Is an affair a dealbreaker

LuckyDan said:

And if you are monogamous, you chances are none.

Click to expand...

Unless you contracted it from a parent when you were born, or borrowed a needle from an AIDS victim.

spud_meister said:

Unless you contracted it from a parent when you were born, or borrowed a needle from an AIDS victim.

Click to expand...

Thank you, yes.

My post was meant in the context of sexual lifestyle.

Redress said:

Depends on your lifestyle, same as being a gay man.

Click to expand...

That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the truth of what I said. If you are a straight white male in the Western World, the chances that you will contract AIDS in your lifetime are miniscule. It's statistical fact.

That doesn't mean AIDS is a "gay disease." But the nature of male-male sex makes transmission easier, and gay men do tend to have more sexual partners in their lifetime.

Jeezy said:

That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the truth of what I said. If you are a straight white male in the Western World, the chances that you will contract AIDS in your lifetime are miniscule. It's statistical fact.

That doesn't mean AIDS is a "gay disease." But the nature of male-male sex makes transmission easier, and gay men do tend to have more sexual partners in their lifetime.

Click to expand...

Except the key there is not that they are strait, but that their lifestyle is different. A gay man who lives a monogamous lifestyle has the same chance of contracting AIDS as a strait guy living a monogamous lifestyle.

Jeezy said:

...to be fair, if you are a straight white male in the western world, your chances of contracting AIDS are statistically slim.

But yeah, you're definitely not immune.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of "straight" men who have sex with men and then infect their wives with HIV. So how would you classify those men?

There is no imaginary barrier to transmission. I wish people would understand this.

lewstherin said:

yes. excuses are wonderful. high crime rates are due to poverty. high rape rates are due to a lack of sex.
high AIDS rates are due to men accidentally placing their dicks in the asses of other men. what a wonderful world we live in
where the dumb ass excuses of immorality can justify actual consequence.

Click to expand...

Is there some point to this? Because I don't see one.

Redress said:

Except the key there is not that they are strait, but that their lifestyle is different. A gay man who lives a monogamous lifestyle has the same chance of contracting AIDS as a strait guy living a monogamous lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Not really. Because if a monogamous homosexual man's partner cheats, he can catch it. Not so much for a monogamous heterosexual man.

edit: Of course, at this point we're talking about chances so small that rational people shouldn't even consider them.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Not really. Because if a monogamous homosexual man's partner cheats, he can catch it. Not so much for a monogamous heterosexual man.

Click to expand...

Again, any one can catch it who engages in high risk activities.

Temporal said:

There are a lot of "straight" men who have sex with men and then infect their wives with HIV. So how would you classify those men?

There is no imaginary barrier to transmission. I wish people would understand this.

Click to expand...

"nnnnn nooooo..... that would be incorrect."

Redress said:

Again, any one can catch it who engages in high risk activities.

Click to expand...

Certainly so. It's just that, whether you're male or female yourself, having sex with men is much riskier than having sex with women.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Certainly so. It's just that, whether you're male or female yourself, having sex with men is much riskier than having sex with women.

Click to expand...

Also not true. having anal sex is riskier. Having sex with some one who is promiscuous is much riskier.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Certainly so. It's just that, whether you're male or female yourself, having sex with men is much riskier than having sex with women.

Click to expand...

No, having anal sex is the risk factor, regardless of whether you do it with a man or a woman.

spud_meister said:

No, having anal sex is the risk factor, regardless of whether you do it with a man or a woman.

Click to expand...

I may not be correct here, but the risk factor seems to be receiving anal sex, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Viktyr Korimir said:

I may not be correct here, but the risk factor seems to be receiving anal sex, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

Click to expand...

I don't think you are, the high risk factor associated with anal sex comes from the propensity for the lining of the intestines to tear, which will lead to transmission of the virus regardless of if you're giving or receiving, if you're not using a condom.

Viktyr Korimir said:

I'm indifferent. The issue for me is one of loyalty, and keeping a little piece on the side doesn't really hurt me. Whatever.

But if she's neglecting me or our family in favor of fooling around, then there's going to be Hell to pay. I can forgive a lot, but I won't tolerate being ignored. Or if her piece on the side is filth and I'm worried about being exposed to it; the other problem I've had in "open" relationships is seeing the pathetic vermin I'm being asked to share with. If a man isn't good enough to sit at my dinner table, then I don't like the implications of my woman thinking he's good enough to sleep with.

Click to expand...

But keeping something on the side you know nothing about is a smack in the face in reguards to loyalty.

In reguards to the open thing? Have it where you both have to give approval.

Johnny said:

I'd stay. I would cheat back though. The sneaking around part is what would bother me. I wouldn't mind an open relationship or swinging. If she gets variety then so should I. It all depends. But for me an affair is not a deal breaker. Not in and of itself.

Click to expand...

Cheating back is just creating another problem and you never solve problems by creating new ones.

Temporal said:

I don't see cheaters as unfaithful scum as others seem to. I see them as people playing the monogamy game when they aren't meant to, and that's okay. Our social fabric seems setup to force one kind of relationship on people, and that isn't realistic for many.

Click to expand...

To me, people become "unfaithful scum," not by being promiscuous or sleeping with more than one person, but when they lie about it and sneak around behind the other person's back. Particularly the serial cheaters. No one is forcing monogamy on them. They could just as easily find someone who agrees to an open relationship from the beginning. So what makes them scum is the fact that they lie and sneak around-not that they are promiscuous.

Temporal said:

If you have established trust with your partner on the basis of monogamy, then yes, you are right to feel betrayed if that trust is broken. My partner and I are both polyamorous and we both put equal time and energy into any other partner we have. It takes a lot of work to be equally committed to multiple people (which is why I only have one partner right now). It is not infidelity, but a very conscious practice.

Click to expand...

There you have it. You and your partner established those conditions from the beginning. No problem.

Temporal said:

I don't see why monogamy in of itself should have anything to do with the value of your relationship, or with your partner's choices that happen away from you.

Click to expand...

Because some people view sex as more than just an action but the sharing of one's self with another person. Exclusivity is meant to be special. When people spread themselves around, the act of sex is not special nor does it provide a connection between two people.

Temporal said:

Why does it matter what they do with someone else?

Click to expand...

Exclusivity is a matter of claiming possession over another person. Some people want to belong to another person while others resent that. It's a matter of preference.

Temporal said:

All that matters is how they relate to you. If their relationship with someone else is hurting your relationship (i.e. they are not fulfilling their commitments, there are scheduling problems, etc.), then that's something worth looking at, especially if you have a kid. On the other hand, them being with someone else does not summarily make them unfaithful trash.

Click to expand...

They are unfaithful trash because they sneak around and lie about their sexual activities. Not because they're having sex with other people. That's the difference, imo.

Temporal said:

There's a reason why people call it "free love". I am not talking about polysexery and trying to get off with as many people as possible. It seems like most of people's suffering about cheating stems from being too attached. When I love someone, it makes much more sense for them to remain free in my eyes. I want them to be free, but because we are together, I expect communication and sharing about what they are experiencing. That's all I ask for.

Click to expand...

And that's fine for you. And it's fine for anyone so long as people are honest about it.

Temporal said:

All these personal wounds... over humans being humans, and then having a guilt and shame complex about it. It has not been my reality and I don't understand it.

Click to expand...

If being human means being a lying scumbag, I don't much care for being human. As I said, people need to be honest about their needs. It becomes shameful because people make it shameful. The very act of lying and sneaking around is what makes the act of sex shameful. Not the act itself.

Temporal said:

For some people monogamy works and that's great, but looking at the divorce statistics, I don't think it's meant to last for many. Or at least, the way monogamy is playing out seems to be stagnating people's lives so that they want to escape, as if monogamy or divorce are the only two options.

Click to expand...

If people become unhappy in a relationship, they always have the option of leaving. There's absolutely no need to sneak around and lie about it.

Aunt Spiker said:

I went 16 months without any - I managed and so did he without turning into wretched vow violating beasts of compulsion.

But that's just us - a lot of military families don't fair as well.

Click to expand...

I'm not thinking about a situation when the two are separated. I'm talking about a situation where there is ample opportunity, but no effort put in. It's much easier when the reason for no sex is because of physical separation, it's much harder when it is due to emotional separation.

BDBoop said:

If a partner cheats, should the relationship/marriage end (in your estimation.)

Click to expand...

Can you define cheating? Is it a one night stand or is it an ongoing emotional relationship with another person?

Please answer then I can answer.

ecofarm said:

Same. I don't demand exclusivity, merely honesty (and I'm a real dick about that). My relationships generally end up monogamous, with occasional friends of hers visiting (I don't chase women). Wiping out the whole jealousy thing really makes life easier.

Click to expand...

I agree jealousy is a wasted emotion.

Kali said:

But keeping something on the side you know nothing about is a smack in the face in reguards to loyalty.

Click to expand...

Not really. Having sex discreetly with other men won't keep her from being by my side when I need her.

MistressNomad said:

Not really. Rape happened (and still does), but it is taboo in all higher primates. Not just us. This is not an outgrowth of modern civilization - it's part of being an intelligent social mammal, and specifically a primate.

Click to expand...

who said rape was a taboo? Rape has been a historical norm; it's only very, very, very recently that we've begun to care about anyone other than our own females being raped.

The average human relationship does tend towards monogamy, but historically it's not life-long. And this was even back in the times when humans only lived 30 or 40 years.

Click to expand...

often you saw one partner die before the other from something other than old-age, and they would then remarry, that's true. that's not quite the same thing as the rampant divorce that we see today.

And in the modern era, where humans live twice as long, an expectation of life-long monogamy becomes even more unrealistic, reflected by our divorce rates and infidelity rates.

Click to expand...

this is incorrect - those things are the result of social changes in how we approach both of those topics, as well as technological advances and legal alterations in how we treat them.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Not really. Having sex discreetly with other men won't keep her from being by my side when I need her.

Click to expand...

It easily can. Why should she deal with extra difficulty with you when she has an alternative she can easily jump ship to?

cpwill said:

It easily can. Why should she deal with extra difficulty with you when she has an alternative she can easily jump ship to?

Click to expand...

Because that alternative will eventually develop similar "extra difficulties" as all relationships eventually do. If she has any sort of intelligence whatsoever she will know this and if she doesn't then he's much better off without her anyway.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Not really. Having sex discreetly with other men won't keep her from being by my side when I need her.

Click to expand...

It would if she's too busy screwing another guy.