to think that life would be less complicated if we didn't have a societal presumption of sexual fidelity?

[fanjolina]

Just reading all the recent threads about errant partners has got me thinking. Why does society demand sexual fidelity?

If sexual relations were on a par with drinking, partying etc - i.e. you could do them with other people when in a relationship, with no impact on your relationship - then life would be so much simpler.

I'm not advocating a free-for-all shagfest, but why is sex held as the most sacrosanct element of a relationship? It makes it particularly hard on couples where one partner has no interest and the other still has desires. Yet to find sexual satisfaction elsewhere to meet their needs is deemed abhorrent.

However if I decided I didn't want to drink again and stopped my DH from ever drinking with anyone else I would be seen as unreasonable.

But AIBU for even thinking outside societal norms and daring to view sexual fidelity as anything less than sacrosanct?

(P.S. I have no personal desire to be unfaithful - but that may just be my societal conditioning )

It is not the act, it is the intimacy that often goes along with it that is threatening to a relationship.

in a cool analysis it's bound up with the development of capitalism and the need to have a secure, stable consumier's unit i.e. the family. Fidelity allegedly supports this.

agree its intimacy lost and ensuing bewilderment on personal level
pan has it on social level
sorted

I only really care about who I have sex with, and who DH has sex with.

Everyone else can do what they like, with whoever they like, whenever they like.

DH and I have just been having a long debate about this, based on my thread.

We agree with Carmenere in that it is the intimacy that is the biggest threat. And in that regard we see an "emotional affair' with no sex as a bigger impact/threat to a relationship than a quick shag with a prostitute.

I suggested to him that it is all conditioning by the church, but he is not so sure about this.

the problem is that the errant partners would not, I suspect, think it is ok for their partners to be unfaithful.

Ohh, if dh was here he'd write a lecture on how curtailing women's sexual freedom is at the heart of establishing male dominance over a society, with lots of examples as to what the practices were in different societies over time.

'tis quite fascinating really, sadly my post baby brain is too much like a sieve to retain the detail [addled brain smiley]

tbh I probably wouldn't be averse to a bit of extra curricular if I thought there was no risk of STDs (impossible I know)and no adverse effect on my marriage and ds (ditto impossible). So that means fidelity.

well and its disease too i guess

wouldnt that play a factor in it all?

would quite like to read his essay ib..
but sexual freedom surely can also mean to right to choose fidelity? in your own time i mean..
your sexual freedom should be freedom to do sexually what turns you on, within a framework of your own choosing supports you emotionally etc...but social/ economic conditions come into it all sooner or later

In those weird religious/other cults where sexual 'freedom' (ie expectation) to sleep with lots of people is the norm, the result is usually a great deal of unhappiness for all concerned. Are there are any cultures in the world where this is the norm? If there aren't then I would suppose that as humans we are not programmed for this kind of sexual behaviour, in general.

gosh, madamez IS taking her time.

is there another sex thread running?....[daft question emocion]

Isnt it to do with looking after your offspring?
With a degree in behaviour and ecology we looked at why monogamy was so prevalent in human society (there are polygamous societies, but these are the minority).
The theory was that as human babie need so much intense care, particularly when very young, it is beneficial for the woman to have 1 partned who will help take care of them, and not be having to do the same for many offspring.
If we could have sex with no societal repurcussions, how many children would 1 man have to help support? Where would that leave the mothers?

Well, some people think that jealousy is part of love. Freud did for starters.

somehow I think life would be more complicated, blimey!

It would be much more complicated!

I vote for religion. Before christianity things were a lot more, erm, relaxed I think. Think greek and roman orgies etc.

Not just christianity though many religions call for fidelity. Just that christianity is the one which most affected how things were done in western europe i.e UK.

It's basically about inheritance and ownership: men are/were obsessed with making sure that any children born to the women they think of as their property are fathered by them and not by any other man, hence the brutal punishments given to women who have or want sex with another partner, or refuse to be owned in the first place. WOmen's obsession with monogamy came along later and is/was rooted in women's economic dependence on men: you have to keep hold of 'your' man so he doesn't leave you with no fincancial support.
These days, more and more people are taking a more ratinal attitude towards monogamy ie regarding it as one possible option among many and discussing it with partners rather than making assumptions. Though there are still plenty of bucketheads out there who think that the way they conduct their sexual relationships should be a compulsory template for everyone else.

I don't want to have sex with anyone other than my dh.
Is that something that sounds odd to you ?
No everyone sees sexual fidelity as a bind. I like it.
If sexual needs are so diverse, maybe this should have considered this PRIOR to getting married ? Of course thye may change post marraige, in whcih case it ha to be discussed and if no agreement can be made, maybe seperation is best, if both parties are unhappy.
There are no good reasons at all, to stay in an unhappy marriage.

I haven't read all the answers, but I don't think it's society's need. It's the individual's need.

Being betrayed hurts, and you can't legislate to protect against that anyway. People can cheat and do.

No, I don't think its odd at all Oblomov. Cos I don't want to have sex with anyone other than my DH either.

But it was just something I was pondering, based on a number of things recently - e.g threads on errant husbands, conversations with Latino colleagues who view brothel visits as acceptable etc.

And it led to an interesting chat with my DH so i wondered what other peoples' views are.

I have read these messages and feel I have stick my two penn'orth in!!

Sexual fidelity in a relationship is exactly that - the desire to stray outside the boundaries can only suggest a deeper issue... Am I being naive in thinking that? I don't think so.. A person should have enough love and respect for their partner to stay faithful - it really is that simple.

In a situation where one person has either lost interest or for some other reason is no longer able to participate then I will admit that raises questions that I would not attempt to answer.

I do have very good reason to feel this strongly - my dear XH felt that a little "sexual adventure" would be exciting, but totally safe... imagine my surprise when 3 weeks later he ran off with the slag he met in the swingers club!! So, yes, I do have good reason to be cynical, but to be honest I felt that way before this happened to me.