.png)
This is going to be a controversial post. Feel free to agree or disagree.
Obviously, cheating isn't ideal. Most of the time, cheaters of both genders are unhappy.
But.
Have you noticed it's always the creepiest, most predatory LVM who emphasize again and again that it's sO WrOnG for a woman to cheat? I don't see HVM harping on this at all.
Anything LVM browbeat to death has always been suss to me.
Anything LVM tell women to do all the time (e.g., be faithful/loyal, be tolerant of men watching porn, be a good Mommy McBangmaid, etc.) is something that benefits men only/primarily.
My woman's instinct tells me while cheating is generally a sign of sickness for a relationship, it's more acceptable for a woman to cheat, and it's absolutely unacceptable for a man to cheat. I haven't been able to form a convincing argument I could use in a legal court, but my instinct is never wrong.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that women are more vulnerable in society, and if a woman does not have her needs met by one man, it can be fatal for her (i.e., cheating may be an actual need for her), whereas men, who are less vulnerable, can "afford" not to have all their needs met in a romantic relationship (i.e., cheating is a frivolous luxury for him).
Further thoughts:
A woman's loyalty/monogamy should be "bought", i.e., it should come at a price for the man; therefore, a man should not presume monogamy from a woman if he can't provide enough time, effort, and money on a consistent basis to please her.
Double standards rightfully apply. In an earlier post, an FDSer mentioned men who have a history of sexual promiscuity will never be HVM, whereas women who have a history of sexual promiscuity may still be HVW. "You can't turn a ho into a housewife" is pure projection and applies to men not women.
FDS advocates women maintain a secret stash of money in case their marriages don't work out. Their husbands should not know about this stash. Maintaining a secret partner on the side is just another form of the "secret stash"; it's insurance against a failed relationship.
I think pressuring women not to cheat is a tool of the patriarchy to keep women in relationships that don't meet their needs.
Does anyone else feel this way too, and could you provide a cogent verbal explanation for something I (and many other women) feel?
P.S. I am not advocating for "ethical non-monogamy". That's openly giving license to men to fuck around on you. I'm sure we've all noticed how LVM claim to love ENM relationships. Again, any practice LVM claim to love is probably not beneficial for women.
I actually think it benefits women sometimes to engage in "unethical" (or secret) non-monogamy.
P.P.S. Keep your moralizing to yourself. I am asking a question that could benefit all women.
I agree with NotTheOne that women's motives are often "better" (eg emotional neglect vs "but my wife won't let me do anal").
But it's still a bad plan.
Mainly because you will be engaging with LVM if you do. A HVM would not fuck a woman who is already in a relationship. And we should be avoiding LVM.
Also it's risky. If you get caught, your partner could have a physically, emotionally, or financially violent reaction. Also if you get caught it will be crap for your reputation.
If we want a HVM, we need to be HVW. A HVM would not accept cheating in your past. Im bi and I wouldn’t accept it from either sex. I see what you’re trying to say. For example, in a long term marriage a man who cheats is usually doing it because he’s bored with his sex life for reasons that are usually his fault. A woman who does it usually at least falls in love with her affair partner because her needs aren’t being met emotionally. However if you’re at that point in your marriage or relationship, it’s time to leave, not cheat. Be an adult, use your words.
My reason for staying loyal to a man is not "because he's good to me," so it follows that I wouldn't be unfaithful to a man "because he's not good to me." All of my decisions (fidelity and otherwise) are based on my own character, my standards, without reference to anyone else. It helps that I figured out what those are, and that I am committed to them. No man is going to sway me to be untrue to myself. And my decision to be monogamous is not based on anything he does or doesn't do. So, slow and careful vetting is the way. And if the mask drops after a really long time, I would not cheat -- I'd leave, and leave single. I wouldn't monkey-branch, for the reasons I've already stated and also because the chances of finding a HVM while I'm committed to someone else are about zero.
I think the partners we choose can drastically impact our lives; therefore we should choose them with extreme caution. I know a lot of HV women who ended up in long term relationships or even married to LV men because they developed feelings for them after sex. I think women are much more likely to bond to sex partners because of oxytocin. And I think sex is an. Incredibly high-risk activity for women.
So while I agree that women's motives for cheating are often more justified than men's (she is being mistreated and feels unloved, whereas he gets off on the deception), I don't think it's "ok" for women to cheat. I think we're better than that.
This is long, but hear me out because I want to hear your thoughts. I agree with you, regardless of whether we are talking about cheating on LVM, mid-range men, or HVM. None of us here is dating a HVM even if you think you are-- I don't mean that as an insult. In fact, I don't think it's possible to date a HVM and- if possible- you'd probably find it's not the kind of relationship you'd want to be in anyway.
I think many women have deluded themselves into thinking a HVM is relevantly like a HVW, and so a HVW should pair bond exclusively with a HVM and, voila, happily ever after! But I have come to realize that, of the probably 10 HVM that exist on this planet, 9 of them will most likely not have any interest in a romantic relationship and for good reason. For a man, part of becoming HV involves removing himself as far as possible from his base male desires, which includes sex, especially sex, so those sorts of men will be intensely committed to lifelong projects and development that have nothing to do with what ordinary men desire. Even if there are 1 or 2 men that could somehow remain connected to sex while dissociating themselves from the usual deluge of intense obsessiveness that goes along with male sexual desire, and we take monogamy to be the ideal form of relationship, that leaves 1 or 2 men for. . . . how many HVW?!
The only way in which a HVM and HVW would be remotely similar is that they both would probably be mostly solitary. (If patriarchy were dismantled, HVW would not be solitary. However, within a patriarchal set up, women are so brainwashed to want to pair-bond for life with a man that they are literally blind to seeing the benefits of living with and finding companionship with other women in any serious way.)
Because males and females are so fundamentally different, what it means for them to become HV and the path to becoming HV are diametrically opposed: for men, it requires fighting against something naturally cataclysmic within themselves for most of their lives, which doesn't realistically leave much room for all of the attention, energy and effort that goes into a meaningful, substantive loving relationship. If you met an actual HVM, he'd probably be very interesting to talk to, but other than that, there's not much else you'd be able to do with him because he is always fighting an internal war and you can't be a part of that. You will never be as interesting to him as his fight is to himself because he wants to be HV. A HVW will understand that and leave him to his journey. For women, the path to HV is fighting patriarchy, so an external war, and the way in which it has imposed itself on what is our naturally beautiful and healthy interiority. HV women are attempting to de-bug themselves while HV men are attemting to re-bug themselves (with a different bug than their base male nature).
The point I'm making is men, whether HV, LV or somewhere in between, are not really supposed to be our partners. Women so badly want the patriarchal myth about men to be true, to the point where they will endure boredom, misery, illogical/ circular conversations, bad sex, and horribly incapable co-parenting from men because women prefer even the performance of the spectacle of hetero pair-bonding to reality. I think a smart woman will eventually see past the patriarchal lie, make other women her true companions (not necesssarily lesbian) and realize men can be useful in a limited sense (some good sex from this one, some help with fixing the car from that one, decent/ funny conversations with another). For that reason, whatever romantic "relationship" she's in with a man is not actually sacred, so cheating (for the piece-meal good sex here, help with this there, funny convos from another, etc) is not a big deal. In other words, if it wasn't for patriarchal indoctrination, no women would want to pair-bond for life with any man anyway-- the "relationship" is a function of a larger system that is not set up to serve her.
This argument doesn't work the other way around for men, though, because - on the flip side- women aren't really supposed to be THEIR partners either. Women form the basis of the social community and maintain it (all substantive relations are made possible through women). Women's time and energy should be focused on their relations between each other, children, nonhuman animals, plants, governing, engaged in projects, etc because it sustains the world, in the small and large sense. So, when a man is able to trick a woman (in this case, through patriarchy) into redirecting her time and energy into him at all, he has accomplished an incredible feat, and that relationship IS sacred. To cheat on her, then, would be a totally different matter. Because, again, if it wasn't for patriarchal indoctrination, no woman would want to pair-bond for life with him anyway--so, he is literally lucking out big time.
Both men and women shouldn't cheat, you bring the same diseases. I do agree that a woman cheating or leaving a man usually has a valid reason behind it because he neglects the marriage or she feels like a bird with clipped wings.
Men cheat because they want new pussy and a person who is saddled with less responsibilities, they are tired of their tired wife eventhough they are the reason why she's tired.
Still both should never cheat because you are hurting another human being and that's not what a person you are with should do.
If men want poly then they shouldn't b!tch when women cheat.
I think the collary to this is to maintain a rotation of men non-exclusively much further into 'serious' dating than most women are accustomed to - if there is no ring on your finger, you are single and act like it. Due to emotions and societal conditioning most women close off their options loooooong before they're actually proposed to, and I think maintaining multiple serious prospects pre-commitment is beneficial, but feels like 'cheating' to most women. It's not. No ring, no promises dude. It's perfectly fine to have multiple men in love with you and dating you in a serious way. I do agree with the motivations being different for women and men cheating most of the time though.
It’s pretty unreasonable to hold men and women to the same standards of fidelity when the orgasm gap exists as it does.
Men cheat because they can and women cheat because they have to.
There will always be exceptions however. I still won't recommend cheating to any woman because society punishes female cheaters harder, and also being caught will put the woman in a very dangerous situation. So yeah, cheating is definitely understandable in certain contexts but it's far from preferable or recommended. It's not a real strategy. It's a cry for help.
The idea that it might be acceptable for women to cheat while unacceptable for men is inherently flawed. Morality should be based on fairness, equality, and respect for all individuals, regardless of their gender.
To argue that it is permissible for one gender to cheat is a double standard that contradicts all moral and equitable reasoning. In a truly moral framework, people should be held to the same standards of fidelity, honesty, and commitment, regardless of their gender.
Cheating involves a breach of trust, dishonesty, and a disregard for the feelings of the partner involved. These principles are universal and should not be subject to gender-based exceptions.
Treating cheating differently based on gender undermines moral values and leads to a skewed perception of what is morally acceptable. While our motives may be different than mens’ for cheating, that still doesn’t allow for it to be any less disgusting than theirs.
Robbery because of poverty is not treated any lighter than robbery due to hatred.
I would cheat on a dude at this point just to prove that he's not my boss.
I'm not gonna let one be my main provider, but they can still give me money.
If I could find multiple decent dudes, I'd just make them compete with each other for the rest of my life. ^^
I'm at the point where I want women to be cheating more than men.
We should create double standards.
We have the wombs and can raise kids without killing them. Women are the culture.
There is no reason for a man to cheat ever, but women have love in our hearts when we cheat.
It's not good for a relationship, but relationships with men are almost always inherently predatory anyway.
Breed with docile men only until they're as monogamous as birds. Why would we use a "relationship" to limit our options unless the only goal there is to also limit a man's? Make it a non-issue by decentering your male partner, or even share him with your friends.
Your idea of "man is loyal because I am loyal" is a false premise.
We have final say.
As always you are incredibly insightful!