opening the relationship, getting therapy or at least a physical checkup and in each case it has failed or she's refused outright), but that divorce is simply impossible and so there is NO OTHER SOLUTION but going behind his wife's back for sex.

 

In my mind, such a situation you propose is possible, but I think it is unlikely all those elements would be present, and, as I said before, even if they were all present, how would I know?

 

So my original point stands. I'm not going to help someone cheat because my moral code says helping one person hurt another is unacceptable and I can't know for sure that a marriage is so dead that cheating won't hurt the other spouse. Just because my marriage is open doesn't mean I'm obligated to feel sorry for and help other people deal with sexual frustration.

 

So no, I would never play with a cheating spouse, no matter what he claimed about his situation.

[slevin 1,374]

I think another aspect to Ivory Towers point (from my perspective, not trying to put words in your mouth Ivory!) is that I can decide that I won't play with a cheater and have it not be a moral or ethical decision. Sure I wouldn't cheat and I may view it as a moral and ethical decision on my part, but deciding not to play with someone who is cheating is far more practical for me. They won't be as readily available as they always have to sneak around, there are legal ramifications potentially (being dragged into their divorce), could be physical ramifications of an angry spouse and many other similar practical aspects. I might not agree with their decision and I'd likely offer different advice on how to handle their situation, but I'm not going to moralize against them. Those are my morals and I try my best not to active hoist my morals on anyone else. I know people who are cheating or have cheated and that is their own business not mine.

[RaysWays 31]

I really shouldn't respond, but somehow I can't help myself.

Swingers Board Addict?

Okay, RaysWays, let me try again. If I understand you correctly you want to argue that in some situations, men may be cheating because the wife is withholding sex to manipulate and even hurt the husband, and that to judge him as an immoral person is wrong. That morality is context dependent and therefore in circumstances where the husband has sex unilaterally denied him, he has the right to seek it outside of marriage.

 

Is that right?

That's maybe 70% right. And you have gone beyond the issues I raised.

First of all, I'm not big on judging others. We do not walk in others' moccasins and we do not experience life as they do. It is up to us only to decide who we accept and who we don't. So if your own standards are that you are not ok with playing with a cheater, so be it - I don't judge, and I don't somehow think you 'should'.

 

I didn't say that the man has the 'right' to seek it outside marriage, in fact I don't think that idea is even relevant. My point was that reflexive condemnation - judging a cheater morally wrong - is not justified. Harsh words aimed at the cheater are ugly even if they feel morally empowering to the speaker.

 

Clarification of two perspectives:

 

From the POV of contractual (marriage) obligation, the sex-withholder has breached the terms of the contract. The other person is not then bound by the terms of a breached contract, neither by logic nor by contract law. Condemning that person as dishonest (for not honoring the agreement) does not hold water. The contract ceased to exist when the withholder breached it; a cheater can't be accused of breaching something that no longer exists. Out of the sexual context: you hire a gardner and agree to pay him to clean your yard. He doesn't show up (a breach), you don't pay him (NOT a breach).

 

The POV of morality also does not support condemnation, much less reflexive condemnation - "cheating is wrong, period". That absolute use of morality, devoid of context, makes no sense. Take "lying is wrong, period", the absolute view. Saying "I have a gun" while I push a pen against a thug's spine is lying, but in context calling it wrong makes no sense.

 

SO. It is not a given that cheaters are immoral or that they are dishonest, and invoking absolutes in dealing with them is not justified. You might then reconsider how you view the topic. Foller?

 

 

Here's my problem (actually, I have huge problems with your continued casual and unsupported gender claims, but neither of us is going to win that fight). How can I know?

 

Maybe the guy has been denied sex for absolutely no good reason, maybe he can't leave his wife because she's threatened to take the kids and run to Bora Bora, or the divorce will ruin him financially, or both. But I CAN'T know the truth.

You can't know that any more than you can know anything else that might make you avoid him - whether he has an STD, whether he is a criminal, whether he robs banks, kicks his dog or doesn't use turn signals. So why does cheating in particular seem to get close attention among lifestylers?

 

 

So my original point stands. I'm not going to help someone cheat because my moral code says helping one person hurt another is unacceptable and I can't know for sure that a marriage is so dead that cheating won't hurt the other spouse. Just because my marriage is open doesn't mean I'm obligated to feel sorry for and help other people deal with sexual frustration.

 

So no, I would never play with a cheating spouse, no matter what he claimed about his situation.

Do what is right for you, obviously. But you can also look at cheaters and cheating from a new perspective and adjust your attitudes accordingly.

 

Hmmm... "Casual and unsupported gender claims"... want to start a new forum along these lines, sort of a 'Mythbusters' post?

[realcplub2 513]

Swingers Board Addict?

 

That's maybe 70% right. And you have gone beyond the issues I raised.

First of all, I'm not big on judging others. We do not walk in others' moccasins and we do not experience life as they do. It is up to us only to decide who we accept and who we don't. So if your own standards are that you are not ok with playing with a cheater, so be it - I don't judge, and I don't somehow think you 'should'.

 

I didn't say that the man has the 'right' to seek it outside marriage, in fact I don't think that idea is even relevant. My point was that reflexive condemnation - judging a cheater morally wrong - is not justified. Harsh words aimed at the cheater are ugly even if they feel morally empowering to the speaker.

 

Clarification of two perspectives:

 

From the POV of contractual (marriage) obligation, the sex-withholder has breached the terms of the contract. The other person is not then bound by the terms of a breached contract, neither by logic nor by contract law. Condemning that person as dishonest (for not honoring the agreement) does not hold water. The contract ceased to exist when the withholder breached it; a cheater can't be accused of breaching something that no longer exists. Out of the sexual context: you hire a gardner and agree to pay him to clean your yard. He doesn't show up (a breach), you don't pay him (NOT a breach).

 

The POV of morality also does not support condemnation, much less reflexive condemnation - "cheating is wrong, period". That absolute use of morality, devoid of context, makes no sense. Take "lying is wrong, period", the absolute view. Saying "I have a gun" while I push a pen against a thug's spine is lying, but in context calling it wrong makes no sense.

 

SO. It is not a given that cheaters are immoral or that they are dishonest, and invoking absolutes in dealing with them is not justified. You might then reconsider how you view the topic. Foller?

 

You can't know that any more than you can know anything else that might make you avoid him - whether he has an STD, whether he is a criminal, whether he robs banks, kicks his dog or doesn't use turn signals. So why does cheating in particular seem to get close attention among lifestylers?

 

Do what is right for you, obviously. But you can also look at cheaters and cheating from a new perspective and adjust your attitudes accordingly.

 

Hmmm... "Casual and unsupported gender claims"... want to start a new forum along these lines, sort of a 'Mythbusters' post?

 

I can tell you exactly why, my friend, because 99% of us who are in this lifestyle for more than a few years KNOW, This lifestyle only works if each person is.... ready?

 

HONEST with EACH other

 

Being open and honest about what each wants, desires, and afterwards what worked and didnt..

 

Using the arguement that a spouse withholding sex is a breach of contract.. is kind of lame dont you think? Christ did you write that into the PreNup?

 

But then we are up against another "trueism" Arent we?

 

Exactly where do you come down on the otherside of the arguement that Gee Mrs Williams isnt fucking her husband Cause she is screwing Junior's Coach.. No wonder he starts all the time..

 

But, I wanna hear you make the arguement that Her cheating is wrong? Or any more wrong, or maybe it isnt.. You tell Us

[IvoryTowers 380]

You can't know that any more than you can know anything else that might make you avoid him - whether he has an STD, whether he is a criminal, whether he robs banks, kicks his dog or doesn't use turn signals. So why does cheating in particular seem to get close attention among lifestylers?

 

*Heavy sigh*

 

If someone sat down with me and said "I'm a bank robber, wanna swing?" I'd say no. I wouldn't ask if he was driven to it because he had 3 starving children at home and if he'd really exhausted all other choices before turning to crime. I'd just say no.

 

In the same way, I'd say no to a cheater, and not try to figure out if his backstory excuses him. If you are going to accuse everyone else of misreading, misrepresenting and misquoting you, perhaps you should be more careful yourself. Your analogy is false because it doesn't match my original premise.

 

And as for the stupid "don't judge" claim, are you serious? We judge people all the time. That's called ethics. If you say a person beating a small child would you say "I should really find out if he has tried other options and if his beating is justified" or would you call the police?

 

Do you really think that someone who cheats on a spouse and a swinger are exactly the same? If not, you've made a judgment. If yes, well, I'm done responding to you anyway.

[RaysWays 31]

*Heavy sigh*

Ditto, triply.

If someone sat down with me and said "I'm a bank robber, wanna swing?" I'd say no.

Not even Butch Cassidy or the Sundance Kid (film versions)?

I'd say no to a cheater, and not try to figure out if his backstory excuses him. If you are going to accuse everyone else of misreading, misrepresenting and misquoting you, perhaps you should be more careful yourself. [/Quote]

Why? Double standards are much more fun.

 

Your analogy is false because it doesn't match my original premise.

It wasn't responsive to your original premise. Nowhere did I say you should go outside your own limits. What I did say was that the blanket knee-jerk condemnation of cheaters was unjustified, citing a possible (and common) situation, that of withholding, to illustrate the point.

 

Do you really think that someone who cheats on a spouse and a swinger are exactly the same? If not, you've made a judgment. If yes, well, I'm done responding to you anyway.

 

Gadamighty, what a non sequitur (another victim of the public schools?).

 

Swinging per se has basically been irrelevant for a couple of posts! The context is swinging, but the issue is now the ethics of cheating, a topic that transcends swinging.

 

Just out of curiosity, IT, what do you think of prostitution and pornography?

 

 

ASIDE: If withholding is done as often by men as by women can anyone come up with a slang equivalent to "pussywhipped" for women?

[RaysWays 31]

Forgot this one -

 

"Do you really think that someone who cheats on a spouse and a swinger are exactly the same? If not, you've made a judgment"

 

A lack of opinion is not a judgment, Ms. Intellectual, it is an empty set, an absence. Rather, the assertion of 'sameness' would be a judgment.

[Alura 2,774]

There was an article in this morning's Tulsa World about a cheating woman who was shot and killed along with her paramour. The shooter committed suicide. Three are dead and several children (who witnessed the slaughter) are without parents. It happens often and everywhere!

 

If that isn't reason enough to not play with cheaters, I don't know what might be, pseudo-intellectual posts by Harvard graduates who use double negatives notwithstanding. The reasons for their cheating are immaterial.

[qreskupl7476 137]

Been reading this post with interest, definitely get's the intellectual juices flowing, however it has gotten a bit deep IMHO. Please allow me to insert my tongue firmly in my cheek (or elsewhere if you prefer) and utter a response that will hopefully lighten the mood.

 

First of all, we dig "blimped out mommies" although we find that term a bit shallow and distasteful. The female half of this couple put on a few pounds after having kids, and was and still is extremely self conscious about it. I've always told her that I accepted full responsibility, after all I was the one that knocked her up. It always illicited a chuckle at least, and lightened the mood. Looking back, I'm glad that it happened the way that it did. If nothing else, it helped me to acquire a high level of appreciation for ladies that perhaps don't fit the magazine definition of "attractive", and since becoming involved in the lifestyle she's discovered that I'm not alone. Having a whole crew of guys telling her she's HOT on a regular basis has definitely helped her self image, and heated things up even more in our bedroom. If you have nothing to offer your beloved but shallow criticism, don't be surprised if she doesn't jump through her ass and hang herself trying to please you. She's not going to be 20 forever, and any man that can't deal with that perhaps has some maturity issues, IMHO. News flash dude, you're probably not what you used to be in the looks department either.

 

My point: Not all sex starved men have only their wives to blame. If you're going to be an insensitive ass, you will reap what you sow. I know, because I've been there. If you don't like the way your wife behaves (or doesn't) in the bedroom, try changing your own backward, caveman ways instead of pointing the finger at only her. Either way, it's not an excuse to cheat, and if you're willing to go to that length it may be an indicator that you don't care about this person's feelings nearly enough to be in a relationship with him/her, and perhaps should consider terminating it, or putting some serious work into it preferably. We've known several couples in this situation, and seldom, in our opinion at least, is it one sided.

 

The second point I'd like to make is one that came up in a discussion we had with several of our swinging friends just a few nights ago. Basically, why would anyone WANT to swing with someone that was cheating, when there are so many opportunities to swing with people who AREN'T? The discussion was regarding vanilla perceptions (mostly incorrect) about swingers in general, and I made a statement that I felt more secure about my wife going out alone to hang out with our swinger friends than I did before we became involved in the lifestyle and she would go out to the bar with her vanilla friends, and how none of my vanilla friends would understand that point of view if they knew about our lifestyle involvement. They would gasp in disbelief, ask me if I was certifiably batshit crazy, and assure me that I was practically BEGGING to have my wife cheat on me letting her hang out with a bunch of swingers (gasp!). Of course, they also wouldn't understand if I told them that my wife has permission to have sex with others, so long as she's honest with me about it . . . and I like details.

 

Basically it boils down to this: If a vanilla guy saw her, liked what he saw, and she was willing (which she wouldn't be), he would take her home and bang her brains out (or disappoint the hell out of her, she's a swinger, she likely has a bit higher standards in the bedroom than most overgrown college kids' Saturday night pickups) and deal with the consequences later never giving a damn that she might have someone at home that may not approve.

 

Swinger guys (and gals) on the other hand, most generally have a far more serious aversion to having pissed off spouses threatening to kick their asses or worse when they discover what's been going on with their significant others, and therefore are much more likely to avoid such situations. No swinger guy that I know would do anything more than give my wife (or anyone else's) a hug or chaste kiss without making damn sure that I knew about it, and was cool with it beforehand. I know for a fact that I wouldn't, I hate drama, why invite it? Especially when I know several smoking hot ladies that would be willing at any time, and are either single or have their husband's full permission?

 

It's a matter of principle for us. Cheating is having sex outside of marriage the wrong way. Swinging is doing it right, with honesty and communication so that no one gets hurt. Hurting people is wrong . . . unless they're into that sort of thing but we don't know anyone that likes to be hurt emotionally.

[Trace Ekies 186]

Pardon my simplicity...but two wrongs make it right?

[RaysWays 31]

pseudo-intellectual posts by Harvard graduates who use double negatives notwithstanding.

Mr. Alura

 

Whoo-hoo! Next time why not deal with the topic (IvoryTowers' error)? Just a thought.

 

OK -- "blimped out mommies" - sorry if this offended. It was used (as a cliche) to clarify in a question. So yeah, different strokes - some guys even have a fetish for pregnant women.

 

"Not all sex starved men have only their wives to blame." Of course not - why would anyone think so?

 

"why would anyone WANT to swing with someone that was cheating, when there are so many opportunities to swing with people who AREN'T?"

For the same reasons. This question highlights the matter - that while stigmatizing and rejecting a cheater may well be a suitable reaction, it really isn't justified or fair-minded to do so automatically. You went on to discuss how people will automatically assume swingers are evil or dangerous - the same reaction in a different context, and equally unjustified.

 

"Pardon my simplicity...but two wrongs make it right?"

The heart of the matter is whether the second 'wrong' is really wrong or whether the first wrong voids the agreement which makes it wrong. Like, if your gardener stops working, it's not wrong to stop paying him - the agreement was voided by the gardener's actions.

[celtic239 297]

I haven't posted for awhile but feel compelled to reply to Rays. Please return the law books that you borrowed from the first year law student. When I was in law school one of the first things we were taught about advocacy was the following (1) when you have the law (the statutes) to support your argument, pound away at the law, (2) when you have the facts (but not quite the letter of the law) on your side, pound away at the facts and (3) when you have neither the facts nor the law on your side pound away at the table. You appear to be in the latter case. Your reliance on contracts, torts and a stab at criminal law to justify your contention that "cheating" is an affirmative defense to a sexless marriage is amusing but legally misplaced. While I am not familiar with the laws of your state of California (I passed the bar exams of Michigan and New York) I can definitely tell you that contracts law is NOT applicable to family/domestic relations law. If your wife is withholding sex then you may have grounds for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. If you chose to go that route then yes you will have to pay child support. But take it from a guy who has been married for 28 years to the same woman and has three grown children; you will be broke whether you are married or not and there will be times when you will have to take a cold shower and sleep on the couch due to some tiff. Over those years I have learned the meaning of sacrifice. If you are not prepared to make those sacrifices then for your child's sake see a divorce attorney now.

 

What I find appealing about the people in the lifestyle is that they place a high premium on the concept of honesty. I, for one, find that quality in people refreshing. So if you are looking for some sort of moral support in your quest to cheat on your wife then I doubt if you will find it here.

[RaysWays 31]

(1) when you have the law (the statutes) to support your argument, pound away at the law, (2) when you have the facts (but not quite the letter of the law) on your side, pound away at the facts and (3) when you have neither the facts nor the law on your side pound away at the table. You appear to be in the latter case.

The fourth principle, by your example - When you have nothing at all, pound away with ad homineum arguments (hey, it's still billable hours).

 

Your reliance on contracts, torts and a stab at criminal law to justify your contention that "cheating" is an affirmative defense to a sexless marriage is amusing but legally misplaced.

Isn't the customary litigator's phrase "this unique legal theory" --?

That is beside the point. What I suggested was that a cheater does not warrant knee-jerk condemnation. The idea that one is not bound to honor a breached contract was a challenge to the reflexive 'it's wrong, period' mindset.

(I passed the bar exams of Michigan and New York)

You no tell, I no tell

I can definitely tell you that contracts law is NOT applicable to family/domestic relations law. If your wife is withholding sex then you may have grounds for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. If you chose to go that route then yes you will have to pay child support.

Yikes! Even without children?

But take it from a guy who has been married for 28 years to the same woman and has three grown children; you will be broke whether you are married or not and there will be times when you will have to take a cold shower and sleep on the couch due to some tiff.

Sho' 'nuff. But the discussion was really more about long-term withholding than tiffs or squabbles.

Over those years I have learned the meaning of sacrifice.

I bet your wife has, too

What I find appealing about the people in the lifestyle is that they place a high premium on the concept of honesty. I, for one, find that quality in people refreshing.

Yup, a lawyer.

Hmm - is honesty also the reason that racism, ageism, appearance-ism, matriarchal unilateralism, homophobia and sexism are ubiquitous among swingers?

If you are not prepared to make those sacrifices then for your child's sake see a divorce attorney now.

So if you are looking for some sort of moral support in your quest to cheat on your wife then I doubt if you will find it here.

Yes Mom. I noted previously that these posts are not about my life. What I was prodding at is whether swingers, clearly possessing both broader views of sexuality and a willingness to flout conventional propriety, extend their open-mindedness to cheaters.

 

* Chill. My father (a lawyer) -- fave lawyer joke:

A judge in his chambers hears a knock. A man enters and says "Your honor, my client's case will be tried in your court tomorrow. This envelope has ten thousand dollars cash in it; I'm leaving it to ensure of your favorable consideration." The judge nods, the man leaves.

 

Later that day another man appears. He also puts down an envelope, says "Your honor, my client's case will be tried in your court tomorrow. In this envelope is five thousand dollars to ensure of your favorable consideration."

 

The judge looks at him for a few moments, then says "You know, this is actually a pretty interesting case. For another five thousand we could let the jury decide".

[fun4Ds 1,098]

RaysWays, it almost seems to me that you are representing someone who had cheated, or at least the idea of cheating (pro bono) here.

 

Wouldn't a change of venue be in order, to best serve your client or idea?

 

If not, why?

[LFM2 1,482]

Gee, Ray, I guess there's nothing left for me to add since everyone else commented much more eloquently.

 

Your argument, no matter how many times you reiterate your opinion, really holds no merit in this forum. Personally, I don't care why a person is cheating. All that matters to most of us is that they are cheating and that we want no part of it. My knee-jerk reaction will still be the same regardless of their reason "why".

 

Hmm - is honesty also the reason that racism, ageism, appearance-ism, matriarchal unilateralism, homophobia and sexism are ubiquitous among swingers?

I believe it's not universal in the swinging world... It's alive and well in the big, old, wide non-swinging world as well. Something you can't quite attack only swingers for. You can try, but that argument will hold no merit as well. On the other side of the coin, in our area, us swingers are probably more tolerant of those attributes you've listed.

[Alura 2,774]

 

I believe it's not universal in the swinging world... It's alive and well in the big, old, wide non-swinging world as well. Something you can't quite attack only swingers for. You can try, but that argument will hold no merit as well. On the other side of the coin, in our area, us swingers are probably more tolerant of those attributes you've listed.

 

Very good point, LFM2. I might add that racism, ageism, appearance-ism, matriarchal unilateralism, homophobia and sexism are all matters of taste, no matter how off-base such tastes might be. Choosing to not play with cheaters has more to do with common sense, in my opinion.

[slevin 1,374]

Very good point, LFM2. I might add that racism, ageism, appearance-ism, matriarchal unilateralism, homophobia and sexism are all matters of taste, no matter how off-base such tastes might be. Choosing to not play with cheaters has more to do with common sense, in my opinion.

 

Indeed. I am also not sure why my own decision to not play with a cheater is somehow a bad thing. Why do I need to play with cheaters? Why does it supposedly make me not open minded if I don't? Does it matter if I'm not open minded?

 

I don't tell everyone else they shouldn't do it, it's what my wife and I have decided is something that we won't do. Why is that a problem?

[Spoomonkey 421]

No shortage of condemnation of cheaters, but it is interesting that no one condemns the spouse who chooses to stop supplying sex.

 

I understand what you are saying here and can relate completely. Many marriages would stay pretty healthy if one or the other spouse (and men are pretty bad about it as well) didn't withhold sex. I know I am pretty simple: "Feed me, fuck me and rent some DVDs." That is pretty much all that I need to make a go of it.

 

But when one withholds sex, the other spouse is left in a pretty dangerous place. I went through it - I cheated (I had one relationship in college during my marriage), I found escape through porn, and basically lived a life that I am quite ashamed of.

 

A sexless marriage can be soul destroying.

 

Compared to my current marriage where I end up in the closet crying, hiding my oversexed junk with shaking hands as I listen to my wildcat of a wife hunting me like I'm a piece of meat (okay - I make it sound bad but damn - it is pretty fucking awesome!). I know the difference and could never, ever stay in a relationship that wasn't highly sexual (apart from disease, incapacity, etc.).

 

I think withholding sex IS, as you've said, a "breach of contract".

 

That said:

 

So, folks, where does the tilted playing field (dead-ass vertical) leave the male when his partner just opts out of sex? Empowered? Consider what even a short walk in his moccasins is like before you turn him away and castigate him.

 

Having walked in your moccasins, we still will not play with cheaters. You see - it is not our responsibility to fix someone's dysfunctional marriage. We aren't "suppliers".

 

Swinging is something that in itself can damage a couple should things go wrong. There is enough risk - discovery, emotional slippery slopes, rumor, etc. - without taking on the risk of being a part of a cheating husband's domestic drama.

 

We have never played with a married woman (that we are aware of) without knowing that her husband was on board with it. Do we ask for proof of relationship status? Of course not. Is it possible we've been "duped"? I'd say it is likely actually - a person who lies to a spouse is certainly not above lying to us.

 

Still - we choose to avoid it.

 

Swinging doesn't owe anyone a level playing field - not you, not even us. As Alura mentioned in his post on page 4 (okay - I did read some of them, but mostly because I am practicing sounding out words today) what people do comes down to preference. I'd add that discernment is a MAJOR part of a couple's choice to swing.

 

If we don't protect ourselves, trust me, you aren't going to do it.

 

I do see your perspective - but you have to be able to see ours as well. We face plenty of issues without having our names dragged into court in an eventual divorce proceeding.

[Alura 2,774]

Ray's Ways added:

 

Did women have a long uphill fight to be legitimate full members of society because of - taste???

 

Are you really suggesting, Ray, that we should extend the same help in attaining goals to cheaters as we should to women seeking equal rights? You seem to also believe that if we choose not to provide sex to poor misunderstood cheaters that we are somehow lesser human beings!

[Spoomonkey 421]

This post really summed it up well (no surprise with you). Swinging is not a civil right - and cheaters aren't an oppressed minority.

[Spoomonkey 421]

Cheating is a subject that is going to rile up swingers. It always does. Reading the threads around here you'll find that to be true. When you posted in the first place, it is fairly clear you were aware of how volatile a topic it is. You obviously aren't presenting a strong enough case to change our minds, so sit back and try to understand why we feel the way we do about it.

 

The truth is, this EXACT argument has been posted before. It isn't really a "different POV". We've all been told that we "owe" cheaters something... It turns into a grating mass of "blahblahblah".

[lustylearning 705]

If the ultimate question here is, "is cheating justifiable?" then none of us can answer generally. All we can do is examine the issue and come to personal conclusions.

[Alura 2,774]

I'm probably wasting my time but you know how I feel about the many Johnny-come-latelys who have tried to tell us that, as swingers, our spouses should open their arms to cheaters or forever be hypocrites.

[If_You_Please 81]

I would like to share this with you all, not in support of the OP (I have 0 tolerance for cheating, period) but to supply you all with a truly different POV.

 

Progress always follows trauma. That being said:

 

I am a casualty of an unfaithful relationship. My wife of two years had met a customer at her job, developed a relationship with him over a period of time, and, eventually, fell in love with him. When I found out, I packed up and left her to her own devices. As time went on, we mended the relationship we had together (we are soulmates, after all) and we talk openly, honestly, and frequently. It's become a wonderful relationship on a lot of levels. This is the point where things get slightly twisted. Aforementioned customer had previously been involved in the lifestyle, and ex-wife has since eagerly and thoroughly explored the lifestyle herself. She even introduced the lifestyle to yours truly.

 

Cheating is always a terribly shitty act, regardless, but, like all of the adversity people face during their time on this rock, growth and change tend to come out of the experience.

[Additude 457]

As a married male and also in the eyes of Ray's grandmother, a male of "Older Denomination"; I will say that my life’s experiences lend me to agree with Ray's initial analogy and continued debate.

 

I'm not going to attempt to substantiate my position by citing specific references to my personal background, including issues I've dealt with as a "male of need" within our social welfare system, but I will say that not only is our perception as a society biased, it is that way within our legal system, our welfare system and our individual personal values and morals.

 

However, even as some others have posted with replies and references that have not been completely on topic target, those points of view have been for the most part, equally correct.

 

So anyway, I think it's a great POV discussion about a great subject, cheating. Is there really any situation that exists which would condone "cheating"? Whether it be "Breach of contract by withholding of sex or abstinence" (Prove that one), or any other justification?

 

I think not.

 

I think the law provides remedy thru other means.

 

But I have a question. Say for example, one spouse is purposely withholding sex from the other spouse and that the deprived spouse informs the withholding spouse that if the current situation concerning sex in the relationship continues beyond a specified date and time, that the deprived spouse will begin a search in an attempt to find a partner or another means of sexual release.

 

I know some will say, "If your at that point, just get a divorce", but sometimes, as stated in a previous post, that may be the lesser of the two evils for reasons beyond our scope and understanding. I know some will say, "Doesn't matter, I still wouldn't have sex with him/her", but that's not my question and I'm hoping my question borders the OP's original POV with this related POV possibility.

 

If the deprived spouse informs the withholding spouse of their intent and the withholding spouse apparently holds the means by which to prevent the deprived spouse from pursuing a quest for sexual release and the withholding spouse elects to continue withholding sex, is any sexual contact by the deprived spouse outside of the marriage considered "Cheating"?

 

We talk about being open and honest, I believe the deprived spouse qualifies by making the statement and the withholding spouse makes a decision to continue their abstinence.

[Alura 2,774]

But I have a question. Say for example, one spouse is purposely withholding sex from the other spouse and that the deprived spouse informs the withholding spouse that if the current situation concerning sex in the relationship continues beyond a specified date and time, that the deprived spouse will begin a search in an attempt to find a partner or another means of sexual release.

 

I know some will say, "If your at that point, just get a divorce", but sometimes, as stated in a previous post, that may be the lesser of the two evils for reasons beyond our scope and understanding. I know some will say, "Doesn't matter, I still wouldn't have sex with him/her", but that's not my question and I'm hoping my question borders the OP's original POV with this related POV possibility.

 

If the deprived spouse informs the withholding spouse of their intent and the withholding spouse apparently holds the means by which to prevent the deprived spouse from pursuing a quest for sexual release and the withholding spouse elects to continue withholding sex, is any sexual contact by the deprived spouse outside of the marriage considered "Cheating"?

 

We talk about being open and honest, I believe the deprived spouse qualifies by making the statement and the withholding spouse makes a decision to continue their abstinence.

 

Great post, Additude!

 

Mrs. Alura used to point out that there are three reasons to have sex, Love, Fun, and Power. Only the latter is immoral.

 

In my opinion, this situation would not be cheating because the deprived spouse would have communicated his (her) needs, only to have it fall on deaf ears. That would have released the deprived spouse (morally) to seek sex elsewhere, and accept whatever risks it entails.

 

However, that does not mean that anyone, including the swinging community, would be morally obligated to provide sex to the deprived spouse just because they already enjoy extra-marital sex. That's the point the deprived spouses who show up here so often don't seem to get.

[LFM2 1,482]

But I have a question. Say for example, one spouse is purposely withholding sex from the other spouse and that the deprived spouse informs the withholding spouse that if the current situation concerning sex in the relationship continues beyond a specified date and time, that the deprived spouse will begin a search in an attempt to find a partner or another means of sexual release.

 

I know some will say, "If your at that point, just get a divorce", but sometimes, as stated in a previous post, that may be the lesser of the two evils for reasons beyond our scope and understanding. I know some will say, "Doesn't matter, I still wouldn't have sex with him/her", but that's not my question and I'm hoping my question borders the OP's original POV with this related POV possibility.

 

If the deprived spouse informs the withholding spouse of their intent and the withholding spouse apparently holds the means by which to prevent the deprived spouse from pursuing a quest for sexual release and the withholding spouse elects to continue withholding sex, is any sexual contact by the deprived spouse outside of the marriage considered "Cheating"?

 

We talk about being open and honest, I believe the deprived spouse qualifies by making the statement and the withholding spouse makes a decision to continue their abstinence.

 

Additude, this is a great thinking post....

 

With all due respect for the spouse that is withholding sex, with your analogy, I'd have to say it's not cheating. Cheating, by my definition, requires some form of deceit. If the offended spouse tells the offending spouse that they are going to seek sexual satisfaction elsewhere, the offending spouse is aware (no deception there) of the others intentions. If the withholding spouse continues to withhold, and the spouse that was offended slept with someone else for sexual release, I just don't see it as cheating. (Did that make sense? It's almost like who's on first?)

 

I also want to add that I am grateful that I've never been in this situation and never want to be. The only times we really took a break from sex was either because of distance (miles) between us or because of childbirth.

 

Also, like Alura was referring to, I believe that we still wouldn't "help" this person out.