Advising men and women to stay with cheating spouses, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

Well once he's opened that Pandora's box he doesn't have much choice but to go along, does he? If you're going to mess around so am I!

+1. My revenge affair is great! I don't need his agreement for anything at this point.

[Anonymous]

For a particular reason I will not get into, I think my wife cheated once when she said she was at work. I have joked about it many times and she keeps denying it.

But suppose I had proof that it happened? Pretty much in the same situation as 9:40. We are better off being married to each other rather than having it end for a one time thing. However, I would require a different marriage arrangement, not to get back at her or a goose and gander thing. But to acknowledge that monogamy is not the be all and end all of our marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

For the same reason as the woman would - not to lose at least half the time with kids, half of marital assets, nice house, great neighborhood, social status..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

For the same reason as the woman would - not to lose at least half the time with kids, half of marital assets, nice house, great neighborhood, social status..

Great. Agree to her getting plowed by other guys and thinking about her next meeting with them to keep up appearances.

[Anonymous]

Yes, being married is better than not. But it does make for difficult uncomfortable times when one partner doesn't desire the other partner in the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:15, you have posted this before, right? Do you love your DH? Still have sex with him? Does he love you?

I don't love him romantically. He's a good guy though. I wouldn't say no if he wanted to have sex. We usually do once or twice a month. I think he does still love me, but it's complicated.

Yes, it is complicated. Are you involved with only one other person? Are kids the only reason you stay or his DH a good person but insecure or gets off on humiliation? Sorry for all the questions but your situation is fascinating.

Yes, I am involved with just one person. His wife is medically incapable of a sexual relationship. I stay for the kids, because he is a good person, and other reasons, such as I love DH's family (weird, I know ). We are compatible in many other ways. I really hope he isn't humiliated...yes, he should have been honest with me that he was overextending his normal sexual appetite because we were in the dating phase, but we're all human.

You sound so weirdly proud that you are doing this. Smug even. That is really pathetic.

NP. Sounds like a workable arrangement to me. Good luck to PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, being married is better than not. But it does make for difficult uncomfortable times when one partner doesn't desire the other partner in the same way.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, being married is better than not. But it does make for difficult uncomfortable times when one partner doesn't desire the other partner in the same way.

After 20+ years of marriage all this talk of desire goes down the drain. For many couples, sexual indifference to each other sets in much earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

For the same reason as the woman would - not to lose at least half the time with kids, half of marital assets, nice house, great neighborhood, social status..

Great. Agree to her getting plowed by other guys and thinking about her next meeting with them to keep up appearances.

Children, money, property, assets - not the same as appearances. Why take 50% when you can have access to 100%? And it's not like you have to stay celibate, either. Much better to be civilized about these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

For the same reason as the woman would - not to lose at least half the time with kids, half of marital assets, nice house, great neighborhood, social status..

Great. Agree to her getting plowed by other guys and thinking about her next meeting with them to keep up appearances.

Children, money, property, assets - not the same as appearances. Why take 50% when you can have access to 100%? And it's not like you have to stay celibate, either. Much better to be civilized about these things.

Yup. Let's face it. Sexual desire is one of the most complicated and least understood subjects out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

For the same reason as the woman would - not to lose at least half the time with kids, half of marital assets, nice house, great neighborhood, social status..

Great. Agree to her getting plowed by other guys and thinking about her next meeting with them to keep up appearances.

Children, money, property, assets - not the same as appearances. Why take 50% when you can have access to 100%? And it's not like you have to stay celibate, either. Much better to be civilized about these things.

Yet when I read about open marriages and swinging, the percentages of married couple with these arrangements is very low, albeit in a county the size of the US even if it was 5%, that's a lot of people. Tells me that it sound great discussing on a forum, but real life is not nearly as easy.

[Anonymous]

That's because these things aren't really verbalized, and I doubt surveyed often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

For the same reason as the woman would - not to lose at least half the time with kids, half of marital assets, nice house, great neighborhood, social status..

Great. Agree to her getting plowed by other guys and thinking about her next meeting with them to keep up appearances.

Children, money, property, assets - not the same as appearances. Why take 50% when you can have access to 100%? And it's not like you have to stay celibate, either. Much better to be civilized about these things.

Yet when I read about open marriages and swinging, the percentages of married couple with these arrangements is very low, albeit in a county the size of the US even if it was 5%, that's a lot of people. Tells me that it sound great discussing on a forum, but real life is not nearly as easy.

Two issues with your statement:

The amount of people who ADMIT to an open marriage may be 5% but reality is probably higher.
And, Americans are notoriously sexually prim and proper. Just because your average American couple won't indulge in an open marriage doesn't mean plenty of others aren't doing just that.

The problem with straying outside the marriage is really only if it's one sided. If one partner is giving their all exclusively and the other isn't, that's obviously an unfair imbalance that will create strife. But if both agree that they enjoy being married, love the family unit, and want to preserve those and lifestyle but seek a little excitement from others from time to time, well, what doesn't sound good about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't assume that cheating carries the same weight and meanin for everyone- that is how you get some people who view it as no big deal and others who would be devastated. Now, if you are in the devasted camp and you choose to stay, it sounds like a choice between the lesser of two evils. Instead of judging what they choose to do I feel bad for them, what a terrible position to be put in.

My ex DW cheated, fell in love and we are divorced. I wonder what % of relationships could survive/thrive etc in a situation in which partner falls in love/lust with someone else.

It was probably lust but there will never be trust in that relationship if it lasts. My friend was in the same boat, he left her and the kids for a co-worker. She did well in the divorce, but after a year she did some hang up calls to their home and sent some sexy thongs. I forgot what else, but they broke it off and were going to get married. He tried to get back with my friend, and he was told him where to go...also took him back to court for more support. Funny when it all comes back around to cheaters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here if anything I'm more apt to tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if that's how he wants things to be, I might just not rebuff the next guy who hits on me by saying "Thanks, I'm flattered but I'm married." I actually think if an agreement like that could be reached between spouses that occasionally each one has a dalliance if they want but the family unit remains the main priority, it could actually make for a pretty nice setup.

But as it is much easier for a woman to find a sex partner, why would a husband go along with this?

For the same reason as the woman would - not to lose at least half the time with kids, half of marital assets, nice house, great neighborhood, social status..

Great. Agree to her getting plowed by other guys and thinking about her next meeting with them to keep up appearances.

Children, money, property, assets - not the same as appearances. Why take 50% when you can have access to 100%? And it's not like you have to stay celibate, either. Much better to be civilized about these things.

Yet when I read about open marriages and swinging, the percentages of married couple with these arrangements is very low, albeit in a county the size of the US even if it was 5%, that's a lot of people. Tells me that it sound great discussing on a forum, but real life is not nearly as easy.

Two issues with your statement:

The amount of people who ADMIT to an open marriage may be 5% but reality is probably higher.
And, Americans are notoriously sexually prim and proper. Just because your average American couple won't indulge in an open marriage doesn't mean plenty of others aren't doing just that.

The problem with straying outside the marriage is really only if it's one sided. If one partner is giving their all exclusively and the other isn't, that's obviously an unfair imbalance that will create strife. But if both agree that they enjoy being married, love the family unit, and want to preserve those and lifestyle but seek a little excitement from others from time to time, well, what doesn't sound good about that?

Probably much lower but a dysfunctional lifestyle is just that, it usually blows up. If you have kids it beyond wrong, no different than having an addiction or other problem. If you have kids you have a obligation to be a role model, and teach good values. That means living that way too. Stay single and date if you want that kind of thing.