SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Candyman - I am not a woman who would want a gangbang. It's just not a fantasy of mine. But, I will point out the woman is only being used if she doesn't want a gangbang and she is being persuaded to have one. There are women who have those kinds of fantasies and might be using the males to have it. Just pointing it out because there are scenarios that are maybe considered deviant, that a woman may actually be the one in Power and not having her power being taken. Not really disagreeing with the rest of what you said.

Do the motivations of the guys matter? Regardless of what her mindset is there is a better chance than not that the guys are just using her, objectifying her. Objectifying women is bad right? So can you objectify women if you THINK its OK with them? Or should you slam your fist down on the table and say "NO, this wrong, someone could tape this and ruin your marriage one day."

Do the motivations of the guys matter?

Well, I don't know any guys that are all in a gangbang with a woman that they all love? I am saying if she is orchestrating this, it's something she really wants to experience in her life, then why is that objectifying her? I think it all comes under the belief that women don't have outrageous fantasies.

I have outrageous fantasies, but most of them I really wouldn't want to come to fruition in my own life. I have a female friend who is single, and it's weird to me but she actively looks for couples to have threesomes with. I am not justifying or judging her behavior, I can't say as a single woman that would be something I would pursue. But, she doesn't feel objectified at all, I have asked her. She actually was left by a cheating husband, and I think that her acting out some of the fantasies she has had has been a time of taking back her power. I am not saying she's doing this with bunches of people or anything lik that...but any couple she found - I am certain they don't love her. They may like her and think she is funny, but she isn't looking for love either.

Regardless of what her mindset is there is a better chance than not that the guys are just using her, objectifying her. Objectifying women is bad right? So can you objectify women if you THINK its OK with them?

Women objectify others too. People have casual sex, the woman seeking casual sex is looking for a male to meet her sexual needs. She isn't looking for love or a husband.

Or should you slam your fist down on the table and say "NO, this wrong, someone could tape this and ruin your marriage one day."

What you decide to do with a request like that is up to you. And, if she decides to let you tape her, well I guess that she must be fine with other people possibly seeing it. Not my thing, but women like many things that men like, we are just seen sometimes that we are not supposed to.

Incarnate - thank you. For describing triggers and CPTSD in a clear way I wish I could have, and in a way I hope people will have compassion for. I’m sorry for everything you have endured. You are incredibly strong to have survived all of that.

To everyone else:

*sigh* Just pass your sweet potatoes over here, haters. I enjoy them greatly and will gladly take them off your hands. Honestly, they’ll feed me for at least the next month.

Or should you slam your fist down on the table and say "NO, this wrong, someone could tape this and ruin your marriage one day."

Unfortunately I think it is human nature to do things that seem a good idea at the instantaneous moment in time while giving no actual thought as to the future repercussions, even seconds in the future, let alone years in the future. Or they simply don't care about future repercussions. Add to that the fact that the only thing one has control of is themselves, their thoughts, emotions, behaviour, and reactions. They have no real control over the narrative once its in motion.

People also tend to not account for unknown outcomes, to account for the possibility that something they wouldn't imagine in a million years happening...happens. They are also able to convince themselves, at least in the moment, that if there are any repercussions, they have no responsibility, accountability, and that it would be unfair, and while it may truly be unfair, that is little solace when faced with actual reality.

Another thing many people seem to forget, or just flat out discount, is that past activities, especially those that are out of the norm tend to never actually stay in the past, and tend to popup at the least opportune times.

Your assuming he's passing moral judgement on her, which is no way implied by him deciding he doesn't, even as a promiscuous man, want to date a promiscuous woman. Which, while somewhat ridiculous, is why the bodybuilder example works for me, just because I spend 6 hours a day in the gym doesn't mean I have to accept my partner do the same. I'm free to say "I don't want to date gym rats" for any reason at all, despite being a gym rat myself.

Bodybuilding is usually not a moral belief. Whether someone is promiscuous or not is a moral belief. You really struggle with this.

Understand, I am not saying the man can't find a woman who hasn't been promiscuous and fall in love with her. I am saying that when he is eliminating someone with a similar sexual history, for what other reason is there than a moral judgement?

But, if we flip it around the way I had it, if he's holding HIMSELF to the higher standard (I will spend 6 hours a day in the gym, she will not) then it's OK?

Yes. He is not even making a requirement for her. That is not even close to what we are talking about here.

And honestly, we have NO idea if he sees her as property, cares what makes him attractive to her or sees her as his equal.

A man who makes a woman, or a woman who makes a man do things with a different moral standard than they hold themselves to is not considering the person their equal. And, in the example I used if the man feels like he doesn't have to do anything to be concerned with how he can make himself more attractive but is spouting orders on what she must do to make herself attractive does in fact see that woman as property that he can control.

Those are all big leaps, they might be true, or he might just have a preference for women who bodybuild

. Yes, but in a partnership, it's not just demanding someone to be what you want. It's making compromises and also being concerned with what the other person wants. Your inability to differentiate that is frightening. Unless you are being purposefully obtuse.

Or blondes

. Again, it's fine if someone has a type or a preference. EVERYONE has that. Okay, so a man likes women with blonde hair. Great. He might miss out on a lot of great woman with red, brown, or black hair but that's totally his prerogative. I have a girlfriend who is a white lesbian, she will only date Hispanic or black women be. Those are types. You are mixing up very big concepts to fit really weird examples.

Here is another example, men or women who date younger people. Okay, so sometimes it just worked out that way, or they have an attraction to some shallow looks. Nothing really problematic there. I am married to someone 10 years older than I am. However, I have a friend who's daughter was 20 that met a man who was 33. They were cute together, eventually got married. Turned out, he preyed on younger women because he is a controlling abusive asshat. Their marriage is a nightmare and she is too naïve to understand it. And, it would be just as deplorable if it was a woman preying on a man that way. That's the sort of thing we are talking about, but you keep mixing in all these things that have nothing to do with that, and I don't understand.

Or those who skydive even though he doesn't because he loves to live vicariously through their stories.

If a woman loves to sky dive, and the man likes hearing about it, no one is a victim in that situation! This is not even an example. If instead, she didn't want to do it, and he insists on it so he can be attracted to her. Holding expectations of "you will please me no matter how inconvenient or I am leaving you". Now, that is getting really out there I know, but it's the best I can do with the silly examples you are making.

Can a woman not be attracted to men with powerful/high paying jobs without having a high paying job of their own?

Sure, if she is interested in other things besides that. If she is willing to be with him if he looses that job. If he is just a mark, then no.

There is nothing flying off the rails, in most of these cases there is no victim, no one controlling anyone, noone insisting that their moral behavior doesn't have to match expected moral behavior of the spouse. That's when no, it's not okay!!!!!!!!

Bodybuilding is usually not a moral belief. Whether someone is promiscuous or not is a moral belief. You really struggle with this.

OK, so I'm free to not date promiscuous women so long as I don't pass some moral judgement then? So long as it's in the bent of "I just don't like dating blondes", not "blondes are bad"? Because, first off, I think that a lot of people are saying exactly that (including me), there's nothing wrong with it (no moral judgement), I just don't want to date someone who's done it. Also, it's a bit of a red herring of a standard, because, of course, there's no possible way to tell one from the other, is he saying 'no thanks' because he thinks I'm a bad person/slut, or just because he doesn't want to date women who have a high number, but think that having a high number is OK? They look identical, so, I do see your point, but we're splitting very fine hairs here.

Your inability to differentiate that is frightening. Unless you are being purposefully obtuse.

Your inability to just say "Men are free to have any preference (so long as it's legal) in women is equally terrifying. The implication here that a promiscuous man has somehow lost the ability to judge partners based on their promiscuity. That's a terrifying thought.

And, it would be just as deplorable if it was a woman preying on a man that way.

Nobody is "preying" on anyone here. We're talking about choosing NOT to engage with someone because of their past, not purposely seeking out women with high partner counts to "prey" on them for sex.

Sure, if she is interested in other things besides that. If she is willing to be with him if he looses that job. If he is just a mark, then no.

If you're implying that the ONLY criteria is "low partner count", I don't think anyone said that. What people have said, and I think is fine, is that it is A criteria that they use selecting a partner. And it's variable in the level of importance it has to them. Nobody has said that they would only date chaste women because they are "marks", or for any reason other than it's their personal preference. Which you so much agreed to is OK for a woman choosing to date rich men.

Holding expectations of "you will please me no matter how inconvenient or I am leaving you".

Nobody has said this either. What they have said, is they find those who do not skydive more attractive than those who do. Even if they skydive every weekend, they don't want to picture their partner's chute not opening and them falling to their death. It's OK for me to skydive, I just don't want my partner to do it because I know it's dangerous. And I choose not to pursue people who do it because I don't want to change them, I want them to live their lives but their behavior is just not acceptable to me in a partner.

Let me state my position clearly so it's not mixed in analogy. I think it's fine to pick a partner based on any criteria you want to, even if you yourself don't display/have that particular criteria. That could be hair color, income, height, fitness, skydiving and yes, chastity. What is not OK is to judge people who don't display those criteria as "less than" or "broken".

And, while a very interesting and illuminating conversation, it doesn't matter at all what we come to consensus on here, lots of people are going to judge their partners on all those criteria listed above (well, maybe not skydiving) and about a million more that are unlisted. So even if we all come to agreement that "No, sexual history is off limits for determining if you want to date someone if you've been promiscuous in your past", guess what? We all know, off limits or not, people are going to factor that into their equations. And I think that's what really has people riled up here, it's not my stance on the issue, I'm married, I'm not dating anyone! It's that the view I hold, caveman or not, is rather common across society. And that feels like it restricts people's freedom to do what they want, especially when that same restriction doesn't exist, or is far less of a restriction for men. Guess what, I agree here too! It's not fair, I've said that probably 100's of times now. But it's reality. That's why I think it's important to bifurcate this discussion into "should be" and "is". Should be, that's easy, no double standards anywhere. Is? I think it's clear from this thread, we're a long way from "should be".

But I guess that brings me to Dee’s humour, no I don’t feel oppressed. Hardly so. It just seemed so obvious to me how your willing to throw that out there, completely oblivious to the sensitive nature the topic is. Because while the men here have had their words twisted and bent to fit a narrative, despite obvious attempts to be considerate and compassionate, only to then be accused of not saying what they mean, you completely overlooked the simple reply to your joke. A reply I debating posting to be snarky, but I guess that’s the difference between you and I, because I do rebel, but I do consider society.

Okay Loukas, let me explain my comment then. It was after reading RIO's explanation of how the dating world is from his point of view and me having a moment where I was like "I don't want to even deal with guys who work this system". It was not about all men. It was a moment of reading his stuff and thinking "Geez, this sounds like a miserable way to live in the world and I don't even want to date with that stuff in my head".

All this talk about whether or not women who have high numbers can even form meaningful relationships and you're worried that I have been the insensitive one, lol. The men are the real victims here, I suppose.

So all my brothers here on this forum, did I offend anyone else with my comment?

I think it all comes under the belief that women don't have outrageous fantasies.

Yeah...guys, we are naughty too. I should think that is no surprise to anyone on this forum. We don't sit and fantasize exclusively about missionary position sex for procreation only. My personal favorite porn is two men together. Why? Because I'm not attracted to women and hey, you just put TWO dudes on screen and I don't have to deal with close-ups of boobs and vaginas to bore me? Cool.

No, I do not want to participate in a gang-bang, but unless the woman is being raped or coerced or drugged, I can't automatically assume that she's not getting off on this idea. Plenty of guys want to have sex with a roomful of women and that isn't considered to be an outrageous fantasy.

Well, I don't know any guys that are all in a gangbang with a woman that they all love? I am saying if she is orchestrating this, it's something she really wants to experience in her life, then why is that objectifying her? I think it all comes under the belief that women don't have outrageous fantasies.

I have outrageous fantasies, but most of them I really wouldn't want to come to fruition in my own life. I have a female friend who is single, and it's weird to me but she actively looks for couples to have threesomes with. I am not justifying or judging her behavior, I can't say as a single woman that would be something I would pursue. But, she doesn't feel objectified at all, I have asked her. She actually was left by a cheating husband, and I think that her acting out some of the fantasies she has had has been a time of taking back her power. I am not saying she's doing this with bunches of people or anything lik that...but any couple she found - I am certain they don't love her. They may like her and think she is funny, but she isn't looking for love either.

Regardless of what her mindset is there is a better chance than not that the guys are just using her, objectifying her. Objectifying women is bad right? So can you objectify women if you THINK its OK with them?

Women objectify others too. People have casual sex, the woman seeking casual sex is looking for a male to meet her sexual needs. She isn't looking for love or a husband.

Or should you slam your fist down on the table and say "NO, this wrong, someone could tape this and ruin your marriage one day."

What you decide to do with a request like that is up to you. And, if she decides to let you tape her, well I guess that she must be fine with other people possibly seeing it. Not my thing, but women like many things that men like, we are just seen sometimes that we are not supposed to.

My questions were more about what is acceptable behavior for men. There has been a lot of talk about double standards for women on this thread and you mentioned it again. There seems to me to also be double standards for how men are supposed to treat women.

Men should treat women as people with dignity and respect. Don't objectify them. Alright I agree with that. But don't judge them for actions you deem diminish them in respect or dignity. If a woman wants to have a gang bang it's totally fine to participate, all that matters are her motivations, not the men. Women like sex too so it's fine. However if you see that as loosing dignity, make a judgement about it, and perhaps even try to talk her out of it, you're probably slut shaming her. Although if you don't call out lack of moral character in your fellow employees at drinks after work then you have no strength of conviction, therefore condoning that behavior.

I'm not saying any of the above is your position. You've been consistent with your posts. But after reading all of these positions I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could argue against RIOs opinion that double standards exist, some of them make sense even if they aren't fair, and it's better to just accept them and play by the rules. Or if you're going to have strength of your convictions you're going to be judgmental and that's better than not being judgmental even if it puts you at odds with someone else.

But after reading all of these positions I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could argue against RIOs opinion that double standards exist, some of them make sense even if they aren't fair, and it's better to just accept them and play by the rules.

I am not interested in playing by the rules of the double-standards. Playing by those rules only props them up and gives them longevity. Question everything and be authentic is a lot better to live by.

I actually lose nothing by not playing by those rules. I gain everything worth having by not holding myself to standards that I don't believe in.

Men should treat women as people with dignity and respect. Don't objectify them. Alright I agree with that. But don't judge them for actions you deem diminish them in respect or dignity. If a woman wants to have a gang bang it's totally fine to participate, all that matters are her motivations, not the men. Women like sex too so it's fine. However if you see that as loosing dignity, make a judgement about it, and perhaps even try to talk her out of it, you're probably slut shaming her. Although if you don't call out lack of moral character in your fellow employees at drinks after work then you have no strength of conviction, therefore condoning that behavior.

I don't understand how this is hard. If the woman was coerced into the gang-bang, the dudes suck. If the woman wanted to do it because she thought it was hot, she doesn't suck. If a guy wanted to participate because he thought it was hot, he also doesn't suck. If a guy wanted to do it because he wanted to show that whore what she's worth, yeah, he sucks. I am not making value judgements on any of the participants in a gang-bang without knowing more. Guy who shared out the video is a douchebag, 100%.

Your comment about respect and dignity is worth pursuing. Would you caution a woman against participating in group sex with men because you deem it disrespectful and beneath her dignity? What if she wanted to do it and often fantasized about it?

The coworker part I agree with. I'd caution against doing sexual stuff with coworkers for a thousand different reasons, none of which are me judging anyone for having casual sex.

[This message edited by DevastatedDee at 11:33 AM, December 5th (Thursday)]

Unfortunately I think it is human nature to do things that seem a good idea at the instantaneous moment in time while giving no actual thought as to the future repercussions, even seconds in the future, let alone years in the future. Or they simply don't care about future repercussions. Add to that the fact that the only thing one has control of is themselves, their thoughts, emotions, behaviour, and reactions. They have no real control over the narrative once its in motion.

Well that's kind of what I'm getting at. Someone who thought about the future and possible repercussions would have to make a NEGATIVE JUDGEMENT about the behavior and what it said about the participants in order to influence it.

People also tend to not account for unknown outcomes, to account for the possibility that something they wouldn't imagine in a million years happening...happens.

It's hard to account for unknown outcomes, which is why a lot of societal norms exist.

They are also able to convince themselves, at least in the moment, that if there are any repercussions, they have no responsibility, accountability, and that it would be unfair, and while it may truly be unfair, that is little solace when faced with actual reality.

Judgement avoidance seems like responsibility/accountability avoidance to me.

I am not interested in playing by the rules of the double-standards. Playing by those rules only props them up and gives them longevity. Question everything and be authentic is a lot better to live by.

I actually lose nothing by not playing by those rules. I gain everything worth having by not holding myself to standards that I don't believe in.

You left out the last sentence. Play by the rules. Or if you're going to have strength of your convictions you're going to be judgmental and that's better than not being judgmental even if it puts you at odds with someone else. I just don't think you can have it both ways. You either accept things the way they are or you are prepared to make negative judgments about all manner of things including peoples behavior, and there isn't anything wrong with that, even if they disagree.

Your comment about respect and dignity is worth pursuing. Would you caution a woman against participating in group sex with men because you deem it disrespectful and beneath her dignity?

I'm thinking about my daughter here, so hell yes.

What if she wanted to do it and often fantasized about it?

Yes again. Impulse control is a good thing. There are plenty of women that I'd like to have sex besides my wife.

Impulse control is a good thing. There are plenty of women that I'd like to have sex besides my wife.

Completely different situation. We're talking single and unattached to a partner. We all agree that infidelity is bad. A single person doesn't have that stricture.

Yes again. Impulse control is a good thing. There are plenty of women that I'd like to have sex besides my wife.

We're talking single people, not infidelity.

So why should she control that impulse if all are consenting and no one is cheating?

I just don't want to date someone who's done it.

Tell me why. I can't think of a possible reason that doesn't trace back to a moral judgement. I am not saying they don't exist, I am genuinely saying, tell me why.

Also, it's a bit of a red herring of a standard, because, of course, there's no possible way to tell one from the other, is he saying 'no thanks' because he thinks I'm a bad person/slut, or just because he doesn't want to date women who have a high number, but think that having a high number is OK? They look identical, so, I do see your point, but we're splitting very fine hairs here.

No it's not. Someone who has double standards have many of them. It's a full on attitude. Sexism isn't something that is hard to see because if someone is sexist they have attitudes about all sorts of things when it comes to the other gender. And, sexism can be practiced by males or females.

I have a female neighbor that any time I see her, whether it's out on a run past her house, or in the store, if I have a moment to talk to her somehow in that moment she will complain about "men" in a generalized way upteen times in that conversation. Men that I have dated that judged other women? You can see it, I dumped them, I am not going to be the next woman in your story. Thank you very much, bye. My best friend started dating a man a couple years back that right from the get go was calling his ex wife the bitch from hell. That was a redflag to me. I mentioned it to my friend. She dismissed it. I could go into diatribes as to what proceeded in that relationship. Should have hooked him up with my neighbor, it would be a match made in hell.

Men who call women whores and sluts on any regular basis? Yep, red flag. It's not splitting hairs, for a person who acts like that, they have some deep-seated beliefs and if you pay any attention at all it's all over them.

Your inability to just say "Men are free to have any preference (so long as it's legal) in women is equally terrifying. The implication here that a promiscuous man has somehow lost the ability to judge partners based on their promiscuity. That's a terrifying thought.

No, it's my attempts at trying to work with your examples. I am not saying any of this. People are free to do whatever the hell they want, obviously. I just personally am not going to put up with double standards or someone treating me like I am not their equal because we have different anatomy. That's my preference. The reason I even tried to converse with you on it is you keep painting it as I will be missing out, I will be paying a price, if I decide a certain way. I am saying fuck that. I am not paying a price if it means I am not with someone who is not going to accept who I am, and for whatever reason that is.

The rest of it, isn't even close to anything that I am trying to say, and it's gotten too convuleded to even respond to you, other than:

What is not OK is to judge people who don't display those criteria as "less than" or "broken"

.

I think I mostly agree with that. I don't know. I can't speak for anyone but myself. If I am seen as less than, then no I don't want to date that person. I think it's hypocritical to say as a man "I can fuck as many women as I want, however I want, but I want the woman that I date to not be a slut". Hypocritical. That's all I am saying. You have taken my points to such an extent I can't even revive them.

It boils down to everyone can and will do anything they want. If it effects me or mine, then yeah I am going to think you are an asshole.

Honestly though, I have had tremendous luck with the wonderful men that have been in my life. I have a husband who has gone above and beyond anything he was called to do. I had a mentor who was a man who basically taught me everything and gave me my career. I have men who work for me who are awesomely talented, considerate, hard working men who I have tremendous respect for and who respect me as well.

I had some crummy boyfriends too and have put myself in bad situations. And none of what I am getting ready to say has anything to do with what happens post dday, more general statements about relationships (I had to specify because A's change the rules obviously) But, if you call me a bitch or names in general, you are gone. If you put requirements on me that you will not follow yourself (generally speaking - again this doesn't apply to every single thing), then you are gone. If you shame me for my sexual past, ESPECIALLY if yours is more checkered- Bye! If I tried to date you and you are sexually conservative, and I tell you my stuff and it's too much, well then we are incompatible so we are both gone, shake hands and part in separate directions.

You left out the last sentence. Play by the rules. Or if you're going to have strength of your convictions you're going to be judgmental and that's better than not being judgmental even if it puts you at odds with someone else. I just don't think you can have it both ways. You either accept things the way they are or you are prepared to make negative judgments about all manner of things including peoples behavior, and there isn't anything wrong with that, even if they disagree.

I left it out because it was obvious to me and didn't need to be extrapolated upon. But sure, I'm judgmental about views that I disagree with. I don't mind debating people with different ideas. Bonus points if I wind up changing my own mind as a result. I am judgmental when my family refuses to recognize that my gay cousin has a partner he's so serious about that they bought a house together. I'd like to see them come to Christmas together, but he won't bring him because his parents are not comfortable with him being gay. I judge the almighty shit out of that viewpoint. I judge the views of people who would say that if I have sex outside of a committed relationship, I'm not as worthy as a woman who hasn't. I recognize that everyone has a right to hold whatever views they want, but I don't embrace them as my own and I will argue against them.

My questions were more about what is acceptable behavior for men. There has been a lot of talk about double standards for women on this thread and you mentioned it again. There seems to me to also be double standards for how men are supposed to treat women.

Could be. I will give it some thought, I truly do appreciate having my opinions or thoughts tested. I think that there is a difference of consenting adults deciding to have a gang bang, and a predatory person convincing someone they know to be weak or drunk to do it. Or even worse using some sort of other leverage. In the first example, noone has done anything "wrong" there is no victim, in the second scenario, you have gone past someone's dignity. I am not saying it still wasn't her that made the decision in at least one of those scenarios, but it makes those involved still in a predatory role.

And, again, I would see myself in a gang bang as being objectified, so I personally would not enjoy that. If it ever happened there would be no way it wouldn't have been coerced in some way.

Men should treat women as people with dignity and respect.

And vice versa.

Don't objectify them. Alright I agree with that. But don't judge them for actions you deem diminish them in respect or dignity. If a woman wants to have a gang bang it's totally fine to participate, all that matters are her motivations, not the men

.

I didn't say that. I would say that if the men were being coerced in some way, then that would be wrong too. I think it's fine if NOONE is being victimized.

Women like sex too so it's fine. However if you see that as loosing dignity, make a judgement about it, and perhaps even try to talk her out of it, you're probably slut shaming her.

Making sure that someone has thought something through is not slut shaming.

I'm not saying any of the above is your position. You've been consistent with your posts.

But after reading all of these positions I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could argue against RIOs opinion that double standards exist, some of them make sense even if they aren't fair, and it's better to just accept them and play by the rules. Or if you're going to have strength of your convictions you're going to be judgmental and that's better than not being judgmental even if it puts you at odds with someone else.

What started me in on RIO is he said he would date promiscuous women but not marry them. Sometimes the way he writes it sounds like that is his personal position and it isn't, or sometimes it is and he sounds like it isn't.

It isn't that I don't think it's prerogative to do anything he wants, but some of his posts in that way got pretty inflammatory. I don't wish to convince him that it doesn't exist. I want to challenge him on what he is stating and why he is stating it. But, I agree it went so down hill so fast that I already regret even trying. I could go back and quote what was getting under my skin, but man, I am too tired of this conversation to do it.

[This message edited by hikingout at 12:44 PM, December 5th (Thursday)]

It's hard to account for unknown outcomes, which is why a lot of societal norms exist.

It's not actually all that hard to account for the unknown. The problem is, many people simply don't even acknowledge that the unknown exists. They form a future narrative and don't even consider it might not go the way they think it will, or that the outcome could be potentially limiting.

Perfect example...my wife's ex husband was physically, emotionally, sexually, financially abusive. Multiple unapologetic affairs. A drug user, in and out of prison. Rap sheet as long as your arm. What finally pushed my wife over the edge with that guy was when HE actually filed for divorce. He was the one leaving her. Well, in her rage, she sought to get back at him. She figured the best way to hit him where it hurt the worst was to sleep with someone else. About three months after her filed, and several months before the divorce was finalized, she had some of the raunchiest sex with his son, her step son. And then told anyone who would listen all about it in brilliant detail. Never anticipated the impact that would have on the children they had together. Never anticipated the impact that would have on her future romantic life. Never anticipated the narrative going any differently than she envisioned in the moment.

This was one of two things in my wifes past that had I actually known early on before feelings were solidified, that I may have reconsidered a relationship. The other, had I known early on, I would have indeed ended it.

It was also one of those things that came out because circumstances forced it, as they often do.

Completely different situation. We're talking single and unattached to a partner. We all agree that infidelity is bad. A single person doesn't have that stricture.

We're talking single people, not infidelity.

So why should she control that impulse if all are consenting and no one is cheating?

How about the very first post on this thread for a reason?

Tell me why. I can't think of a possible reason that doesn't trace back to a moral judgement. I am not saying they don't exist, I am genuinely saying, tell me why.

So what if its a moral judgement? How else do you arrive at morality if not judging certain actions/behaviors good and bad.