Good post, HP, thoughtful and constructive. In three similar but not identical situations I have personal knowledge of, the couples have been through those steps and still there is no solution. It's not that the wives refuse sex, they still enjoy affection, attention, expressions of love and occasional passion. But overall, they are tamped down and much more focused on children, grandchildren, social activities, and community involvement. Nothing wrong with that -- the husbands like those things too -- but more than that the wives are well tamped down physically and indicate little interest in seeing that their partners are satisfied, disdaining such things as BJs. That leaves the guys with recurring frustration and lack of fulfillment. The wives are adamant about infidelity of any kind, with anyone outside monogamy. Those couples are at an impasse, and as a result, the husbands enter the hobby. The husbands would probably enter it anyway, given the passage of time in the monogamous relationship.
LG,
I've got a couple of questions which I expect lurk in the minds of many of the readers of this board, but which I've not yet seen addressed here directly.
I feel that,
1) I am easily able to separate the physical intimacies of a P4P encounter from the emotional intimacies of a proper relationship,
2) doing the first discretely does not threaten the other in any meaningful way--aside, of course, from the risk of STD transfer which I'll hold apart from this discussion for the moment, and
3) having the freedom to pursue the occasional P4P encounter actually serves to improve my ability to engage in the emotional (and physical) intimacies of a proper relationship.
Clearly there are many men for whom #1 is not true so these questions would be moot for them. But for the rest of us--and I suspect our numbers are substantial--I want to ask these questions:
Q1: Why are the ideas in 1,2 & 3 so rarely understood by women?
Yes, I know, natural selection, biological determinism and all that... But instead of bemoaning the fact that "men are all the same" and breaking up or calling the divorce attorney upon any infidelity, why not celebrate the fact that many men can carry on in this way without any harm to their primary relationship? Why not recognize that the only damage to the relationship is a function of their perception of what has happened? Why not look at the history of mankind and embrace the facts about the nature of the human male? Why choose to destroy relationships, families and wealth while incurring years of acrimonious divorce proceedings based on the mistaken principle that infidelity is always bad? Why not acknowledge that a P4P encounter for a man often (usually?) has no more "meaning" than a woman going to the spa for a massage? Wouldn't the world be a better place if marriage vows read more like this: "I promise to be faithful until death do us part, and the occasional meaningless tryst will not violate this understanding..."?
Q2: What can men do to better manage this situation?
I suspect your answer will be to find a woman for a primary relationship with whom we can speak honestly about these matters and who can accept us as we are. I love everything about that answer except that it is not possible--there just aren't enough women with that view to go around. Worth noting is that some other countries (France and Korea come to mind among others) appear to be more accepting of this state of affairs (so to speak) than we are in the US.
BONUS QUESTION: How would you handle it if a man you were dating presented you with the above points, 1, 2 and 3?
Well Anonymonymous,
You have already answered questions 1, 2 and 3 rhetorically, so you obviously don't need my input there.
As to the bonus question, are you asking me personally? If a man were telling me this, he'd be preaching to the choir, no? In addition, when I got married, I ended up with a man who has proclaimed that he has no interest in escorts or any other extramarital affairs - despite my GIVING HIM ALL THE PERMISSION IN THE WORLD to go out there and screw anyone and everyone if that's his choice. In my past dating relationships, I would say I was the wilder one, so none of this really does apply.
I really can't speak for other women beyond general observations, which won't be revolutionary - they'll be the same as yours and everyone else's. People in general are turf-oriented; it's just that women lack the testosterone necessary for indiscriminate copulation. If you want women to understand men, they'll have to become more like men, meaning they'd have to transition and get on massive amounts of testosterone. For men understanding one another in relationships, you'd have to examine male gay courtship and mating. In general, I'd say that gay men have much more of an understanding about men's sexual appetites and in general, gay men don't subscribe to the same notions of ironclad fidelity that women do [by necessity, since we're talking about resources].
On the other hand, I don't see any men cheering for women's extramarital relations - in fact, most men go nuts at the notion of their women screwing someone else. So evolutionary mating psychology is in full force there too.
Old hat, just in a different design,
The Love Goddess
LG, I don't dispute anything you said, but if women lack the testosterone for "indiscriminate copulation," how do you explain the fact that some women, including frequent ones who advertise and comment on TER, not only engage in it, but state they require it for their own well-being? Say, several times a day, for prolonged periods. We used to call them "nymphos" before that term became pejorative (at the same time we yearned to actually meet one), but clearly there are women who go through phases of their life when they are truly "insatiable." Or is that just a male fantasy? I don't think so.
Short term mating, Polaris 2,
is different from "indiscriminate copulation." As to providers being nymphos...hmmm....you think there are some "advertising tactics" involved? I do. For the benefit of acquiring more resources.
I've been a woman for 52 years and have interacted with about a bazillion of my sisters. I have yet to meet a nymphomaniac. The definition of a nymphomaniac (we really don't use that term anymore) is a woman who has sex compulsively WITHOUT REACHING ANY SATISFACTION. Never met one like that. Ever.
Sorry, but the whole "insatiable" with women doesn't remotely compare to men,
The Love Goddess
for a woman. She had her hormone levels measured for reasons I won't go in to. And even though it's a sample size of only one, I can tell you it's a case of "be careful what you wish for."
She had a high sex drive, which was nice. But she also had all those wonderful male tendencies the original poster described. She fucked like a man- indiscriminately, lots of partners, none of them particularly important to her. Sex was just a physical act to her that meant nothing. She didn't make emotional bonds, couldn't understand LT commitments and had very unfeminine relationship skills, for lack of a better description. Was very detached and unemotional too. And no, she wasn't a TS of any type, she was a biological female.
It was the most disorienting and frustrating relationship I'd ever been in. After a while, I realized it was because I'd become the female in the relationship and she was acting like the man! I wont say it was quite like looking in the mirror, because I don't feel I ever acted that way toward women, but once I realized what was going on, I had a new appreciation for how many women feel they are treated by men. I hung in there for several years because we had a real connection on other levels, but it was always a challenge to be with her. And when we broke up, it was much harder on me than her. She just found a new guy to fuck and moved on (sound familiar?).
So my only observation is women approaching sex like a man sounds a lot better in theory than it is in reality. Most men, including me, aren't ready for a woman who plays the dating/relationship game like we do. It was disarming, to say the least.
And yes, like a little bitch, I'm the one who ended up wanting the relationship and she just wanted to go forth and fuck the world. LOL! I guess turnabout is fair play! 
The first woman I had sex with (way back in 1960) treated sex pretty much like a man. I've never known anyone else like her. I don't know what her testosterone level was, but that is a possible explanation. She also had been an army brat (literally, her father had been in the military and she did not have a stable peer environment as a child).
She was married, probably about 20 years old at the time, and had sex with just about every male she could (including me).
An older (married male) friend of mine who knew her and her husband well, said to me, "C... is what men say they would like women to be. You would think that she would be well liked by men. She isn't. She has sex with a guy. He thinks she likes him and feels really good about her until he finds out she's had sex with almost every man he knows. Then his feelings turn 180 degrees and he becomes very negative about her."
I agree, a woman approaching sex like a man sounds better in theory than it is in reality.
Just being in a relationship with an escort is an emotional roller coaster--and she does NOT approach sex like a man, although I think she promotes that as a public image to a certain extent.
It's called: The Bible.
The very first chapter has a story about the first couple, Adam and Eve.
They lived in a happy place call The Garden of Eden.
Some shit happened, and they got kicked out of there, and ever since the problems you recount above have been the norm.
You are an idealist, you look at things logically and expect that people should just adapt to those logical points of view.
For reasons that are way too complicated to explain here (Even if I could.) that is not how the world works.
The question now, paraphrasing that other great idealist, Karl Marx, is what is to be done?
Not a Christian and have not read the entire bible, however it seems to me that Eve got the blame for everything(correct me if I'm off base). Why the hell couldn't Adam control himself?
This book seemed to have started this biased crap.
OP's Questions: "why not celebrate the fact that many men can carry on in this way without any harm to their primary relationship?"
My question: Why is it important to have and maintain a "Primary" relationship? If you knew that you wanted P4P through out your sexual life, then why can't you first serve your own ideals about your sex life, and then if you meet someone and start to realize that you prefer her company, why can't you (why can't men) just be honest at that point? Why can't they say, "Hey, I prefer your company and enjoy sex with you, but I also enjoy sex with others. What do you think about that?"
And if she isn't the kind of woman who is okay with that, then why can't you recognize that, in fact, she is not the perfect woman for you. And then, your decision... and I know this is a new concept to some men.... you don't HAVE to marry her!!
OP's Question: Why not recognize that the only damage to the relationship is a function of their perception of what has happened?
My Question: Why not take responsibility for the fact that you either did not know yourself enough in the beginning, or you tried to hide who you really were in order to create this "perception" of a functioning relationship with one woman? Why not understand that the only real damage is the damage created by you not being honest with yourself about what you really want in a relationship and in your sex life? Why not admit that instead of staying true to yourself and your own desires, you sold out, and tried to create a relationship that seemed worthy in the eyes of society and that apeared to be furthering your gene pool, and that you thought would make you happy. Why not admit that you aren't living your best life and instead of blaming your wife for being hurt because of her dashed expectations, take some of the buck, and learn to live with authenticity even if it means you won't always find the primary relationship right away.
Op's Question: "Why choose to destroy relationships, families and wealth while incurring years of acrimonious divorce proceedings based on the mistaken principle that infidelity is always bad? "
My Question: just curious... are you stating that it is the wife in this situation who is destroying relationships? Are you saying that it's the wife to blame "incurring years of acrimonious divorce proceedings".. and etc etc...
Why, if you know the history of mankind and the facts about the nature of the human male... Why GET MARRIED IN the First Place???
This is the one thing that I just can't wrap my mind around. You either have to take things as they are, wife's broken heart, divorce proceedings, children shuffled back and forth, because you wanted your P4P plus your Primary relationship, Or you have to start looking at yourself as the real and only person to blame for everything that is going on your life, and then come up with some real answers.
Be brave enough to be honest from the very start and you just might find that women aren't as illogical as you suspect. Maybe there are women out there who hold the same ideals as you, but you just haven't had the patience or the courage to find them.
IN the end, no one, woman or man, likes to be lied to. Maybe the divorce is not the result of you desiring sex with other women, maybe it's the result of you lying straight into the face of the one you say you love in order to get it.
I think I could be one of those women who would allow my SO his P4P activities, but there are some things I need in return. Honesty and open communication for starters! As you said, no one likes to be lied to...
Great post. I get a little peeved at the blame thrown intentionally on women for their apparent shortcomings in this scenario. Playing the other card...why can't men be more like women...because they can't. It sounds like guys like you want their cake and eat it too.
I agree wholeheartedly...you want different partners for whatever reason...do not get married, do your own laundry, cook your own meals and get laid by as many different woman as you like.
If you choose to marry, then deal with with what comes with it if you still choose to screw around, because as you would not want to have to change your biological makeup, please don't expect a woman to change hers...all generally speaking of course.
I'm certain that ur not wanting to hear this but here goes. From a mans point of view. Seems you made her give up Providing, which she did, but you're not ready to give up your hobby partners. And you lied about it. But you're not open with any details concerning what she's given up for you ? There's a little thing that's ignored in this "alternate world called The Hobby". It's the heart and it's love. Yup sex you can get anywhere in the hobby but where do you find love. Sounds like someone needs to check thier life priorities about what they really value and really want. OK let the shots at me start. I can take them. Maybe I deserve them.
First, to your leading statements:
1) I am easily able to separate the physical intimacies of a P4P encounter from the emotional intimacies of a proper relationship,
As are many women. There is nothing about this that is exclusive to men
2) doing the first discretely does not threaten the other in any meaningful way--aside, of course, from the risk of STD transfer which I'll hold apart from this discussion for the moment,
Aside from possible STDs.Depends on what you mean by discreet. If what you mean by discreet is that sex outside of the relationship has been discussed, agreed to and comes with a dont ask, dont tell stipulation, then maybe there is no threat.
If what you mean by discreet is that you have sex outside of your relationship with no prior discussion or agreement, and you sneak around and lie to do it? Yes, the possibility of meaningful to harm to your relationship becomes very real. In this case, the only thing separating you from potential disaster is your ability to be an accomplished liar who can always cover his tracks. The first time you slip up, that damage is done, and you cant take that back.
3) having the freedom to pursue the occasional P4P encounter actually serves to improve my ability to engage in the emotional (and physical) intimacies of a proper relationship.
Again, depends on what you mean by freedom. If you and your wife/SO are in agreement on this, then this may be a very healthy component of your relationship. But, the caveat that comes with that is that you must also be fine with your wife/SO pursuing the occasional P4P encounter. I hear men railing about the fact that women do not understand this. The irony being, I doubt many of these same men would truly be OK with the tables turned. Perhaps that is not you.
Now to your questions:
Q1: Why are the ideas in 1,2 & 3 so rarely understood by women?
Again, many women do understand this. If you want to be involved with a woman who understands this, then do not get involved with a woman who does not understand this. And as far as a P4P encounter being no more meaningful than a woman taking a trip to the spa?
First of all, just reading the EH we all know there are a rather shocking number of men engaging in meaningless P4P encounters for whom those encounters are anything but meaningless. Some of these guys are so wrapped up in the idea that they are in love with an escort one might assume they have forgotten they even have a wife/family. There is nothing about this behavior that is helping them be more fully engaged in their primary relationship.
And, even for those with more level heads in this regard, having sex with an escort is not exactly like a day at the spa; unless it is your position that your wife spending the day at the spa fking Pedro the pool boy is meaningless to you. If so, then, well, you and wife would already seem to be on the same page on this.
Q2: What can men do to better manage this situation?
Youve already answered your own question. And reference answer to Q1.
BONUS QUESTION: How would you handle it if a man you were dating presented you with the above points, 1, 2 and 3?
I have been in relationships of various configurations over the years; from completely monogamous to completely open, and some variants in between. They all have their challenges. Believe me, relationships do not miraculously get easier when one, or both people are free to have sex with anyone they choose. Sadly, life is just not that simple.
Assuming your points are correct, for the sake of argument:
Why do women not understand your points 1, 2 & 3?
I am gonna take a wild guess and say it is because women are lied to about it. If men in general didn't promise sexual fidelity, if it wasn't want was touted as the "norm" less women would think it was the norm, less women would expect it as normal.
(I don't have a wealth of experience dating women but every woman I have ever even toyed with the idea of a relationship with I tell from the outset that I don't believe in sexual monogamy as a requirement...of course I mean that for her too, not just for myself)
You state:
"Why not recognize that the only damage to the relationship is a function of their perception of what has happened?"
...but that isn't true. the damage comes less from where he parked his dick, and more from the fact he promised her he wouldn't do that, he lied to her, he betrayed her trust, he broke his vows, etc. You might as well ask why some (many? most?) men feel the need to say they will be sexually monogamous when they have no intention of doing so.
Her feelings of betrayal, and humiliation are just her perception? he never said he wouldn't pay for play, or have meaningless flings..right? wait...wrong.
Men tend to lie and say they will be sexually monogamous to get the woman they want, then he goes out gets his bit of strange because he wants that too...but if she doesn't gratefully accept that it is her fault?...I guess it is her fault for believing him.
That women don't understand wanderlust in terms of sexual partners isn't necessarily true.
Men like to point out their biological imperative to spread their seed, but women aren't exactly designed to be monogamous either.
If humans evolved based on other humans...so, men evolved physically based on the behaviors of women..then it is interesting to note a couple of things about sperm.
Sperm fight each other to be the one to fertalise the egg...when foreign sperm (sperm from another man) is present something called Sperm Competition occurs where the sperm from one male actually work together to try and assure the sperm of their group is the one that gets to the egg.
Also, when a man is away from his SO, his sperm production increases up to 300% for the first copulation after he returns (it has nothing to do with frequency of release either as man going the same amount of time without sex when he and his SO are together do not have the increase in sperm production) the male produce more sperm to have a bigger "army" to fight off competing sperm from other men.
The size of men's testicles also indicate an evolutionary need for sperm to compete because the females are not completely monogamous.
Then there is the biological imperative of women to insure the existence of their offspring as well, so the more fertile the female the more likely she will "trade up" in her mates to get a better physical and or more successful (in term of being able to care for the offspring) mate.
Also, the fact women tend to find more masculine (bigger, stronger, hairier) men attractive during ovulation but less masculine men attractive during the rest of her cycle.
Women have a lot of non-monogamous behavior in their evolutionary past too...but how many men are as OK with his SO playing to her biological and evolutionary needs as he wants her to be with his?
A point insufficiently addressed is this: esp in long term marriages/relationships, ardor often cools in one or other of the partners, usually the woman. In that case, what's the answer? The ardent partner contents him/herself with self-pleasuring? Finds a new lover or provider? It is doubtful that the one whose ardor has cooled assents to the partner finding satisfaction elsewhere, yet is is a very common problem, IMO. I have seen several recent examples where this conflict of interests led to unhappy and shattered marriages. So I think the OP has a point, despite the criticisms, that women have to be more understanding and cut more slack when there is a disparity of desire, and men too, although the slackened desire more often occurs with women. Yes?
FROM THE OP: 3) having the freedom to pursue the occasional P4P encounter actually serves to improve my ability to engage in the emotional (and physical) intimacies of a proper relationship
Noting the reference to engaging P4P and physical intimacy in a relationship..
The OPs question is why dont women understand that men want to have sex at home and P4p too?.Why do they not understand that any harm to a relationship as a result of this infidelity is only due to womens perception? Why cant women see that P4P is meaningless.etcetera.all of which overlooks the fundamental dilemma.
You can either negotiate an open relationship in which sex outside of the marriage is agreed to. This, of course, tends to mean that this openess to "meaningless" sexual encounters extends to both partners. Problem there is that men are big fans of meaningless sex, but typically only when theyre doing it.
Or, you have to deal with the fact that youre in a monogamous relationship; that you entered into willingly. And, if you choose to transgress the boundaries of monogamy, [without mutual agreement] you can pretty much guarantee that your partner is not going to be celebrating that fact.
This is, at the very core, the age-old lament that men want to have their cake and eat it too. Well, dont we all.
Polaris, your question is a different one. What to do in the case in which one partner is no longer interested sex, or sexual desire is significantly mismatched?
Ill start by saying I find it interesting that it appears to be quite common that, without ever actually asking, men often assume their wives will be completely inflexible in a discussion about a waning sex life; that women dont want to have sex, and dont want them to have sex either.
Im not saying that is you; only an observation that (many) men say the only reason they P4P is because they no longer get sex at home. And at the same time, they've never actually made much effort to try to find a solution (other than p4p). Ill take this moment to say that: endlessly pestering your wife for sex and having her turn you down, and both of you walking away frustrated and/or annoyed does not constitute a meaningful "discussion".
If youre genuinely interested in finding a solution here are some possible options (orperhaps how I might approach this), but obviously there is no easy answer:
Talk to her. Be open/honest/loving. Discuss the options and try to find a solution that works for both of you. If she shuts down at first, try again.
If you cant find a solution on your own, seek marriage counseling.
If you can't find a solution at all? Well, you can honestly say you tried andI suppose that means its time for you to decide what works for *you*.
S/he may not like your decision at this point, but it is not because s/he has not been respectfully consulted, and had an opportunity to offer a viable alternative solution.
Good post, HP, thoughtful and constructive. In three similar but not identical situations I have personal knowledge of, the couples have been through those steps and still there is no solution. It's not that the wives refuse sex, they still enjoy affection, attention, expressions of love and occasional passion. But overall, they are tamped down and much more focused on children, grandchildren, social activities, and community involvement. Nothing wrong with that -- the husbands like those things too -- but more than that the wives are well tamped down physically and indicate little interest in seeing that their partners are satisfied, disdaining such things as BJs. That leaves the guys with recurring frustration and lack of fulfillment. The wives are adamant about infidelity of any kind, with anyone outside monogamy. Those couples are at an impasse, and as a result, the husbands enter the hobby. The husbands would probably enter it anyway, given the passage of time in the monogamous relationship.
Especially in circumstances where the woman is physically or psychologically incapable of sex; there is often a fair degree of flexibility in accomodating the man's needs -- though that flexibility usually has some rules and limits attached.
Where women tend to be less flexible is in situations where they are not only capable -- but quite willing -- to accommodate the man's needs. Man's need for variety can often be tricked by the woman doing simple things like changing hairdo, changing lingerie or asking for a change in environment (i.e. a night in a hotel).
(Study of men's reaction to blondes indicated that men react the same even if they are specifically aware that the color came from a bottle. So men's fundamental urges can be easily dealt with through a bit of creativity.)
Plenty of women are more flexible than their husbands suspect about fetishes and fantasies. The men either just assume the woman won't; or fear rejection in asking.
In the case of a woman who is ready, willing and able to meet the man's needs to the best of her ability; I wouldn't expect a great deal of ... uh ... flexibility in accomodating infidelity.
Though, interestingly, the older the woman is the more able she is to deal with that without it ending in divorce. My guess (and it is only a guess) is this has to do with her evaluation of her own value in the mating market compared to his.
Another thought. Women have a hypergamous sex drive. In general, I would suspect at a practical level this means most wives consider themselves to be worthy of men better than their current husband. (Not all -- but most.) So they feel they are settling and doing their husbands a big favor.
When she is faithful to him, that, to her, comes at a price. The price of being unavailable to better men.
In exchange for this, she may consider his fidelity a small price to pay.
This latter is just a theory.
One other thought.
Non-monogamy can lead to people supporting offspring other than their own without their advance consent.
As men usually support their wife's offspring -- and, in fact, 10% of the offspring of married couples are the result of the wife's infidelity -- men have a reasonably compelling interest in making sure other males have little opportunity to impregnate their wives. This is especially the case when lots of guys who have unknowingly accepted the offspring of cuckoldry get stuck paying child support for them in a subsequent divorce.
I think that a few legal changes -- such as required paternity testing at birth and so forth -- MIGHT make a certain percentage of men more willing to accept various forms of ethical non-monogamy.
But, again, the possibility of the husband acquiring obligations to offspring unrelated to the wife through non-monogamy could certainly be a serious concern that could lead the wife to be very unreceptive to non-monogamy.
A solution to these issues might be found in the concept of a "line marriage" as described by Heinlein in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."
Just thinking.
Warning: Some men may find this offputting. I'm simply reporting the information from conversations with a couple of married lady friends.
I chatted with a couple of married female friends about this. These are wonderful and well-educated women in what could be called traditional marriages. Both are very introspective and self-aware people. These ladies have been friends for years and we are way more open with each other than most. One went to massage school with me about 16 years ago as each other's respective practice partners and another is a former business partner of mine. Neither has ever been a romantic interest.
One was about as straightforward as you can get, and said "Fidelity IS marriage." No fidelity = no marriage. It's just that simple and unambiguous in her mind; and this is NOT a "simple" woman. Fidelity is the cornerstone of what makes marriage ... marriage in her worldview.
So I asked her about her understanding of male polygamous drives; and her answer was that men who invented planes, telephones and the science of chemistry are certainly capable of overriding their drives when required; so an urge is no excuse. Urge or no urge, men are accountable in her book because they have the power of choice. She's a bit hardcore, but also explained that you could tell the difference between a good man and a bad man by how he exercised that power of choice.
I hope her husband never cheats because she will be merciless.
I also asked her about various circumstances and justifications. She said she enjoys sex with hubby 2-3 times a week, and has practically no limits on what she will do/try so long as no other partners are involved. So she simply sees desire for specific sex acts, etc. as unimportant in her case. But more broadly she believes that an orgasm is an orgasm and that the specifics of the act should be far less important to a man than love for his wife.
Posed with the hypothetical of her incapacity for sex; she granted that if that incapacity were extended, she WOULD allow for sexual activity with another woman but ONLY under extremely limited circumstances. In her case, she said she would want to personally approve the woman. She said the husband couldn't just take it upon himself to go see prostitutes or something -- it would have to be discussed and that she would bring it up first and early in order to prevent that.
My other friend is in a different circumstance. She is on her second marriage. Her first marriage was to a Type-A mergers/acquisitions attorney. Her second husband is an engineer. She has kids from both.
Her first husband was wildly unfaithful, and she accepted it without mentioning it because she wanted the money and status so badly. She had expected that sort of behavior to come with the territory. Whether her expectation was cynical or realistic -- or even a self-fulfilling prophecy -- she doesn't know.
When her eldest child was seriously ill (he recovered), her husband was always absent creating the lifestyle she enjoyed and presumably bopping other women. Something about that circumstance created a sea-change in her priorities in men. So she ditched him.
About 3 years later she got herself an engineer -- and you can practically hear her glow when she speaks of him. She lives a much lower lifestyle than she did, and she is happier. But her moral expectations of her new husband are MUCH higher.
In essence, she says she picked him specifically for his morals and if he were to cheat on her, the very underpinning of why she married him would disappear and she'd be incapable of loving him.
She considers that there could never be any valid reason for him to cheat; and that he should love her enough that no matter what the circumstance, cheating should be psychologically impossible for him. If it isn't impossible -- she got the wrong man. If she became incapable of sex, she would expect him to deal with it without cheating and she would never give implicit or explicit consent.
I didn't ask details of current sex life; but I'm sure it is satisfactory. Her husband certainly seems deliriously happy.
Now -- to dovetail onto this woman's experience; I spoke with a very pretty single woman that most would call a "gold digger." She outright states that her single most important criteria in a man is that he be wealthy. For her, fidelity on the part of the man is preferred but infidelity would be excused.
This leads me to a hypothesis.
My hypothesis, subject to being disproven or refined by later data, is as follows.
An ordinary (i.e. not psychologically damaged) woman's likelihood of accepting infidelity in her husband is proportional to her perception of differential in attractiveness. That is, if she believes he COULD replace her at the snap of a finger with an even more attractive woman; she is more likely to accept infidelity so long as she is not humiliated or embarassed.
In cases where the level of attractiveness is more equal or the woman sees herself as able to replace her husband with a more attractive husband if she wished; she is intolerant of infidelity.
Your first two examples are of women in traditional marriages. Both of these women desire and expect fidelity in their traditional [monogamous] marriages.
In your first example, she seems quite clear in her expectation of fidelity. One has to presume that this is a position of which her husband is well aware. She is not tolerant of infidelity, and views the entire foundation of marriage to be based on monogamy. And shes not buying that business about men being unable to control their 'urges' because of a testosterone driven biological imperative to spread their seed far and wide.
Sounds like she knows exactly what she wants, and is not willing to compromise on something as important as trust in her marriage. Not sure whats hard-core about that position. If her husband was not willing to vow fidelity, he should not have stood at the alter and vowed fidelity.
In your second example, she has been through a first marriage in which her husband was "wildly unfaithful". She was aware of this, and looked the other way because she wanted the lifestyle he could provide (and, perhaps was dependant on that $support if she was not in the work force).
Then, sounds like she decided that this kind of compromise was no longer acceptable to her. Not only was her hubby screwing around, he was unavailable for his family during a crucial time in which full participation is expected/desired/needed (their son was ill).
Now she desires a partner who is going to be an active, involved husband and father. And she has become rigidly intolerant of infidelity after her experience with hubby #1.
And, what you get out of that is that, with either of these women, her acceptance of infidelity would be negotiable in a margin "proportional to her perception of differential in attractiveness [?] That if she thinks he "COULD replace her at the snap of a finger with an even more attractive woman" she would be more "accepting" of his infidelity?
Odd. What I get out of that is that both of these women want monogamy, expect fidelity and believe their husbands are being truthful when he says he will be faithful. As in: each of them REALLY, REALLY MEANS she is not going to be accepting of him screwing around.
And men wonder why women so often accuse them of not listening......lol....
Third example is of a woman who wants to find a rich husband and says she would not be bothered by his infidelity. I guess, as they say, be careful what you wish for 'cause you just might get it.
I should have been clear that the hypothesis while overall topical did NOT follow from chatting with two women who are pretty darned hardcore monogamists.
So yes -- I WAS listening, I just should have been more clear I had switched topics within the post.
The hypothesis itself and its origin would be far enough off-topic that it probably doesn't merit much discussion here. It was formed by looking at biological confirmation of historical polygyny, and the content of conversations with various women. Just a hypothesis for now to be updated. Certainly not a fact!
Come on an tell the truth. Exactly why are you asking in your original posting. There's something or someone you're having this out with ? Looking to make you point for having your cake and eating it too thru everyones online support ( or lack of) isn't really all that relationship saving is it ? If you come clean, you might just find a better solution could be advised from somewhere or someone.
The basic driving factor for this question is what needs to be inputed.