Originally Posted by Brigianna
I don't have the authority to "punish" him. But, yes, he promised to be faithful to me in sickness and in health, so I would expect him to do that. As he would expect me to do if he were sexually incapacitated in some way. Our relationship is about so much more than just sex. If he threw that away just for some sex, I would not be at all sympathetic.
Unfortunately, sex is how men rebond with women. It is the same as if your DH were to treat you coldly and refuse to meet your need for loving touching and caressing. If he were to never bother to show you emotional caring and compassion.
Very rare is the person who intends to stray. It almost always happens because their needs are being met. And that almost always happens because the other person refuses to see the fact that it is, indeed, a NEED.
It is part of a relationship for a reason.
Ask yourself this. If it's not a need, if it's not that important, then why the stress on it? Why would you feel like he is "throwing it away" if he has sex with someone else? Sex isn't that important, right?
|There is a lot of cultural sympathy for men in this position, less so for women, who are expected to be faithful as Penelope. But I have no sympathy who tosses aside a meaningful relationship for cheap sex. I'm not talking about economics, but about the emotional and spiritual bond between two people. I can understand compromising and going along to satisfy him, but not giving him the okay to go elsewhere. Of course, if somebody wants to, that's her own business, but it won't stop me from thinking the other person is a cad. Although I should confess that I have a personal bias here...
What's the big deal? It's only sex, and if there's no need for sex in the marriage, why is there a need for sexual fidelity?
I don't mean this rudely, but please make up your mind... sex is important, or it's not. It's important enough to do without the person if they find it elsewhere, but not important enough to meet their need in order to not do without them?
If it weren't a deeply integral and deeply valued thing, you wouldn't care if it happened elsewhere.
Yet, you very obviously do care, quite rigorously, quite stringently. In fact, to all appearances, you would be quite livid if it happened elsewhere, and you'd leave over it.
Yet, you think that depriving the other person of it is a little thing? That it's not a "need" for them to have sex, yet it is a "need" for them to have sexual fidelity?