Would you cheat if you could get away with it ?

[assluvr]

just wondering?:)

[IWasTooYoung]

If she was a good woman, never. But without a good woman, cheating would be an option.

[Dirt44]

I have never and will never cheat on my wife.

we have an open marrige and it is impossible to cheat on her if she allows you to use other weomen.

[nikky]

of course. Never have, but If there was a guarantee I would. Besides If I was interested I'm sure he would have threesome of do the exchange thing.. He and our toys are plenty though. The idea still sounds tempting but in reality I wouldn't - I have a great man.

[Franko]

I think it depends if your spouse was a great spouse or not.

Sadly most married poeple would state that their spouse is good in some ways and inadequate/dissapointing in other wasy ....

[Dirt44]

Franko wrote:

I think it depends if your spouse was a great spouse or not.
Sadly most married poeple would state that their spouse is good in some ways and inadequate/dissapointing in other wasy ....

Whitch is exactly the reason for an open marrige

[i am a dude]

no never wanted to never thought about it cause i am happy with the girl i am with

[Ted]

What's wrong with a little bit of "Quiet Variety"

[SFC U S Army Ret]

My wife always has time for everyone else in the world but me. She is always doing things for others, but me? I am busy doing the laundry, dishes, and trying to clean the house, while she is out and gone. I also have only one "hind" leg. She has lost interest in sex, so if the opportunity presents itself for me to have sex with some fine=looking, CLEAN & FOR SURE, DISCREET, YES I would have sex with her, if I knew I wasn't going to get caught. Have done it before and will do it again.

[Alpha Omega Game]

I voted no Beacause I would care about my g/f's feelings and wouldn't want to do anything that would upset or hurt her even if she'd never find out.

[Franko]

Alpha Omega Game wrote:

I voted no Beacause I would care about my g/f's feelings and wouldn't want to do anything that would upset or hurt her even if she'd never find out.

I just coined a new phrase in the thread about "what is a sexless maraige" ... I will state it here ...

If you are in a marriage with little or no sex, and with no good religious or medical reason for that fact, you are no more than "freinds with no benefits" ....

The partner who is witholding the sex is not considering the needs or feelings of their partner. Clearly they are not too worried about hurting thier partner.

Considering this, would you still be concerned about hurting her feelings then?

[Alpha Omega Game]

Franko wrote:

<quoted text>
I just coined a new phrase in the thread about "what is a sexless maraige" ... I will state it here ...
If you are in a marriage with little or no sex, and with no good religious or medical reason for that fact, you are no more than "freinds with no benefits" ....
The partner who is witholding the sex is not considering the needs or feelings of their partner. Clearly they are not too worried about hurting thier partner.
Considering this, would you still be concerned about hurting her feelings then?

I've never been in a relationship like that so if I'm going to have to guess what My what reaction would be. I would just talk to her about us and if we couldn't come to a healthy and happy compromise then id I find her behavior grounds for divorce.

Some may call me shallow but I feel that marriage shouldn't be sexless , I feel there should always be a mental and sexual connection.

I've always said that a sexless marriage is like that of a platonic one. I remember saying that after reading horror stories on here last year about this subject it makes me marriage shy.

I guess the people who are in A-sexual marriages ,married the wrong people right?

[NewYC]

Cheating is such a bad word. LOL Done it...haven't gotten caught.

The biggest worry I have about this whole thing is the STD issue. I use condoms but even a B J can transmit.

[Candella88]

I would never cheat on my man.

[Franko]

Alpha Omega Game wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never been in a relationship like that so if I'm going to have to guess what My what reaction would be. I would just talk to her about us and if we couldn't come to a healthy and happy compromise then id I find her behavior grounds for divorce.
Some may call me shallow but I feel that marriage shouldn't be sexless , I feel there should always be a mental and sexual connection.
I've always said that a sexless marriage is like that of a platonic one. I remember saying that after reading horror stories on here last year about this subject it makes me marriage shy.
I guess the people who are in A-sexual marriages ,married the wrong people right?

Yup to your last quesiotn ....

In my case I did not meet my wife until I was 29, so we were thinking about wanting kids in less than 2 years. ALso, we dated 6 months, got engaged, and mareid 12 monhts after we met so we sort of hurried things along.

Sex was great when we dated and even 8-10 months after the wedding. But by the second year sex realy trailed off, but I blamed the stress because she got laid off, then got some temp jobs while she finished her technical writer's diploma. Then I decided to try switching jobs and that did not go well so I was unemployed for a few months longer than anticiapted. So, I blamed the stress thinking things would get back to normal once we got the work situaiotn under control.

In the third year she got TEch writing work and she also got pregnant ... and ever since then the sex life was even worse (intercourse maybe 8 times in a year).. plus she never gave a full BJ .. just for a few minutes to get me hard, then back to missionary sex.

So, it sort of snuck up on us that the sex life was bad, and by then we had a kid, then another one.

ONce you have kids, divorce is not as simple an option, espeiclaly if yuo believe in raising the kids as a two parent family.

[OpenMind]

Never is bull. open marrige is best. I have been married for 10 years and have to say I was fine the first 5 years but its hard to agree with never when you enjoy sex and rarly get it. What is rare last time I got lucky and that is what I call it now. was 3 moths agow. I am the kind of guy that when I am in the mood to play I will do things like massages, clean, not bring up play time till she is in the mood. Now This I tell you never works. Seen a syco dude that sead she had some problems that she needed to work out. Truth later found she never has been into it witch explains why she never seems to be in the mood to play . Would get a divorce but your dumb thinking that would be a good idea. I sugested open marrage but she is not up for that. Now that to me seas. Ok I am not into sex but I don't want you to have any eather. No options just suffer. That is dumb. If I meet some one I like I will tell them that I am married and why I want to see her but some people have no idea what open marrage is and say the bible sead it's wrong. That is bull the bible seas concubines are ok. The state seas no.

[Darkest Light]

Depends on what my gf thinks really. If she is a hardcore, closed relationship monogamist then probably not, for the sake of her feelings. If she is ok with the idea of polygamy then I probably would.

Me myself am happy with the idea of polygamy, because humans are polygamist creatures, its evolutionary. Here is the simple explanation: One reason for man having partners: Kids, and also kids are a means of having genes carried on and surviving. So man has sex with a woman. The woman gets pregnant. The womann stays pregnant for 9 months, in which time the man can't have any more children (and high numbers of children are one one of making sure that your genes survive, because there is just a higher chance on survival). Men who are naturally polygamistic have sex with other women in this 9 month waiting period. They have many children which many survive. The men who have fewer children, have less or no children surviving. The children of the polygamistic men inherit the natural disposition for being polygamistic, the children of the monogamistic men do not. The cycle goes on until all/most of the men have the polygamistic disposition. Also note that while being polygamistic, they also look after, protect and care for all of their children from all mothers. This would also explain promiscuity in women.

NB: I am aware this is only a theory, which probably has its criticisms. However, I think many of you will still agree it is logical.

[Franko]

Darkest Light wrote:

Depends on what my gf thinks really. If she is a hardcore, closed relationship monogamist then probably not, for the sake of her feelings. If she is ok with the idea of polygamy then I probably would.
Me myself am happy with the idea of polygamy, because humans are polygamist creatures, its evolutionary. Here is the simple explanation: One reason for man having partners: Kids, and also kids are a means of having genes carried on and surviving. So man has sex with a woman. The woman gets pregnant. The womann stays pregnant for 9 months, in which time the man can't have any more children (and high numbers of children are one one of making sure that your genes survive, because there is just a higher chance on survival). Men who are naturally polygamistic have sex with other women in this 9 month waiting period. They have many children which many survive. The men who have fewer children, have less or no children surviving. The children of the polygamistic men inherit the natural disposition for being polygamistic, the children of the monogamistic men do not. The cycle goes on until all/most of the men have the polygamistic disposition. Also note that while being polygamistic, they also look after, protect and care for all of their children from all mothers. This would also explain promiscuity in women.
NB: I am aware this is only a theory, which probably has its criticisms. However, I think many of you will still agree it is logical.

The theory may have some merit in terms of attitudes based on from past generations. Barely a century ago basic survival was a more prominent motivatoin in human's lives.

BUt today, I think that need is somewhat minimal .. basic survival and passing on Genes is not as important in modern poeple. In fact, with the hype these days about population control, the argument has even less weight.

But of course, many people have not yet adapted to modern ways of thinking .. many nations are still in the survival mode we were in a century ago.

The question still remains, however, as to whether or not most humans are capable of achieving monogamy for other reasons ... is divorce too easy an option? Is cheating a way of trying to get their cake and eat it too? Is it reasonable to plan to marry for 20 years to raise the family, then agree to go find other mates? hten 100% of the gradnparents will be separated.

Can people learn to improve the way they choose mates so that long term monogamy is more successful? Can people learn to change and adapt so that they are better mates?

True polygamy would mean not having the close attachemnts that monogamous couples have. Is that a good thing? Should we spend our lives with a loosy-goosy attitude about marraige and parenting?

WHat about being a couple for the purposes of parenting but having an open relationship? HOw many coupels can achieve that without the jealousies, or the thought that one child may not be from the same father as the other child already in the house? Will he father wililngly raise both kids as his own? WILl kids get more slpit up between diffenrt mothers and fathers, with fewer kids growing up with their siblings? WIll more kids be "half-brothers and sisters?" WHat if someone falls in love with their "secondary" partner and leaves the primary partner who is the parent of the kids? Polygamy has inherent dangers too. Monogamy offers more stability.

[Darkest Light]

Franko wrote:

<quoted text>
The theory may have some merit in terms of attitudes based on from past generations. Barely a century ago basic survival was a more prominent motivatoin in human's lives.
BUt today, I think that need is somewhat minimal .. basic survival and passing on Genes is not as important in modern poeple. In fact, with the hype these days about population control, the argument has even less weight.
But of course, many people have not yet adapted to modern ways of thinking .. many nations are still in the survival mode we were in a century ago.

Very true, most of these countries are LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries, I use that because the use of the phrase "3rd world" is now unPC and offensive)

Franko wrote:

The question still remains, however, as to whether or not most humans are capable of achieving monogamy for other reasons ... is divorce too easy an option? Is cheating a way of trying to get their cake and eat it too? Is it reasonable to plan to marry for 20 years to raise the family, then agree to go find other mates? hten 100% of the gradnparents will be separated.
Can people learn to improve the way they choose mates so that long term monogamy is more successful? Can people learn to change and adapt so that they are better mates?

These are all good questions and also these are things which could also be possibly explaines by my above post, e.g. divorce, cheating, and also things like one night stands and having relationships, impregnating a woman then leaving

Franko wrote:

True polygamy would mean not having the close attachemnts that monogamous couples have. Is that a good thing? Should we spend our lives with a loosy-goosy attitude about marraige and parenting?

I disagree with this. I think that there could be a working polygamous relationship, where females can accept males with multiple partners and vice versa, to a degree of course, I'm not talking about 47 different partners at once, but more of a relationship with maybe 3 or 4 different partners at the most. I think that females and males, if we were not all taught the whole monogamous society thing, and maybe even encouraged polygamous relationships, paired with an openess of a persons feelings towards another, could produce healthy, close bonded relationships with more than one partner, e.g. man who has 3 women who are in love with him, and also like each other, or at least are happy to share him between each other in some way.

[Darkest Light]

Franko wrote:

WHat about being a couple for the purposes of parenting but having an open relationship? HOw many coupels can achieve that without the jealousies, or the thought that one child may not be from the same father as the other child already in the house? Will he father wililngly raise both kids as his own?

I think couples who truly love each other but are not interested in kids are incredibly rare. In evolutionary terms, they would wipe themselves out of the human genepool completely. On top of that, if neither are interested in children, then they may not want nor have a need for polygamous relationships, in which case they can stay monogamous if they like, but this is rare, IMO. I think that the only way a couple may experiance jelousy from this would be if one partner thought the other treated someone else better than themselves, e.g. spends more time with them etc. It's interesting that you brought up fathering other children, because it is thought that some, maybe many men can detect whether a child is theirs or not. It is also very natural for a man to not take any interest in raising another persons child. It is also one of the reasons it is thought that being a virgin is favoured in females by men, but not too bothered the other way around.

Franko wrote:

WILl kids get more slpit up between diffenrt mothers and fathers, with fewer kids growing up with their siblings? WIll more kids be "half-brothers and sisters?" WHat if someone falls in love with their "secondary" partner and leaves the primary partner who is the parent of the kids? Polygamy has inherent dangers too. Monogamy offers more stability.

I think that you are also assuming that this also requires marriages and divorce, and that parents will have a dominant reign of time over their child. If there is indeed a split between parents, then the child would most probably have equal time with both families, as it is perfectly natural for men to have paternal instincts, making sure their child can survive. This will most probably cause more half brothers and sisters, but is that bad? Why have secondary and primary partners at all. I see an equal and sharing relationship, where all of the families should all live in the same area. And if the father suddenly decides to split from one of the people in his polygamous relationship, can he not still live his life in the same way, just the removal of one person, being the mother or whatever of his child. It is his duty to look after his child, and in most cases he should feel it his right and would fight for it. As I explained, the father would, in most cases, not accept a child from another father as his own and raise it. He may only in a fit of empathy and compassion for it, which probably wouldnt happen so much in a polygamous society. True there are intricate workings in polygamy, and trying to get it to fit in todays society, but it would work eventually. Monogamy didn't work for a long time, thats (one of the reasons) why divorce was allowed and invented in the 1500s. As society has changed, it might be hard to work polygamy into it, but some people have already made this happen, and I believe we all can. While I may believe in polygamy, I will still stick to monogamy for the sake of the happyness of my woman (when I find one).