FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Pick one of two evils
Pick one of two evils
Jump to: Newest in thread
Imagine you're in a long term relationship, built a family, a home, everything seems to be rosy except - there's literally no sex life left.
You just don't have the same libido - due to age or illness or whatever else is going on.
Swinging is not an option - thought of it repulses you, it's against all your moral standards.
Would you rather:
A) Be cheated on by your partner on a regular basis.
B) Your partner left you, so you both get a chance to start your life over.
Pick one  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd let 'em cheat.
If everything is ideal save for the physical, just... y'know, get a guy in for that, sorted 
Is it cheating if we let them though?  "
Not at all.
But if the only issue in the relationship was sex, I'd confront it. Seems a simple deal, really.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd let 'em cheat.
If everything is ideal save for the physical, just... y'know, get a guy in for that, sorted
Is it cheating if we let them though?
Not at all.
But if the only issue in the relationship was sex, I'd confront it. Seems a simple deal, really. "
Definitely. Worth doing that before throwing it all away. Unless you want to throw the rest away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd let 'em cheat.
If everything is ideal save for the physical, just... y'know, get a guy in for that, sorted
Is it cheating if we let them though?
Not at all.
But if the only issue in the relationship was sex, I'd confront it. Seems a simple deal, really. "
I agree but I'm possibly taking the OPs question completely literally as the choice of only those options and allowing it wouldn't count  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *oo..Woman
over a year ago
Boo's World |
"C - if everything else is perfect and I didn’t want to split, speak to the partner and see if it’s possible to carry on the life but meet other people (not swinging). If that fails then B. "
I'm with Nora - option C
You wouldn't be able to build a life anywhere near what you have now for yourself and kids if everything gets thrown away and split up, it's impossible to afford.
Discuss/seek sex elsewhere
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Nothing ever that simple, black & white.
Before either option is even considered a good honest & open conversation needs to take place.
If everything else is good just no sex, but still affection why would you destroy that ?
As for cheating, is it cheating if you’ve already had that conversation and agreed the other can meet another person? However, this only works with totally honest communication on how each other feels about it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Reason I didn't ad an option C because there is no option C.
Maybe I shouldn't have called it swinging, but permission to seek sex elsewhere.
You spoke to your partner many times, even a thought of you being with someone else repulses them. They could never ever be okay with it (many people like that very much exist). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reason I didn't ad an option C because there is no option C.
Maybe I shouldn't have called it swinging, but permission to seek sex elsewhere.
You spoke to your partner many times, even a thought of you being with someone else repulses them. They could never ever be okay with it (many people like that very much exist). "
Based on this, it has to B walk away. A, would destroy your partner ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd let 'em cheat.
If everything is ideal save for the physical, just... y'know, get a guy in for that, sorted
Is it cheating if we let them though?
Not at all.
But if the only issue in the relationship was sex, I'd confront it. Seems a simple deal, really.
I agree but I'm possibly taking the OPs question completely literally as the choice of only those options and allowing it wouldn't count "
Ohh, I getcha.
In the completely literal? I couldn't even hypothetically answer that. It'd just be instinct to go "You know Tim? Tim has a lovely penis,maybe you shooould..."
Yeah, I retract my involvement in this thread, it's too tricky to think about monogamy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reason I didn't ad an option C because there is no option C.
Maybe I shouldn't have called it swinging, but permission to seek sex elsewhere.
You spoke to your partner many times, even a thought of you being with someone else repulses them. They could never ever be okay with it (many people like that very much exist). "
B then if that was the case |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd let 'em cheat.
If everything is ideal save for the physical, just... y'know, get a guy in for that, sorted
Is it cheating if we let them though?
Not at all.
But if the only issue in the relationship was sex, I'd confront it. Seems a simple deal, really.
I agree but I'm possibly taking the OPs question completely literally as the choice of only those options and allowing it wouldn't count
Ohh, I getcha.
In the completely literal? I couldn't even hypothetically answer that. It'd just be instinct to go "You know Tim? Tim has a lovely penis,maybe you shooould..."
Yeah, I retract my involvement in this thread, it's too tricky to think about monogamy "
Aww your referral scheme  .
I feel ya! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Try couples therapy….
Try sex therapy….
Where there is a will there is a way."
I wouldn’t go down this route. If someone doesn’t want me they don’t want me. If they then wanted me after some sort of therapy that totally wouldn’t work for me. Not sexually anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If it was a straightforward choice between the two with absolutely no alternative A.
We've spent over 40 years building this relationship. I wouldn't move house just because my partner asked someone else to mow the lawn because I couldn't, I wouldn't throw the relationship away because he got sex elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A - everything else is fine and kids (if you have kids) need a stable environment… "
Stable doesn’t always mean parents who are together in a relationship though! If the relationship is fraught or toxic then separated parents leads to a much more stable environment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Imagine you're in a long term relationship, built a family, a home, everything seems to be rosy except - there's literally no sex life left.
You just don't have the same libido - due to age or illness or whatever else is going on.
Swinging is not an option - thought of it repulses you, it's against all your moral standards.
Would you rather:
A) Be cheated on by your partner on a regular basis.
B) Your partner left you, so you both get a chance to start your life over.
Pick one "
Couldn't help but notice you did not mention "Love".
If I still loved them, and it was reciprocated, then I'd work very hard at fixing the physical issues.
If this was unsuccessful, then b.
I'd rather my heart broke once, than a little bit more everyday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A - everything else is fine and kids (if you have kids) need a stable environment…
Stable doesn’t always mean parents who are together in a relationship though! If the relationship is fraught or toxic then separated parents leads to a much more stable environment."
and happier for all ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would say at a push A; but would question the use of the emotive words "cheated on" in this scenario. For me cheating is a crime of broken trust not necessarily illicit sexual activity. An alcoholic, gambler or drug addict could be said to have cheated if they promised faithfully to abstain from their addiction and did not. I suspect however these forms of cheating are shown far more tolerance then sexual infidelity.
If you had said "A - Ignore the fact that your partner seeks sexual gratification elsewhere on a regular basis because otherwise the marriage is good." It may reflect reality better.
A good, stable, well established, marriage breaking up based purely on the sole measure of sexual infidelity is hard to justify in my mind. Sex is not love and love does not require sex to exist.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A - everything else is fine and kids (if you have kids) need a stable environment…
Stable doesn’t always mean parents who are together in a relationship though! If the relationship is fraught or toxic then separated parents leads to a much more stable environment."
Dirk has kids from a previous marriage which ended because his ex cheated.
Aside from a few months of initial shock of them splitting up - kids are absolutely thriving, we (us and the ex) are absolutely thriving too.
Co parenting is smooth and easy, we have time for our plans, ex has time for her own plans without having to worry about childcare as we all make plans according to custody schedule, all kids know they have two very stable homes where they're loved and welcome at any time.
Ex stayed in old family home while me and Dirk slowly created a family home for ourselves.
She's welcome to all family gatherings as are we.
Divorce is only ever traumatising to kids when adults can't be adults and get along for the sake of them.
My own parents divorced when I was a kid and I was always happy for them because I knew they're not being miserable with each other just because of me.
Missus |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would say at a push A; but would question the use of the emotive words "cheated on" in this scenario. For me cheating is a crime of broken trust not necessarily illicit sexual activity. An alcoholic, gambler or drug addict could be said to have cheated if they promised faithfully to abstain from their addiction and did not. I suspect however these forms of cheating are shown far more tolerance then sexual infidelity.
If you had said "A - Ignore the fact that your partner seeks sexual gratification elsewhere on a regular basis because otherwise the marriage is good." It may reflect reality better.
A good, stable, well established, marriage breaking up based purely on the sole measure of sexual infidelity is hard to justify in my mind. Sex is not love and love does not require sex to exist.
"
I agree, especially the last sentence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A - if we are otherwise happy, why throw that all away? And it technically wouldn’t be cheating because the permission would be there to play away. "
This. If sex isn't possible but you still love each other then why should one suffer because the other is unable. If you have given your blessing, they still come home to you and they are happy then I don't see how its cheating |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"C - if everything else is perfect and I didn’t want to split, speak to the partner and see if it’s possible to carry on the life but meet other people (not swinging). If that fails then B. "
C exactly describes my life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
"
Don’t both deserve to be happy, live life rather than just exist in four walls for the sake of a mortgage and children.
It is amazing what children pick up that you think you are hiding so well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
B.
It's exactly what we did.
We weren't arguing or anything but we were just both miserable.
We stayed together 'for the kids', but they can pick up on the mood and it negatively affects them.
So, in the end we decided we both deserved to be happy, and the kids deserve to have happy parents, so we amicably split.
Best thing either of us have ever done tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A - if we are otherwise happy, why throw that all away? And it technically wouldn’t be cheating because the permission would be there to play away. "
But in the scenario the OP raised, it is cheating as: "Swinging is not an option - thought of it repulses you, it's against all your moral standards." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Don’t both deserve to be happy, live life rather than just exist in four walls for the sake of a mortgage and children.
It is amazing what children pick up that you think you are hiding so well. "
I agree; and they should be happy. The celibate one is no longer bothered by sex requests they have to refuse and the sexual one is relaxed and happy because they get relief elsewhere. Not ideal but their prime objective as parents should be the children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
"
Saying "set aside the accepted trust issues" is a bit like saying "let's just forget about the risk of crashing, what actual damage is done by drink drivers?". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"B.
It's exactly what we did.
We weren't arguing or anything but we were just both miserable.
We stayed together 'for the kids', but they can pick up on the mood and it negatively affects them.
So, in the end we decided we both deserved to be happy, and the kids deserve to have happy parents, so we amicably split.
Best thing either of us have ever done tbh. "
Did you break up solely because of sexual incompatibility?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Saying "set aside the accepted trust issues" is a bit like saying "let's just forget about the risk of crashing, what actual damage is done by drink drivers?". "
I'm sorry I don't get that analogy. I don't think anyone denies that trust is the issue; it is hammered to death in the forums. I was looking at what actual evidence of harm is there compared with other marital dangers. Or are you eluding to the risk that a partner will fall for someone else?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think the options are that simple for everyone. I suspect for a lot of people what is missing isn't sex but the feeling of being desired. It's relatively easy to find that through sex with others but, from my experience, not if you actually love your partner.
In that situation not only do you have the guilt that were they to know you had cheated it would cause them significant hurt but by finding someone else who shows you desire it simply highlights the fact that the person you love - and who you want it from - doesn't.
I thought I could try option A but quickly realised B was the least worst for me. I still feel enormous guilt though for taking what was the best solution for me but smashed her world by walking away. That is something those who talk of the hurt of being cheated on don't always seem to recognise - the alternative isn't exactly any less painful.
Mr
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Don’t both deserve to be happy, live life rather than just exist in four walls for the sake of a mortgage and children.
It is amazing what children pick up that you think you are hiding so well.
I agree; and they should be happy. The celibate one is no longer bothered by sex requests they have to refuse and the sexual one is relaxed and happy because they get relief elsewhere. Not ideal but their prime objective as parents should be the children."
You don’t need to be in the same house for the prime objective to be the well being of the children.
Do you truly believe the one sat at home whilst the other is off having sex elsewhere is truly happy? That isn’t happy living life, that is just existing day to day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"B.
It's exactly what we did.
We weren't arguing or anything but we were just both miserable.
We stayed together 'for the kids', but they can pick up on the mood and it negatively affects them.
So, in the end we decided we both deserved to be happy, and the kids deserve to have happy parents, so we amicably split.
Best thing either of us have ever done tbh.
Did you break up solely because of sexual incompatibility? "
No. Because we didn't love each other, had drifted to the point we had no common interests (apart from the kids) and hardly even talked.
I did also really miss just some of the simple things like holding hands, or having a hug. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ancer36Woman
over a year ago
Stirling |
"I don't think the options are that simple for everyone. I suspect for a lot of people what is missing isn't sex but the feeling of being desired. It's relatively easy to find that through sex with others but, from my experience, not if you actually love your partner.
In that situation not only do you have the guilt that were they to know you had cheated it would cause them significant hurt but by finding someone else who shows you desire it simply highlights the fact that the person you love - and who you want it from - doesn't.
I thought I could try option A but quickly realised B was the least worst for me. I still feel enormous guilt though for taking what was the best solution for me but smashed her world by walking away. That is something those who talk of the hurt of being cheated on don't always seem to recognise - the alternative isn't exactly any less painful.
Mr
"
This is so very honest!
There is pain in an option - you can still love someone but not be in love with them - ultimately walking away takes a lot out of both of you but in the end you can find your happiness and hopefully a civil relationship with the other particularly if children are involved.
Found this very compelling to read xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A.
I'd have married for love of the person and respect for myself not just for sex.
So if we are perfect together except for sex and I don't want it he is welcome to have sex with others but not cheat emotionally.
So ........... A all the way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Don’t both deserve to be happy, live life rather than just exist in four walls for the sake of a mortgage and children.
It is amazing what children pick up that you think you are hiding so well.
I agree; and they should be happy. The celibate one is no longer bothered by sex requests they have to refuse and the sexual one is relaxed and happy because they get relief elsewhere. Not ideal but their prime objective as parents should be the children.
You don’t need to be in the same house for the prime objective to be the well being of the children.
Do you truly believe the one sat at home whilst the other is off having sex elsewhere is truly happy? That isn’t happy living life, that is just existing day to day. "
What I believe is irrelevant. This not about me. I am just probing the sceneario started by the OP.
If one was sat at home whilst the other travelled to an away game with their mates, would that be cause for unhappiness? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"B.
It's exactly what we did.
We weren't arguing or anything but we were just both miserable.
We stayed together 'for the kids', but they can pick up on the mood and it negatively affects them.
So, in the end we decided we both deserved to be happy, and the kids deserve to have happy parents, so we amicably split.
Best thing either of us have ever done tbh.
Did you break up solely because of sexual incompatibility?
No. Because we didn't love each other, had drifted to the point we had no common interests (apart from the kids) and hardly even talked.
I did also really miss just some of the simple things like holding hands, or having a hug. "
I feel for you, but sadly the marriage had broken down because of reasons other than sex alone. The OP described a good marriage where the only issue was sex. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"B. I don’t see how B is an evil though?
"
By the way I don’t think being cheated on is the worst thing that could happen to me but repeatedly? I’m not a dickhead lmao |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
"
Obtaining sexual relief outside a sexless marriage when partner agrees with it - no problem at all.
My question was - when you talk to your partner, tell them how you feel and they specifically express to you that even the idea of you having sex with anyone is hugely repulsive and hurtful to them.
Would you really be happy to do cheat anyway?
Knowing if they ever find out or even become suspicious of - it will break them apart and cause irreparable lifelong damage.
You mentioned abusers - do you think that mental trauma like this is an easy thing to deal with?
If you walk away - they will be hurt, but will eventually get over it and will at least have a chance to form a new relationship with a different partner.
If they find out you've cheated on them when they expressed how much it would hurt them - what do you think all of their future relationships will be like? Do you think that person will ever be able to trust anyone again?
Do you feel entitled to hold the power of destroying any chance of your partners potential future relationships to be healthy?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Saying "set aside the accepted trust issues" is a bit like saying "let's just forget about the risk of crashing, what actual damage is done by drink drivers?".
I'm sorry I don't get that analogy. I don't think anyone denies that trust is the issue; it is hammered to death in the forums. I was looking at what actual evidence of harm is there compared with other marital dangers. Or are you eluding to the risk that a partner will fall for someone else? "
The point is that the relationship itself is pointless if you destroy the trust. That is the harm. You are removing someone's ability to ever have faith in your word again and destroying the closeness you have with that person. Its a miserable existence trying to live with the constant doubt of knowing someone you thought you could trust deliberately set out to deceive you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Don’t both deserve to be happy, live life rather than just exist in four walls for the sake of a mortgage and children.
It is amazing what children pick up that you think you are hiding so well.
I agree; and they should be happy. The celibate one is no longer bothered by sex requests they have to refuse and the sexual one is relaxed and happy because they get relief elsewhere. Not ideal but their prime objective as parents should be the children.
You don’t need to be in the same house for the prime objective to be the well being of the children.
Do you truly believe the one sat at home whilst the other is off having sex elsewhere is truly happy? That isn’t happy living life, that is just existing day to day.
What I believe is irrelevant. This not about me. I am just probing the sceneario started by the OP.
If one was sat at home whilst the other travelled to an away game with their mates, would that be cause for unhappiness? "
It could be yes, unless the one left at home actually gets free time to go out, be with her friends in what she chooses to do for the same length of time. It’s called compromise, but normally if kids involved, the woman doesn’t get that freedom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
"
What actual damage is done?
Ah I do so love people that cheat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"B.
It's exactly what we did.
We weren't arguing or anything but we were just both miserable.
We stayed together 'for the kids', but they can pick up on the mood and it negatively affects them.
So, in the end we decided we both deserved to be happy, and the kids deserve to have happy parents, so we amicably split.
Best thing either of us have ever done tbh.
Did you break up solely because of sexual incompatibility?
No. Because we didn't love each other, had drifted to the point we had no common interests (apart from the kids) and hardly even talked.
I did also really miss just some of the simple things like holding hands, or having a hug.
I feel for you, but sadly the marriage had broken down because of reasons other than sex alone. The OP described a good marriage where the only issue was sex. "
True, but many therapists and counsellors say that sex is important to keep the connection going long term.
If the sex hadn't dried up, would we still have had feelings for each other and still taken an interest in each others lives? Who knows.
But long term, I think if one member desires something the other can not / will not give, it can stress the relationship.
At that point is cheating the better of those two options? Personally I don't believe so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A - if we are otherwise happy, why throw that all away? And it technically wouldn’t be cheating because the permission would be there to play away. "
This, assuming there truly is the granted permission. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Obtaining sexual relief outside a sexless marriage when partner agrees with it - no problem at all.
My question was - when you talk to your partner, tell them how you feel and they specifically express to you that even the idea of you having sex with anyone is hugely repulsive and hurtful to them.
Would you really be happy to do cheat anyway?
Knowing if they ever find out or even become suspicious of - it will break them apart and cause irreparable lifelong damage.
You mentioned abusers - do you think that mental trauma like this is an easy thing to deal with?
If you walk away - they will be hurt, but will eventually get over it and will at least have a chance to form a new relationship with a different partner.
If they find out you've cheated on them when they expressed how much it would hurt them - what do you think all of their future relationships will be like? Do you think that person will ever be able to trust anyone again?
Do you feel entitled to hold the power of destroying any chance of your partners potential future relationships to be healthy?
"
Interesting points. Well, celibate or refusing partners, often resort to emotional coercing of their spouse to win.
So to put it simply they may say "I won't have sex with you but I don't want you having sex with anyone else because it will upset me. If you do you will lose your home, partner, reputation, friends and contact with your children." Does that sound fair when the celibate is the one creating the whole situation?
Actions have consequences. If you refuse sex to someone who you know is driven by a high sex drive the end result is simple to predict. They either cheat, fight or leave. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
What actual damage is done?
Ah I do so love people that cheat. "
That is a strange position as most people despise cheaters. Each to their own.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Don’t both deserve to be happy, live life rather than just exist in four walls for the sake of a mortgage and children.
It is amazing what children pick up that you think you are hiding so well.
I agree; and they should be happy. The celibate one is no longer bothered by sex requests they have to refuse and the sexual one is relaxed and happy because they get relief elsewhere. Not ideal but their prime objective as parents should be the children.
You don’t need to be in the same house for the prime objective to be the well being of the children.
Do you truly believe the one sat at home whilst the other is off having sex elsewhere is truly happy? That isn’t happy living life, that is just existing day to day.
What I believe is irrelevant. This not about me. I am just probing the sceneario started by the OP.
If one was sat at home whilst the other travelled to an away game with their mates, would that be cause for unhappiness?
It could be yes, unless the one left at home actually gets free time to go out, be with her friends in what she chooses to do for the same length of time. It’s called compromise, but normally if kids involved, the woman doesn’t get that freedom. "
True. I would hope there was a quid pro quo in the relationship as described by the OP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
What actual damage is done?
Ah I do so love people that cheat.
That is a strange position as most people despise cheaters. Each to their own. "
Sarcasm. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *l6789Man
over a year ago
croydon |
I could never choose A even if libido had gone, the thought of my life partner the woman I’d decided to share everything with jumping into bed with someone else when we committed to a relationship, would repulse me. If I wanted a happy ever after Disney story marriage then it would be monogamous.
So I’ll take B thanks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Obtaining sexual relief outside a sexless marriage when partner agrees with it - no problem at all.
My question was - when you talk to your partner, tell them how you feel and they specifically express to you that even the idea of you having sex with anyone is hugely repulsive and hurtful to them.
Would you really be happy to do cheat anyway?
Knowing if they ever find out or even become suspicious of - it will break them apart and cause irreparable lifelong damage.
You mentioned abusers - do you think that mental trauma like this is an easy thing to deal with?
If you walk away - they will be hurt, but will eventually get over it and will at least have a chance to form a new relationship with a different partner.
If they find out you've cheated on them when they expressed how much it would hurt them - what do you think all of their future relationships will be like? Do you think that person will ever be able to trust anyone again?
Do you feel entitled to hold the power of destroying any chance of your partners potential future relationships to be healthy?
Interesting points. Well, celibate or refusing partners, often resort to emotional coercing of their spouse to win.
So to put it simply they may say "I won't have sex with you but I don't want you having sex with anyone else because it will upset me. If you do you will lose your home, partner, reputation, friends and contact with your children." Does that sound fair when the celibate is the one creating the whole situation?
Actions have consequences. If you refuse sex to someone who you know is driven by a high sex drive the end result is simple to predict. They either cheat, fight or leave. "
That sounds like a toxic relationship and they're honestly better off apart. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that chose B ... please consider this..
If the marriage is stable, there are kids to support, there is a mortgage and there is not constant fighting then why B.
If the errant partner was an alcoholic it could ruin their reputation, lose their job or they could become violent, if they are violent they could cause personal injury, if a gambler they could cause huge money worries, if they were a drug user they could die prematurely or do damage when under the influence.
So, IF we set aside the accepted trust issue for a moment, what actual damage is done by a partner that obtains sexual relief outside a sexless marriage but does not intend to leave the marriage? They obviously cannot pass on STIs as they don't have sex.
Obtaining sexual relief outside a sexless marriage when partner agrees with it - no problem at all.
My question was - when you talk to your partner, tell them how you feel and they specifically express to you that even the idea of you having sex with anyone is hugely repulsive and hurtful to them.
Would you really be happy to do cheat anyway?
Knowing if they ever find out or even become suspicious of - it will break them apart and cause irreparable lifelong damage.
You mentioned abusers - do you think that mental trauma like this is an easy thing to deal with?
If you walk away - they will be hurt, but will eventually get over it and will at least have a chance to form a new relationship with a different partner.
If they find out you've cheated on them when they expressed how much it would hurt them - what do you think all of their future relationships will be like? Do you think that person will ever be able to trust anyone again?
Do you feel entitled to hold the power of destroying any chance of your partners potential future relationships to be healthy?
Interesting points. Well, celibate or refusing partners, often resort to emotional coercing of their spouse to win.
So to put it simply they may say "I won't have sex with you but I don't want you having sex with anyone else because it will upset me. If you do you will lose your home, partner, reputation, friends and contact with your children." Does that sound fair when the celibate is the one creating the whole situation?
Actions have consequences. If you refuse sex to someone who you know is driven by a high sex drive the end result is simple to predict. They either cheat, fight or leave.
That sounds like a toxic relationship and they're honestly better off apart. "
Yes. Agreed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Imagine you're in a long term relationship, built a family, a home, everything seems to be rosy except - there's literally no sex life left.
You just don't have the same libido - due to age or illness or whatever else is going on.
Swinging is not an option - thought of it repulses you, it's against all your moral standards.
Would you rather:
A) Be cheated on by your partner on a regular basis.
B) Your partner left you, so you both get a chance to start your life over.
Pick one "
B.no question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
