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 )

Agree with Sylvie, it comes down to wanting to be loved, cherished, feeling special. All the reasons I don't want someone to cheat on me. I don't want someoone to be having sex with someone else. It seems natural to me to be faithful.

So I don't think it has anything to do with men trying to dominate society or religion or anything else. It meets my emotional needs. MY emotional needs.

I don't agree with Dittany : "Sexual fidelity is really only required for women though"

I think sex is at the very heart of a couple relationship.

If there is either no sex, or infidelity, in a couple relationship, that makes the relationship extremely fragile, with all the potential pain and cost of relationship breakdown.

That's why the marriage vows include sexual fidelity.

But Oblomov, are they our emotional needs because we have been conditioned to believe that if our partners sleep with someone else then it is a rejection of us?

I don't feel that way if my DH chooses to spend the weekend with people other than myself, so why should I feel like that over a quick 10 minute fumble?

Just pondering.....

In the circles I move in, anyone who had multiple sexual relationships outside marriage would be frowned upon/disapproved of (though not ostracised). The odd affair would just be put down to life experience.

I don't think men or women are regarded differently at all.

But sexual exclusivity clearly doesn't suit everyone, or there wouldn't be a) so much propaganda in favour of it and punishment for non-compliance or b)so many people not engaging in monogamous relationships, or having sex outside their primary relatinships.

Non-exclusive relationships work very well for some people, because when people have discussed what they want with each other and thought about their own attitudes then they are in a much better position than those who just dumbly follow the herd and wonder why it all goes wrong. Monogamous relatinships work too, of course, but only when there has been a thorough discussion and there is a shared view on what is and is not infidelity.

Fanjolina - having sex with someone isn't like having a coffee with someone though, is it?

I mean, the feelings are quite, quite different... (if they aren't for you, perhaps you should see a sex therapist?).

And I am not viewing this from a male/female spilt Anna.

Jut wondering why sexual relations are so sacrosanct. Is it because they truly are, or because we have made them so over time - i.e. by embedding them in marital vows.

No, sexual feelings/relationships are not culturally conditioned, but biologically.

Are humans the only animal that does not have clear-cut mating habits?

Swans mate for life as do a lot of birds.
Certain animals are promiscuous others never are.

Why haven't humans worked it out yet?

I think they are meant to be promiscuous but society/the church etc has locked us into a set of rules which are almost impossible for many people to follow. Hence all the pain and suffering...

It would be easier if no-one expected their partners to stick around and then we could have evolved different ways of forming families.

I think we'd have ended up a bit like lions with packs of various females doing most of the work and a male or two lying about on the edge of the pride

Don't worry Anna, I don't need to see a sex therapist. I am fully monogamous and have been with my DH since my teens.

I am just interested in the debate around this.

Shitemum - there is lots and lots of research on this.

Some animals are monogamous for life.

There is a saying about humans (which I cannot remember the correct wording of, or to whom it is attributed - help me please) which says that men are generally monogamous, with very few mistresses...

I think it goes deeper than that Fanjolina.
It is a betrayal. The trust is damaged. ..... it goes on an on.
Dh can spend as much time with any other woman / drinking as much coffee as he likes. Doesn't bother me. Sleeping with her/ having an affiar/ the lying and the deceit that that entails - yes funnily enough tht does bother me.
Can you net see why that would be ?

Madamez, yes fidelity does not suit everyone.
Fine. Carry on having lots of partners. This suits many people. And it is fine with me.
But don't get married then. Becasue that is supposed to be a committment to one person.

dittany - not sure that recreational sex for women is such a recent invention... women have always had babies out of wedlock or, even more frequently, with men other than their husbands.

And contraception (which can mean withdrawal, counting days or just oral/anal sex) has been around since time immemorial...

Dittany, I am very intrigued/puzzled by your views.
Do you feel owned ? I don't. Do you think it is becasue I am naieve has to how male dominated the world is ?

Catching diseases or getting someone pregnant are practical issues, but I doubt many people ever said "I won't ever have sex" for those reasons.

I do think we make a mistake by trying to make a 'one size fits all' rule. People are different and the one rule is often based on something some priest said anyway.

Despite what someone said sex can be simply fun. With people you know well and people you don't. Behind closed doors or in the queue of the lost property office. It can be fun with women, men and mixed groups. For some there is fun to be had with hamsters etc.

Personally I enjoyed variety when I was young (not hamsters), but now I have someone I really care about and for me the intimacy has become more important then the act alone. I have no interest in being unfaithful. It's not something I have to work at.

I don't see that as a virtue, but a personal preference. It will be different for other people.

I think everyone should do what what works for them as long as any partner they are with agrees.

Look, if it didn't work for the French en masse during La Belle Epoch it ain't never going to work.

If you want to know what people REALLY think of women who take lovers withihn marriage read Anna Kareninananananana

In the early 1970's Nancy Friday published a book called "My Secret Garden" - containing women's sexual fantasies. At the time the book caused uproar as the then male dominated world was shocked to discover that women were sexual beings - it just wasn't "right".

30 something years on, women now have an equal place in sexual society - however, the double standards still remain.. a woman admitting to enjoying casual sex is branded a "slut", whereas a man is a "stud". Of course this is not right, but I don't think that will change in my lifetime - it's been the case for too long!

A relationship is about exclusivity - both emotional and sexual.. If anyone does not want that exclusivity then to my mind they should not be in a relationship.

Sorry, this sounds like some sort of rant, it's not honestly!! I think this kind of discussion is important and very relevant. Anyway, I shall climb off my soapbox now!!