# Controversial Topic: Infidelity



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

If women are the gatekeepers, how can a man be a cheater? 

I have my own opinions. I wanted to read yours... if you dare.


----------



## EveningThoughts (Jul 12, 2018)

You've lost me.

How can women be gatekeepers when their partner works away etc.

Some guys just take advantage of being away from home for long periods. They cheat because they want to.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

If women are gate keepers, how can there be rape?

I mean, where does this rabbit hole go? Just because someone else opened their gate, what does that have to do with gate keeping and cheating and marriage?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> If women are the gatekeepers, how can a man be a cheater?
> 
> I have my own opinions. I wanted to read yours... if you dare.


Very zen, here.

I like this approach and question. 

Many M circumstances exist where this is a very apt question.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

EveningThoughts said:


> You've lost me.
> 
> How can women be gatekeepers when their partner works away etc.
> 
> Some guys just take advantage of being away from home for long periods. They cheat because they want to.


Consider this. You are horny and go for a walk. You see a woman and take her home and have sex with her. Have you raped her? Have you kidnapped her?

Well, it depends.

1. She gave enthusiastic consent.

2. She did not give enthusiastic consent. 

#2 is a crime and #1 is not. May we now move past the gatekeeper issue? What you have described does not lessen the fact that a woman is the gatekeeper.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

EveningThoughts said:


> You've lost me.
> 
> How can women be gatekeepers when their partner works away etc.
> 
> Some guys just take advantage of being away from home for long periods. They cheat because they want to.


Disregarding the percentages that cheat while traveling and those who's wives love having sex with them. 

Focusing on those Ms where H wants to have frequent or at least semi frequent sex and while the relationship is otherwise good W turns H down H 9 out of 10 times and, those Ws who agree to have sex like once every couple months or so.

These Ws "keep the gate closed" leaving their partner in the cold.
Is it realistic to expect him to "freeze outside" or survive by finding another fire to stay warm at?

He knows his survival helps his W, his remaining with her to work "their farm" together and grow food etc if he doesn't freeze enough to "perish" (leave).

She'd starve without him. Should he freeze to death, allowing his partner to then starve and perish?

I dunno. This analogy just seemed to grow.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Disregarding the percentages that cheat while traveling and those who's wives love having sex with them.
> 
> Focusing on those Ms where H wants to have frequent or at least semi frequent sex and while the relationship is otherwise good W turns H down H 9 out of 10 times and, those Ws who agree to have sex like once every couple months or so.
> 
> ...


Yes, and even if she doesn't refuse him that often(everyone needs to refuse when ill or something), isn't the woman the one who allows sex to happen? He can talk a good line, impress her with his money or stature, but in the end, she has to allow it enthusiastically.

Edit: In essence, he can't have sex without an enthusiastically willing partner. She has a choice. He does not.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Not sure what you mean...obviously men can cheat and women can cheat. What does it matter who the gatekeeper is if you sleep with someone besides your partner?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Isn't the "gatekeeper" the one with lower desire for sex. That may more often be the woman but from what I've seen posted here, not by a large ratio.

Its more likely the HD person will cheat because sex matters more to them and they are not getting as much as they want, but the LD person might cheat if they are LD because they are not attracted to their partner, but are to other people.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Cheating has nothing to do with the gatekeeper. 

The gatekeeper may be your wife and she keeps the gate closed.

The gatekeeper may be your secretary and she has opened the gate for you.

You only become a cheater if you go through the gate. It is your choice, not the gatekeepers.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Not sure what you mean...obviously men can cheat and women can cheat. What does it matter who the gatekeeper is if you sleep with someone besides your partner?


https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...l-doing-it/201708/the-truth-about-men-and-sex

What all this means to me is, men want sex and it is how they feel good about themselves. Women want sex, too, but a man has to get it from her. She has to allow it to happen. It must be enthusiastic consent. 

How then, does a man become a cheater unless a woman is enthusiastically consenting? All of the responsibility, according to what I get out of these and other studies, lies upon the woman.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

Count me in with the confused crowd as to what you are trying to discuss. Is your point that a man has no control over his actions and that he's helpless to resist his sexual urges when confronted with a willing woman? I don't agree with that. Even if the guy is in the dressing room at the Victoria Secret runway show surrounded by naked models begging him for sex, he's still a cheater if he's married and has sex with them. If he's so weak willed that he doesn't have self control in that situation, he needs to proactively avoid those temptations. But regardless of how it happens, it's still cheating no matter how he got there.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

uhtred said:


> Isn't the "gatekeeper" the one with lower desire for sex. That may more often be the woman but from what I've seen posted here, not by a large ratio.
> 
> Its more likely the HD person will cheat because sex matters more to them and they are not getting as much as they want, but the LD person might cheat if they are LD because they are not attracted to their partner, but are to other people.


My belief is that while this may be true on the surface, it does not go deep enough to be the whole truth.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wilson said:


> Count me in with the confused crowd as to what you are trying to discuss. Is your point that a man has no control over his actions and that he's helpless to resist his sexual urges when confronted with a willing woman? I don't agree with that. Even if the guy is in the dressing room at the Victoria Secret runway show surrounded by naked models begging him for sex, he's still a cheater if he's married and has sex with them. If he's so weak willed that he doesn't have self control in that situation, he needs to proactively avoid those temptations. But regardless of how it happens, it's still cheating no matter how he got there.


While this is true, if the woman is not enthusiastically willing, it can't happen, period. I don't care how horny he is. Are you saying a woman doesn't know when she is dressed to attract a man? No women or few will beg a man for sex. Don't get wild ideas. If you don't understand, just hold back till you do.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> While this is true, if the woman is not enthusiastically willing, it can't happen, period. I don't care how horny he is. Are you saying a woman doesn't know when she is dressed to attract a man? No women or few will beg a man for sex. Don't get wild ideas. If you don't understand, just hold back till you do.


Maybe you can expand more on what you are trying to discuss. It's seems pretty cryptic and like you want us to guess at what point you're trying to make. What I'm understanding from what you're saying is that if a married man comes across a willing woman, then he's helpless to her charms and will have sex with her. It's an automatic and undeniable action on his part. It seems like you're saying it's not cheating because once the woman indicated she was willing, he's unable to resist and shouldn't be held accountable for what happens next. Is that your point?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> If women are the gatekeepers, how can a man be a cheater?
> 
> I have my own opinions. I wanted to read yours... if you dare.


They’re not the gatekeepers. At least not always. 

Even if they were, it doesn’t absolve anyone’s accountability for their own decisions.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive
> 
> ...


Listen, maybe my life hasn’t been the norm, but I’ve had women have to work to “get” sex from me. And I’m far from looking like the cover of a romance novel. 

Women are almost exactly like men. Only more so. We just really pay attention to the differences.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> What all this means to me is, men want sex and it is how they feel good about themselves. Women want sex, too, but a man has to get it from her. She has to allow it to happen. It must be enthusiastic consent.
> 
> *How then, does a man become a cheater unless a woman is enthusiastically consenting? All of the responsibility, according to what I get out of these and other studies, lies upon the woman*.


Just to clarify, you are saying that women are responsible for men's cheating?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wilson said:


> Maybe you can expand more on what you are trying to discuss. It's seems pretty cryptic and like you want us to guess at what point you're trying to make. What I'm understanding from what you're saying is that if a married man comes across a willing woman, then he's helpless to her charms and will have sex with her. It's an automatic and undeniable action on his part. It seems like you're saying it's not cheating because once the woman indicated she was willing, he's unable to resist and shouldn't be held accountable for what happens next. Is that your point?


No, I'm saying he can't have sex with her unless she allows it. 

Men don't have a chance to have sex unless some woman says she is up for it.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Listen, maybe my life hasn’t been the norm, but I’ve had women have to work to “get” sex from me. And I’m far from looking like the cover of a romance novel.
> 
> Women are almost exactly like men. Only more so. We just really pay attention to the differences.


I disagree.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> Just to clarify, you are saying that women are responsible for men's cheating?


No, I'm saying those three studies lead me to believe my statement on women being the gatekeeper are true and that a man cannot cheat unless a woman is willing. 

What I want to know from you is, if you agree with that?

If you don't, why not? And, don't give me some horse****. Think about it and get rid of that anger you already have. Then, get back to me. Read those articles, too.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> No, I'm saying those three studies lead me to believe my statement on women being the gatekeeper are true and that a man cannot cheat unless a woman is willing.
> 
> What I want to know from you is, if you agree with that?
> 
> If you don't, why not? And, don't give me some horse****. *Think about it and get rid of that anger you already have. *Then, get back to me. Read those articles, too.


The only one that sounds angry here is YOU. I suggest you take it down a notch.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> No, I'm saying those three studies lead me to believe my statement on women being the gatekeeper are true and that a man cannot cheat unless a woman is willing.


I'm not sure why you're using the word 'cheat' in that statement. It's more correct to say that a man shouldn't have sex unless the woman is willing. Whether that sex is cheating or not doesn't seem relevant. I suppose it's technically correct to say that if no woman wanted to have sex with him, then he wouldn't be able to cheat unless he was also a rapist.

What you're proposing seems contrary to public opinion and common sense that I think the burden is on you to offer some more background and explanations. You seem frustrated that we're not following along, but you're not really doing much to prove or explain your point.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> The only one that sounds angry here is YOU. I suggest you take it down a notch.


What? I haven't been angry one bit. Check you last question to me. It's a set up. It's not an honest question. It asks me to put my neck in the noose. If that isn't veiled anger, I don't know what is.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wilson said:


> I'm not sure why you're using the word 'cheat' in that statement. It's more correct to say that a man shouldn't have sex unless the woman is willing. Whether that sex is cheating or not doesn't seem relevant. I suppose it's technically correct to say that if no woman wanted to have sex with him, then he wouldn't be able to cheat unless he was also a rapist.
> 
> What you're proposing seems contrary to public opinion and common sense that I think the burden is on you to offer some more background and explanations. You seem frustrated that we're not following along, but you're not really doing much to prove or explain your point.


Because I am not trying to prove to you that I am right and you are wrong. I am asking what you think about this situation. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm asking if these studies make sense in the manner that I have concluded. I'm asking if anyone can see what I see. So far, only @Ragnar Ragnasson can see what I mean. 

Some of you aren't following the thread at all. You must have missed those posts or you didn't care. Otherwise, you'd understand, or you probably shouldn't be considering this conundrum.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> What? I haven't been angry one bit. Check you last question to me. It's a set up. It's not an honest question. It asks me to put my neck in the noose. If that isn't veiled anger, I don't know what is.


We must not share the same definition of what constitutes anger. You read emotion into a question that I (as well as several others have asked). That's all on you.

You are the OP. You can choose not to answer my question but you posted a topic that is putting the responsibility for infidelity on the shoulders of women as a whole. If that's how you feel, then why is that putting your neck in a noose? Mean what you say, say what you mean.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> If women are the gatekeepers, how can a man be a cheater?
> 
> I have my own opinions. I wanted to read yours... if you dare.


*Because out of sheer selfishness, she won't open the gate up, thus causing hubby to go off and clandestinely stray somewhere else, where there is an open gate policy!*


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Because I am not trying to prove to you that I am right and you are wrong. I am asking what you think about this situation. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm asking if these studies make sense in the manner that I have concluded. I'm asking if anyone can see what I see. So far, only @RagnarRagnasson can see what I mean.
> 
> Some of you aren't following the thread at all. You must have missed those posts or you didn't care. Otherwise, you'd understand, or you probably shouldn't be considering this conundrum.


No, some people followed the thread, read the posts, and disagree with what you see. 

Did you start this thread just to get validation on your position?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> We must not share the same definition of what constitutes anger. You read emotion into a question that I (as well as several others have asked). That's all on you.
> 
> You are the OP. You can choose not to answer my question but you posted a topic that is putting the responsibility for infidelity on the shoulders of women as a whole. If that's how you feel, then why is that putting your neck in a noose? Mean what you say, say what you mean.


I've highlighted what got you started. It's the same as what you highlighted. 



2ntnuf said:


> https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive
> 
> ...


How does a man become a cheater without a woman giving enthusiastic consent? 

If you read that without assuming I mean something, that's what you get.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> No, some people followed the thread, read the posts, and disagree with what you see.
> 
> Did you start this thread just to get validation on your position?


Unfortunately, you have to take the time to read the links and think about it. I don't get why me asking someone not to get angry means I am angry? That's what you were referring to in that post. 

That's not me being angry. It's pointing out what I read and see. If it's wrong, why accuse me of being angry? Denial is not truth. 

And, no, I did not want validation. I've said what I wanted in the first post. I said I wanted your opinions and thoughts. I was hoping to have some open minded folks think about it and discuss it, but that doesn't seem possible here.

But, when I disagree with some, they don't like it. I forced no one to come here. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

This is an offensive post. If a married man tries to have sex with another women and the women says no isn’t he still a cheater? What amount emotional affairs?

Also what if he tells the women he isnt married? What if she is single and she wants to have sex with whoever she wants... she isn’t technically cheating.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> I've highlighted what got you started. It's the same as what you highlighted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All those studies speak about are male sex drives as compared with female. You are assuming all men are heterosexual and only cheat with women. Plenty of gay and bi-sexual men who cheat with other men. Plenty of self described "straight" men who will have sex with other men when women are not available (prison sex). 

No, women are not gate keepers for cheating men.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

A man cannot cheat without consent from the partner. That consent, may or may not be informed consent as well. Ultimately, the man has the ability to not stick is pecker into every open gate, and the wife can be more willing to open the gate. There is generally a lot of nuance involved when one gets to the point of infidelity, but only one party is responsible for where they willingly put their privates.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> *Because out of sheer selfishness, she won't open the gate up, thus causing hubby to go off and clandestinely stray somewhere else, where there is an open gate policy!*


So, he can't be a cheater unless some woman opens the gate? Because that's what I've been trying to say.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> A man cannot cheat without consent from the partner. That consent, may or may not be informed consent as well. Ultimately, the man has the ability to not stick is pecker into every open gate, and the wife can be more willing to open the gate. There is generally a lot of nuance involved when one gets to the point of infidelity, but only one party is responsible for where they willingly put their privates.


If the gate is not open, can a man pass through?


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> How does a man become a cheater without a woman giving enthusiastic consent?


One way for a man to have sex with a woman who has not given enthusiastic consent to have sex as part of a transactional relationship, such as paying for sex, exchanging sex for drugs, or giving preferred consideration upon completion of the sex act. If such a man was married, he would be a cheater even though the women were not enthusiastic.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> All those studies speak about are male sex drives as compared with female. You are assuming all men are heterosexual and only cheat with women. Plenty of gay and bi-sexual men who cheat with other men. Plenty of self described "straight" men who will have sex with other men when women are not available (prison sex).
> 
> No, women are not gate keepers for cheating men.


That's off topic. 

No, I'm excluding those who are not heterosexual because I don't have studies that suggest sexual preference, only men and women. These studies do not say if the participants were hetero or homosexual. That's why I didn't bring it up.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wilson said:


> One way for a man to have sex with a woman who has not given enthusiastic consent to have sex as part of a transactional relationship, such as paying for sex, exchanging sex for drugs, or giving preferred consideration upon completion of the sex act. If such a man was married, he would be a cheater even though the women were not enthusiastic.


Oh, but they were enthusiastic. They needed something and bartered for it with their body. Few men will be asked to do that. You seem to support my theory.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Okay @2ntnuf, I think you are seeking validation for your argument but I will let it ride. 

I am going to move this thread to the infidelity sub forum.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> I've highlighted what got you started. It's the same as what you highlighted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Easy. 

He has sex with another man.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> I disagree.


Uh, is that an argument?


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Oh, but they were enthusiastic. They needed something and bartered for it with their body. Few men will be asked to do that. You seem to support my theory.


Why do you think those women were enthusiastic? When I've watched documentaries about people on drugs, they do not seem enthusiastic when describing having to engage in sex to get money for their habit. The same with the women working in massage parlors giving happy endings. That seems like a huge assumption on your part to say that those women were enthusiastic about having sex. It seems much more like they were having sex under duress. I think you need to provide a little bit more evidence to prove your point if you're saying they were enthusiastic.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> This is an offensive post. If a married man tries to have sex with another women and the women says no isn’t he still a cheater? What amount emotional affairs?
> 
> Also what if he tells the women he isnt married? What if she is single and she wants to have sex with whoever she wants... she isn’t technically cheating.


I don't think your post is offensive. Why didn't you use the singular "woman"? 

If the woman says no, he is not a cheater, but a rapist, if he has sex with her. 

If he tells her a lie or not, and she opens the gate, who has allowed sex to happen? 


I seriously don't understand that last question.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wilson said:


> Why do you think those women were enthusiastic? When I've watched documentaries about people on drugs, they do not seem enthusiastic when describing having to engage in sex to get money for their habit. The same with the women working in massage parlors giving happy endings. That seems like a huge assumption on your part to say that those women were enthusiastic about having sex. It seems much more like they were having sex under duress. I think you need to provide a little bit more evidence to prove your point if you're saying they were enthusiastic.


This is too far from topic. Start a thread and I'll explain.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Uh, is that an argument?


Did you want one? 



Marduk said:


> Listen, maybe my life hasn’t been the norm, but I’ve had women have to work to “get” sex from me. And I’m far from looking like the cover of a romance novel.
> 
> Women are almost exactly like men. Only more so. We just really pay attention to the differences.


On the first paragraph, congratulations. I didn't even comment on that. 

On the second paragraph, I disagree that women are almost exactly like men. The rest of that wasn't anything of value, just comments emphasizing your first sentence. 

If you read the links I posted, they will corroborate.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> I don't think your post is offensive. Why didn't you use the singular "woman"?
> 
> If the woman says no, he is not a cheater, but a rapist, if he has sex with her.
> 
> ...


Ok let me take one last swing at this, even though I suspect this thread and your other one is really all about something you’re going through right now. 

I’m pretty sure I could - if I wanted to - find someone to cheat with pretty quickly. But I don’t. So no “gatekeeping” required. 

I have also been hit on, and could have said yes but I said no instead. So in that case, I was the gatekeeper. 

Even when single, I said no to women. Therefore, I was also the “gatekeeper” in those scenarios. 

What are you really after here?


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Disregarding the percentages that cheat while traveling and those who's wives love having sex with them.
> 
> Focusing on those Ms where H wants to have frequent or at least semi frequent sex and while the relationship is otherwise good W turns H down H 9 out of 10 times and, those Ws who agree to have sex like once every couple months or so.


People, male of female, should not allow this in their lives. 

I don't see Fiancé, or any previous GF, or wives as gate keepers. They are into me or they are not. If they are not, ok, then next, no skin off my nose...

I think the concept of the questions is flawed. 

And yes everyone can cheat...


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> I don't think your post is offensive. Why didn't you use the singular "woman"?
> 
> If the woman says no, he is not a cheater, but a rapist, if he has sex with her.
> 
> ...




I do understand but you don’t. 

If I am single, I can have sex with anyone I want. If a married man tells me he is single and I have sex with him I am not a cheater, HE IS.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Your saying because he is the penetrater and she is the penetratee that means that the penetratee HAS to allow the penetrater in or else its rape. This is not relevant.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> Did you want one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok bear with me a moment. 

All men are actually women. Or rather, have been female. We are identical up until quite late in the development process in the womb. The single difference starts with a very small Y chromosome at conception. 

This causes ovaries to switch to testes, the development of a penis, and other changes. But we all start the same way, and that same way is female. 

Of all the biological entities on the planet, the ones men are closest to - in fact nearly identical to - are women. We are the same species, after all!

We are sexually dimorphic, of course. But compared to other mammals, only slightly so. IQs are almost identical. Behaviours almost identical. Even sexual behaviours are almost identical, once you take socialization out of the equation. For example, men and women actually get turned on by exactly the same things in general. 

We like to focus on the differences, because the differences are what excites us. But the differences are minor, biologically speaking.


----------



## colingrant (Nov 6, 2017)

With some women, there is no gate. Guy sees the gate open and walks in.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

If women are gate keepers, then men are key masters. Neither can will fully do anything without consenting. One is not the master of the other. Just because there are more keys looking for gates in the world, it doesn't change the fact that you have 1 and are responsible for it.


----------



## Satisfied Mind (Jan 29, 2019)

Your question is flawed because women aren't the gatekeepers. Last time I checked, at least two people must decide they want some loving to engage in consensual sex. Let's say my wife doesn't want to have sex with me and another woman does. Me cheating still requires a decision on my part (I'm not a slave to my ****), my vows to my wife don't transfer any moral imperative to the other woman other than in some vague social, golden rule sense, and me breaking those vows don't shift any blame for my actions onto the other woman. The fact that I and others have been in this situation and not cheated pretty much kills your hypothesis.

As an aside, anyone who views women as the sole gatekeeper for sex is doomed to live that out as a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Ok let me take one last swing at this, even though I suspect this thread and your other one is really all about something you’re going through right now.
> 
> I’m pretty sure I could - if I wanted to - find someone to cheat with pretty quickly. But I don’t. So no “gatekeeping” required.
> 
> ...


Proof that infidelty cannot occur unless a woman allows enthusiastic sex. I've got it. Anyone can disagree as much as they like. It doesn't change the truth. No, I'm not going through some situation as an AP. I'm not dating anyone.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> I do understand but you don’t.
> 
> If I am single, I can have sex with anyone I want. If a married man tells me he is single and I have sex with him I am not a cheater, HE IS.


You're right, I didn't understand that's what you meant. It wasn't answering the original question, either, so I got even more confused.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> Your saying because he is the penetrater and she is the penetratee that means that the penetratee HAS to allow the penetrater in or else its rape. This is not relevant.


Not relevant to what? 

If a woman says no and a married man has sex with her, is he a cheater or a rapist? I'd say rapist.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Ok bear with me a moment.
> 
> All men are actually women. Or rather, have been female. We are identical up until quite late in the development process in the womb. The single difference starts with a very small Y chromosome at conception.
> 
> ...


Yes, we are not the same.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> If women are gate keepers, then men are key masters. Neither can will fully do anything without consenting. One is not the master of the other. Just because there are more keys looking for gates in the world, it doesn't change the fact that you have 1 and are responsible for it.


Ah, but this is where you are wrong. There are more gates than keys. Why doesn't every key have a gate? Because she has to allow that key to enter. So, do men cheat or are women allowing them?


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Ah, but this is where you are wrong. There are more gates than keys. Why doesn't every key have a gate? Because she has to allow that key to enter. So, do men cheat or are women allowing them?


It doesn't matter if there are 100 keys for every gate. If you have a key and you put it in a gate, that is on you. You are the master of your wiener, no one can put it in something it doesn't belong in.

If there are two women in the world and one is your wife, the other gate could be as wide as the ocean waiting for you, it doesn't mean you have to enter it.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Satisfied Mind said:


> Your question is flawed because women aren't the gatekeepers. Last time I checked, at least two people must decide they want some loving to engage in consensual sex. Let's say my wife doesn't want to have sex with me and another woman does. Me cheating still requires a decision on my part (I'm not a slave to my ****), my vows to my wife don't transfer any moral imperative to the other woman other than in some vague social, golden rule sense, and me breaking those vows don't shift any blame for my actions onto the other woman. The fact that I and others have been in this situation and not cheated pretty much kills your hypothesis.
> 
> As an aside, anyone who views women as the sole gatekeeper for sex is doomed to live that out as a self-fulfilling prophecy.


This is all over the place. You say your vows to your wife don't transfer any vague social, golden rule. Okay, then they are not vows. They are promises to yourself. You don't believe in societal pressures or golden rules from some abstract being. That's fine, but then you are promising yourself, not your wife. 

She would be a part of those societal pressures. 

My hypothesis is not that men can't help themselves. That's where we are all getting things wrong. *My hypothesis says unless a woman allows it, a man cannot cheat. Period. * 

Therefore, is he really a cheater? Can he be? I don't think he has as much responsibility as she does. Check the laws of the land, U.S. He is a rapist, if she doesn't give enthusiastic consent. 

The trouble is, it's a complex idea. 

You all have turned it into something it is not just trying to figure it out and you still have not done so.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> If a woman says no and a married man has sex with her, is he a cheater or a rapist? I'd say rapist.


He can be a cheater and a rapist. It's not an either-or situation. If he had a prenup that said his wife got everything if he cheated, he couldn't win in court with the defense of "It wasn't cheating because I raped her."


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> It doesn't matter if there are 100 keys for every gate. If you have a key and you put it in a gate, that is on you. You are the master of your wiener, no one can put it in something it doesn't belong in.
> 
> If there are two women in the world and one is your wife, the other gate could be as wide as the ocean waiting for you, it doesn't mean you have to enter it.


Could you legally put your key in that gate, if she does not enthusiastically consent?


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> My hypothesis is not that men can't help themselves. That's where we are all getting things wrong. *My hypothesis says unless a woman allows it, a man cannot cheat. Period. *


What is the point of that? If a man doesn't allow it, a woman cannot cheat either. Neither is compelled to act, neither is without power in the situation.

By your own hypothesis, women cheaters are only enabled by the male gate keeper. Whether or not there are more men looking to bang is irrelevant, there are still gates. They may be easier to open, but none the less, they exist.

Unless, you are willing to go to town on every woman in the world.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Could you legally put your key in that gate, if she does not enthusiastically consent?


Of course not, just like she cannot legally force me to have sex with her. Rape is rape.

The world 'legally' has no place in your OP.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

wilson said:


> He can be a cheater and a rapist. It's not an either-or situation. If he had a prenup that said his wife got everything if he cheated, he couldn't win in court with the defense of "It wasn't cheating because I raped her."


True. but she would also get his stuff by civil suit. No need for infidelity as a crime that awards the innocent. Was she totally innocent? Who knows. It's unlikely.

So, he is a rapist. 

A guy murders 65 women over a period of 15 years. He's only caught after he makes a mistake and the last one doesn't die. Is he a murderer or a serial killer?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> Of course not, just like she cannot legally force me to have sex with her. Rape is rape.
> 
> The world 'legally' has no place in your OP.


Sure it does. I have to set context. You can't figure this out. If I left it out, you would be more lost than now.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

You need to see that counselor soon, this thread and your penis thread seem really distorted. There seems to be a lot of woman blaming, **** shaming, and insecurity on your part.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Cheating occurs when someone who is married has sex with someone who is not their partner, when that has not been agreed to in advance. Usually this involves 2 consenting adults. If both are not consenting it is rape. 

Most people would not consider the victim of rape to have cheated, but the perpetrator of rape could also be a cheater (thought that seems minor in face of the more serious charge).

Enthusiasm is not required in any case. Someone can cheat with a sex worker who is not at all enthusiastic, but simply wants the money. People can of course cheat with someone of the same gender, so its not necessary that a woman be involved at all.








2ntnuf said:


> Proof that infidelty cannot occur unless a woman allows enthusiastic sex. I've got it. Anyone can disagree as much as they like. It doesn't change the truth. No, I'm not going through some situation as an AP. I'm not dating anyone.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Could you legally put your key in that gate, if she does not enthusiastically consent?


Yes, it matters not her enthusiasm, just her consent.
Yes, women are the gatekeepers, thus the selectors. 
Yes, a man can cheat without a woman's consent and it not be rape. 
There's all kinds of cheating. 

“Women select men. That makes them nature, because nature is what selects. And you can say "Well it's only symbolic that women are nature", it's like no, it's not just symbolic. The woman is the gatekeeper to reproductive success. And you can't get more like nature than that, in fact it's the very definition of nature.” JP.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Tasorundo said:


> What is the point of that? If a man doesn't allow it, a woman cannot cheat either. Neither is compelled to act, neither is without power in the situation.
> 
> By your own hypothesis, women cheaters are only enabled by the male gate keeper. Whether or not there are more men looking to bang is irrelevant, there are still gates. They may be easier to open, but none the less, they exist.
> 
> Unless, you are willing to go to town on every woman in the world.


No, women must be willing. That's what I've said. You are confoozed. It doesn't matter how many men or women there are. You're all twisted up. Your thoughts are all over the place. You can't seem to grasp the hypothesis.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

StillSearching said:


> Yes, it matters not her enthusiasm, just her consent.
> Yes, women are the gatekeepers, thus the selectors.
> Yes, a man can cheat without a woman's consent and it not be rape.
> There's all kinds of cheating.
> ...


I don't buy that quote at all, because nature is pretty damn rapey.

How does a man have sex with a women without her consent and it not be rape? We aren't talking about emotional infidelity here.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> No, women must be willing. That's what I've said. You are confoozed. It doesn't matter how many men or women there are. You're all twisted up. Your thoughts are all over the place. You can't seem to grasp the hypothesis.


EVERYONE HAS TO BE WILLING.

If I am confused, it is only because your hypothesis makes no rational sense, or you haven't supported it.

A woman doesn't get to point her finger and compel men to have sex. This is some red pill BS going on here.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Maybe you need to re-word it? I'm also confused about what you are saying. It seems like a tautology - in order for people to have consensual sex, both must consent. I'm sure there is more you are saying, but I don't follow.




2ntnuf said:


> No, women must be willing. That's what I've said. You are confoozed. It doesn't matter how many men or women there are. You're all twisted up. Your thoughts are all over the place. You can't seem to grasp the hypothesis.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

What’s the point of this. Your right and everyone is wrong.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

StillSearching said:


> Yes, it matters not her enthusiasm, just her consent.
> Yes, women are the gatekeepers, thus the selectors.
> Yes, a man can cheat without a woman's consent and it not be rape.
> There's all kinds of cheating.
> ...


Yep.

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming up with a man cheating without a woman's consent, unless you mean he is meeting with a same sex partner. If so, I understand.

Consider this. Is he cheating or did his partner allow it? Whose responsibility is it, if it is a man's responsibility to have consent? He can't have sex without consent. 

Is he cheating? No, I say. Cheating isn't a legal offense in most states. You don't take vows unless you are religious and then those are promises to God or your gods, not to your spouse. The contract you signed, which one is that, the marriage license, is the legal contract between you and the state. 

You are making promises to the state. Your spouse has expectations. When those are not met, the government steps in and awards someone something. 

Is the husband cheating in a heterosexual marriage? I don't think it is possible. 

He is an adulterer, if he is Christian. I'm not talking about that, though. He would have sinned against God.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> True. but she would also get his stuff by civil suit. No need for infidelity as a crime that awards the innocent. Was she totally innocent? Who knows. It's unlikely.


A prenup can have different terms than a civil suit. A normal divorce will be 50/50. But a prenup can say that she gets 90% in case of cheating. She wouldn't get that in a civil suit. 



2ntnuf said:


> A guy murders 65 women over a period of 15 years. He's only caught after he makes a mistake and the last one doesn't die. Is he a murderer or a serial killer?


This is also not an either-or situation. Not all murderers are serial killers, but all serial killers are murders.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> What’s the point of this. Your right and everyone is wrong.


There are a few of us here who are catching on. It has nothing to do with I am right. It's a hypothesis.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

The red pillers get it, so just keep moving. There was never a real question or desire to understand anything, just an opportunity to point out that women are to blame.


----------



## Satisfied Mind (Jan 29, 2019)

2ntnuf said:


> This is all over the place. You say your vows to your wife don't transfer any vague social, golden rule. Okay, then they are not vows. They are promises to yourself. You don't believe in societal pressures or golden rules from some abstract being. That's fine, but then you are promising yourself, not your wife.
> 
> She would be a part of those societal pressures.
> 
> ...


No, it's not complex. You're simply making your hypothesis as convoluted as possible in an attempt to give it legs.

I agree that a man cannot physically cheat unless another woman allows it. I don't agree with your next jump in logic that the other woman therefore bears more (or any) responsibility for the husband cheating. The other woman doesn't owe anything to the wife. My point earlier, which I guess I didn't convey clearly enough, was that my vows are promises to my wife. Another woman has no obligations, express or implied, to my wife based on my marriage vows. She cannot be "responsible" for the breaking of a promise she never made.

And setting all of that aside, none of this changes the fact that the man still has responsibility for breaking *his* marriage vows even if the other women could have said no and prevented it. There is no rational explanation for shifting responsibility for men cheating onto the entire female gender.

Somehow your hypothesis manages to be both misogynistic and emasculating at the same time. Congrats!


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> Okay @2ntnuf, I think you are seeking validation for your argument but I will let it ride.
> 
> I am going to move this thread to the infidelity sub forum.


And you think validating a hypothesis is bad. Okay. Do you see now why I created it in off topic? Because it is not necessarily a valid theory. I've said that all along. I don't remember how many times I've posted the word, hypothesis. It doesn't belong in CWI. Hey, you're the boss. Whatever...

validate verb 
val·​i·​date | \ ˈva-lə-ˌdāt 


\ 
validated; validating 
Definition of validate
transitive verb
1
a
: to make legally valid : ratify 
b
: to grant official sanction to by marking 
validated her passport
c
: to confirm the validity of (an election) 
also : to declare (a person) elected 
2
a
: to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis 
experiments designed to validate the hypothesis
b
: to recognize, establish, or illustrate the worthiness or legitimacy of 
validate his concerns

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/validate


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Is there another place on the interwebs I can have a hypothesis and get some relevant thoughts on it? 2/3 of this thread is bickering with folks who should not have posted. They had nothing to say except to claim I wasn't thinking the way they were. No ****ing kidding?!

It was a hypothesis. Geniuses.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Your hypothesis is flawed.

If women are gate keepers (they aren't) then can a man cheat (yes, and even if women were gate keepers men can still cheat).

Additionally, it would help to define your terms. What is a 'gate keeper'? What does it mean to 'cheat'?


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Yep.
> 
> *I'm not sure I understand where you are coming up with a man cheating without a woman's consent*, unless you mean he is meeting with a same sex partner. If so, I understand.
> 
> ...


It's called a Emotional Affair.
It's called online chat rooms.
It's called sending d*** pics.
I could go on.....
All of which do not need the consent of the other party.
All without breach of the gate.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Okay @2ntnuf, I think you are seeking validation for your argument but I will let it ride.
> ...


Part of testing a theory is to open it up for debate and to allow disagreement. You do not want anyone to disagree with you. That's not testing a hypothesis. That's an echo chamber.

I can close your thread if you want me to.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

Tasorundo said:


> Your hypothesis is flawed.
> 
> *If women are gate keepers (they aren't)* then can a man cheat (yes, and even if women were gate keepers men can still cheat).
> 
> Additionally, it would help to define your terms. What is a 'gate keeper'? What does it mean to 'cheat'?


You're wrong. They are very much the gatekeepers.
Gatekeeper = a person or thing that controls access to something. Reproduction. Proliferation of the human race. Even access to terminate on command without consent.

"even if women were gate keepers men can still cheat" yes....agreed.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> Yes, and even if she doesn't refuse him that often(everyone needs to refuse when ill or something), isn't the woman the one who allows sex to happen? He can talk a good line, impress her with his money or stature, but in the end, she has to allow it enthusiastically.
> 
> Edit: In essence, he can't have sex without an enthusiastically willing partner. She has a choice. He does not.


He has a choice whether to be faithful or not.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

@EleGirl won't let us abbreviate any nasty words.

Your premise is aimed directly at women, saying that infidelity is mostly, or all the women's fault.

That is called **** shaming.

Last time I looked, a lady cannot **** herself, she cannot commit adultery on her own.

Sure, she is the gatekeeper, but it takes another human to enter her gate.
If the lady had no takers, no men or women willing to enter, to pass through her gate, she would not be an adulteress.

It takes two to tango, two people to get themselves tangled in another's short hairs.

Both are equally guilty, one for opening the gate, and another for wiggling in.

Lilith-


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I'm confused who the "partner" is.

The partner in the extramarital affair consented. (unless it was rape). That isn't gender specific - both must have consented and both men and women cheat with vaguely similar frequency.

The marriage partner presumably didn't consent, otherwise it would be called an "open marriage". 

Sometimes people cheat because their partners turn them down for sex, other times people cheat even though they are getting all the sex they want at home. There is nothing the marriage partner can to to prevent the other person from cheating. 

Cheating and adultery are not crimes, but many people consider them to be very "bad" actions .


I'm in a heterosexual marriage. If I decide to have sex with a coworker on a business trip, how is that not cheating? It seems possible and probably not uncommon for married men. 




2ntnuf said:


> Yep.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand where you are coming up with a man cheating without a woman's consent, unless you mean he is meeting with a same sex partner. If so, I understand.
> 
> ...


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> So, he can't be a cheater unless some woman opens the gate? Because that's what I've been trying to say.


*I didn't say that! Through his guile, persuasion, and charm, he can certainly coax her to open up the floodgates for him, provided that she's weak enough!*


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

*Moderator note:

I deleted the thread jack to this thread. Please stick to the OP.*

ETA: Red Pillers, please start your own thread if you want to discuss SCIENCE.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> He has a choice whether to be faithful or not.


This is what needs to be said.
This has been ignored in this thread.
His virtue is his on him. 
The cheating starts before the gate is open. 
Yes, she opens the gate.
but her cheating starts before she does so, as well.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> If women are the gatekeepers, how can a man be a cheater?
> 
> I have my own opinions. I wanted to read yours... if you dare.


I have not seen women as the gatekeepers of sex for mankind.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I appreciate your ironic query however.:smile2:


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Satisfied Mind said:


> Your question is flawed because women aren't the gatekeepers. Last time I checked, at least two people must decide they want some loving to engage in consensual sex. Let's say my wife doesn't want to have sex with me and another woman does. Me cheating still requires a decision on my part (I'm not a slave to my ****), my vows to my wife don't transfer any moral imperative to the other woman other than in some vague social, golden rule sense, and me breaking those vows don't shift any blame for my actions onto the other woman. The fact that I and others have been in this situation and not cheated pretty much kills your hypothesis.
> 
> *As an aside, anyone who views women as the sole gatekeeper for sex is doomed to live that out as a self-fulfilling prophecy.*


I offer; any H (let's call him HD, or even medium HD) who desires sex regularly, frequently, but has a W who only has sex with him once every couple months and rejects all the in between good natured, quality, caring, etc initiations by H, *H knows for sure his W is the gatekeeper. *

If all of the other components, physical circumstances, love, caring, etc M parts are good, good ltr history, other reasons not to just ditch the W are there, she is his gatekeeper to sex with her.

If she doesn't want to have sex, almost never if you will, yet she doesn't want to blow up the M, neither does he, and he doesn't want to abandon the W to diminish her life, if H visits another open gate time to time discreetly to keep his sanity, keep him from outright abandoning W, is H staying sane so he can continue with his W, or is it better for him to leave her?

There are times when W wants cake and eat it too, without having to cook. She almost, and may almost openly wink wink, want H to "eat out" so she's not bothered, and she gets to keep her life.

I'm not justifying or saying one way or the other. Is such a H trying to keep his M? (hey, or reverse the gender, too).


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> Proof that infidelty cannot occur unless a woman allows enthusiastic sex. I've got it. Anyone can disagree as much as they like. It doesn't change the truth. No, I'm not going through some situation as an AP. I'm not dating anyone.


You can’t have proof because it’s not real. 

1. Not all infidelity involves women at all. Bust number one. 

2. Even if infidelity involves another woman, she might be unaware that he’s married. Bust number two. 

3. Even if it does involve a woman and she’s aware, women are not always the gatekeepers for sex. Bust number three. 

There are others, but on the face of it, your assertion does not work.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> And you think validating a hypothesis is bad. Okay. Do you see now why I created it in off topic? Because it is not necessarily a valid theory. I've said that all along. I don't remember how many times I've posted the word, hypothesis. It doesn't belong in CWI. Hey, you're the boss. Whatever...
> 
> validate verb
> val·​i·​date | \ ˈva-lə-ˌdāt
> ...


You have done none of those. 

You’ve made a hypothesis with the assertion of its truthfulness as part of it, then used that assertion to try to ‘prove’ it. 

Circular reasoning. 

You’re better than this. So why are you doing it?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I think that the OP is saying that the women, not men, are the cause of cheating. Men are simply victims of women. After all he says, women are the gate keepers, if it were not for women being willing to cheat, men would not cheat. However, the reverse is just as true. If the men were not willing to have affairs, women would not cheat.

There are some things that he does not acknowledge. 

One is that a every person, yes to include men, is responsible for their choice to cheat.

Another is that men are also gate keepers of sex. Studies have shown, for example, that men are as likely to refuse to have sex with their wife as the other way around. It's as likely that a man choses to make their marriage sexless. 

Men also are gate keepers when it comes to infidelity, they also decide whether or not they will have an affair. 

To look at the mirror image argument, men are gate keepers because women would not have affair if men were not willing to also engage in the affair.


----------



## Satisfied Mind (Jan 29, 2019)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I offer; any H (let's call him HD, or even medium HD) who desires sex regularly, frequently, but has a W who only has sex with him once every couple months and rejects all the in between good natured, quality, caring, etc initiations by H, *H knows for sure his W is the gatekeeper. *
> 
> If all of the other components, physical circumstances, love, caring, etc M parts are good, good ltr history, other reasons not to just ditch the W are there, she is his gatekeeper to sex with her.


Your point is very interesting that sex is not the only variable in evaluating a marriage and if the HD spouse prioritizes other factors over sex, that may make the wife the de facto gatekeeper of sex. I think that argument has a lot of validity. That said, and the reason for my comment above, I think there are a lot of men who passively resign themselves to that situation rather than forcing the issue. There are a handful of guys in the Sex in Marriage forum who have LD wives that I legitimately feel sorry for, but the weak ways in which most of the others are approaching their situations makes me cringe.



Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> If she doesn't want to have sex, almost never if you will, yet she doesn't want to blow up the M, neither does he, and he doesn't want to abandon the W to diminish her life, if H visits another open gate time to time discreetly to keep his sanity, keep him from outright abandoning W, is H staying sane so he can continue with his W, or is it better for him to leave her?
> 
> There are times when W wants cake and eat it too, without having to cook. She almost, and may almost openly wink wink, want H to "eat out" so she's not bothered, and she gets to keep her life.
> 
> I'm not justifying or saying one way or the other. Is such a H trying to keep his M? (hey, or reverse the gender, too).


If the husband is getting his elsewhere without his wife's informed approval, he's cheating. Whether that's a good thing for the marriage (I would argue not) is off-topic.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> Part of testing a theory is to open it up for debate and to allow disagreement. You do not want anyone to disagree with you. That's not testing a hypothesis. That's an echo chamber.
> 
> I can close your thread if you want me to.


What do you mean I haven't allowed anyone to disagree with me? I can't do anything about what they post.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

He might be asking the question to those that believe women are the gatekeepers and that is an interesting concept.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I think that the OP is saying that the women, not men, are the cause of cheating. Men are simply victims of women. After all he says, women are the gate keepers, if it were not for women being willing to cheat, men would not cheat. However, the reverse is just as true. If the men were not willing to have affairs, women would not cheat.
> 
> There are some things that he does not acknowledge.
> 
> ...


Yes and no. What you are, and maybe many others are missing is the law that says women must enthusiastically consent. When you add that to the government does not recognize cheating as such, since there are no legal consequences in most states, it seems to me that the state has chosen to blame women for all infidelity. 

Men are something else. The problem is, you and others are trying to look through the filter of feminism. I wasn't even thinking of equality. That's why I have said a few times, you guys and gals are assuming too much. It's coloring your replies and thinking. 

This thread isn't about feminism and that's off topic. 

It's not about me being unfaithful as some assume. That's off topic.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Part of testing a theory is to open it up for debate and to allow disagreement. You do not want anyone to disagree with you. That's not testing a hypothesis. That's an echo chamber.
> ...


I didn't say you haven't allowed anyone to disagree with you. What I said was you do not want anyone to disagree with you based on your post



> Is there another place on the interwebs I can have a hypothesis and get some relevant thoughts on it?* 2/3 of this thread is bickering with folks who should not have posted. They had nothing to say except to claim I wasn't thinking the way they were*. No ****ing kidding?!.


I have tried to remove the posts that were off topic. The remaining opinions may not be to your liking but they are in response to your OP and have been respectful.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Satisfied Mind said:


> Your point is very interesting that sex is not the only variable in evaluating a marriage and if the HD spouse prioritizes other factors over sex, that may make the wife the de facto gatekeeper of sex. I think that argument has a lot of validity. That said, and the reason for my comment above, I think there are a lot of men who passively resign themselves to that situation rather than forcing the issue. There are a handful of guys in the Sex in Marriage forum who have LD wives that I legitimately feel sorry for, but the weak ways in which most of the others are approaching their situations makes me cringe.
> 
> 
> 
> If the husband is getting his elsewhere without his wife's informed approval, he's cheating. Whether that's a good thing for the marriage (I would argue not) is off-topic.


Yes, but according to the state, which issues your marriage license, you aren't cheating. Go and try to sue for divorce due to infidelity. Most states don't recognize it. 

However, they have made women the gatekeepers. Okay, not a bad thing. Women have always been the gatekeepers. You don't just grab a woman and ****. She has to consent. You have to be attractive to her and as some said, she must be attractive to you. You aren't going to go after a woman who is not attractive, so that's a moot point. Women are starting to go after men, but that's not as common as men needing to make the first move. 

So, women are the gatekeepers and always have been. Nothing has changed, except for with some women. Read the links to understand. Read the threads here on attraction. I'm not posting links to those. You guys have read at least one. I've read several and participated in some.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> I didn't say you haven't allowed anyone to disagree with you. What I said was you do not want anyone to disagree with you based on your post
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried to remove the posts that were off topic. The remaining opinions may not be to your liking but they are in response to your OP and have been respectful.


Okay, thank you. We'll all get on the same page here, eventually. It's screwy, my hypothesis, but it's bugging me and I want to talk about it. However, I'm not having and easy time explaining. I get that.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

2ntnuf said:


> Yes and no. What you are, and maybe many others are missing is the law that says women must enthusiastically consent. When you add that to the government does not recognize cheating as such, since there are no legal consequences in most states, it seems to me that the state has chosen to blame women for all infidelity.
> 
> Men are something else. The problem is, you and others are trying to look through the filter of feminism. I wasn't even thinking of equality. That's why I have said a few times, you guys and gals are assuming too much. It's coloring your replies and thinking.
> 
> ...


The law does not say that only women have to enthusiastically agree (or whatever the legal language actually is). It says that any person engaging in sex has to.

There have been cases of men being raped as well.

You are using the argument that is used in certainly religions and backward countries that only punish women for infidelity and sex outside marriage, that it's always the woman's fault.

If a man cheat's it's his choice to do so. It's not the fault of the woman he cheats with. And if a woman cheats, it's her fault and not the fault of the man she cheats with.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> I didn't say you haven't allowed anyone to disagree with you. What I said was you do not want anyone to disagree with you based on your post
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried to remove the posts that were off topic. The remaining opinions may not be to your liking but they are in response to your OP and have been respectful.


Not exactly what I meant. They had no clue where I was headed. Assumed what I meant. Then, came to some conclusions. 

I had to consistently try to help them see they weren't following and their conclusions were then way off. Did I not allow @faithfulwife to tell me I needed to learn some things? No, I explained that's what I wanted to know and would ask my counselor, as well.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> The law does not say that only women have to enthusiastically agree (or whatever the legal language actually is). It says that any person engaging in sex has to.
> 
> There have been cases of men being raped as well.
> 
> ...


Well, I guess I sort of am using a similar logic to those countries. I hadn't thought about that. I only considered that the laws are what makes something real. Our laws have come to this. Not so much me. 

I actually believe that men have a choice. I actually believe that they can be unfaithful. However, I suspended my beliefs to address this issue I was thinking about. 

There have been cases of men being raped. I agree. No big deal to the state or most folks. 

I disagree that it's not the fault of the woman when you consider the laws today. A man can't be responsible for the decision of a woman. Since the law does not address infidelity, there is no such thing. Neither a man, nor a woman can commit adultery or be unfaithful. Besides, they make vows to the state, not each other. They only have an expectation with each other.

Why didn't I address that neither men nor women can commit adultery according to the state? Didn't really think it was necessary, nor did I think my beliefs were unknown.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think the law is (in general) symmetric, everyone has to consent. Its quite possible that the law isn't enforced equally because there is some biased belief out there that women can't rape men, but as far as I know, sex with a non-consenting person of either gender is rape.

I think in the great majority of cases cheating involves consent by both. If not, then its rape, and that is so much more serious that people tend to not worry about the cheating). So I'm a bit confused - if we are not talking about rape, then the law has very little to say about cheating either way.

So if both consent, who is the gate keeper? As far as I know, women and men cheat at roughly equal rates, and in general are both consenting to the affair. There may be some variation in the reasons given for cheating, but I think that there is a lot of overlap even there. 

It seems completely symmetric to me. My wife and I have roughly equal opportunity to cheat, and would be equally responsible if either of us did so. 






2ntnuf said:


> Yes and no. What you are, and maybe many others are missing is the law that says women must enthusiastically consent. When you add that to the government does not recognize cheating as such, since there are no legal consequences in most states, it seems to me that the state has chosen to blame women for all infidelity.
> 
> Men are something else. The problem is, you and others are trying to look through the filter of feminism. I wasn't even thinking of equality. That's why I have said a few times, you guys and gals are assuming too much. It's coloring your replies and thinking.
> 
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

As far as I know in most western countries the law is symmetric between men and women an in most countries (I think) it is not a crime for either to cheat.

There are countries that do have a very biased legal system where the legal blame is put on the women. Is that what you are talking about? 




2ntnuf said:


> Well, I guess I sort of am using a similar logic to those countries. I hadn't thought about that. I only considered that the laws are what makes something real. Our laws have come to this. Not so much me.
> 
> I actually believe that men have a choice. I actually believe that they can be unfaithful. However, I suspended my beliefs to address this issue I was thinking about.
> 
> ...


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

How about this: It's the dude who is the actual gatekeeper and perpetrator in the cheating act, *as being discussed in this thread*, because HE is the one who has to get...erect in order for the act to be performed. He is the gatekeeper. If he isn't aroused, it's not gonna happen.


----------



## Spoons027 (Jun 19, 2017)

Don’t know. Would it be considered a marriage/committed relationship anymore if there is gatekeeping in the first place?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Yes, and even if she doesn't refuse him that often(everyone needs to refuse when ill or something), isn't the woman the one who allows sex to happen?


It takes all parties.

For a variety of reasons I have turned down plenty of women who wanted to have sex with me, by not affording them any sexual consent.

I have had different women plead with me, beg, offer various inducements and make other appeals for me to have sex with them to no avail, when I have not wanted to have sex with them.

Plus on rare occasion following changing my mind, I have also withdrawn sexual consent with women while having sex. Which has seen me stop having sex, where in one instance I remained while talking about the situation. While in another it has seen me grab my things and leave.

Likewise there have also been very limited occasions, when men have wanted to have sex with me and I have turned them down in all instances.

Absent being forced to have sex against ones will, which negates consent. All genders are responsible for consent and are gatekeepers of themselves.

It is a misnomer to believe that women are the only group that control consensual access to sexual activities.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 23, 2017)

In law intent is critical. And I suspect it is here too.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I don't think it is relevant that cheating isn't unlawful. 

For most people, a relationship is about trust. When you enter into a relationship, you are trusting the other person with your future. When they break your trust, they harm the relationship.

For many, the greatest breach of trust is being intimate with someone else. Wouldn't matter what the punishment for cheating is. It is still the greatest betrayal.


----------



## Satisfied Mind (Jan 29, 2019)

2ntnuf said:


> Yes, but according to the state, which issues your marriage license, you aren't cheating. Go and try to sue for divorce due to infidelity. Most states don't recognize it.


First, that statement is incorrect. The majority of states in the U.S. still allow a spouse to file for divorce on grounds of adultery. Less than 20 states have strictly no-fault laws.

Second, you're moving the goal posts here on the definition of cheating. This is the first reference that I've seen in this thread to a legal, as opposed to a moral, definition of cheating.

And while we're on the subject of the law and cheating, most state laws agree with my point that a third party has no responsibility for spouses maintaining their marriage vows (or not). Only a handful of states have alienation of affection or tortious interference with marriage laws on the books.



2ntnuf said:


> However, *they* have made women the gatekeepers. Okay, not a bad thing. Women have always been the gatekeepers. You don't just grab a woman and ****. She has to consent. You have to be attractive to her and as some said, she must be attractive to you. You aren't going to go after a woman who is not attractive, so that's a moot point. Women are starting to go after men, but that's not as common as men needing to make the first move.
> 
> So, women are the gatekeepers and always have been. Nothing has changed, except for with some women. Read the links to understand. Read the threads here on attraction. I'm not posting links to those. You guys have read at least one. I've read several and participated in some.


Who is "they" who have made women gatekeepers? 

Part of me simply disagrees with the logic being used to promote your hypothesis because I haven't viewed women as the gatekeepers since high school. I view sex as the outcome of a social dance between two individuals based on mutual attraction. Either person can choose whether or not to engage in the dance. Either person can make a misstep that kills the other's attraction. I understand that men are more frequently the pursuers and are probably more frequently rejected by women than women are rejected by men, but that still doesn't change the mutual agency involved or absolve a man of responsibility for making the decision to have sex.

And in the context of marriage specifically, any suggestion that the woman (or LD spouse) is a "gatekeeper" just seems like a really unhealthy way of looking at it, even if there is a basis for making that argument, because that's a very transactional view of marriage. What I mean is this. I generally want sex more than my wife does, so on one hand you could argue that she's the gatekeeper of sex because I'm more often the one initiating/pursuing. On the other hand, I know that she won't refuse sex (without good reason) if I pursue it, so it's not like she's withholding or limiting the amount of sex I have. I don't view her as the gatekeeper of sex any more than she views me as the gatekeeper of sex (even when I turn her down), compliments or any other way I show her love. 

That may seem like semantics, but I strongly believe that how we view the marriage shapes our reality. Whether it's sex or anything else, viewing it from a positive and unselfish perspective rather than a controlling or quid pro quo viewpoint is critical to marital satisfaction.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> If women are the gatekeepers, how can a man be a cheater?
> 
> I have my own opinions. I wanted to read yours... if you dare.


This ignores cheating in same sex relationships, so who would be the gatekeeper in that scenario?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Satisfied Mind said:


> First, that statement is incorrect. The majority of states in the U.S. still allow a spouse to file for divorce on grounds of adultery. Less than 20 states have strictly no-fault laws.
> 
> Second, you're moving the goal posts here on the definition of cheating. This is the first reference that I've seen in this thread to a legal, as opposed to a moral, definition of cheating.
> 
> ...


The only thing wrong with it was the word, majority. 

This thread wasn't about APs, LD spouses, or any personal views.

"They" are the laws.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MattMatt said:


> This ignores cheating in same sex relationships, so who would be the gatekeeper in that scenario?


The vast majority of marriages are between hetero couples. I am not gay. I have not read about their lifestyle. I do not know.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't think it is relevant that cheating isn't unlawful.
> 
> For most people, a relationship is about trust. When you enter into a relationship, you are trusting the other person with your future. When they break your trust, they harm the relationship.
> 
> For many, the greatest breach of trust is being intimate with someone else. Wouldn't matter what the punishment for cheating is. It is still the greatest betrayal.


The state tells a couple if they are eligible to get married. The state requires you to get a marriage license or contract with the state. The state requires you to get a divorce contract. 

Yeah, it's not relevant, it's the only way to look at this from my perspective. Of course, none of you have to do that. You can make up your own thread.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Personal said:


> It takes all parties.
> 
> For a variety of reasons I have turned down plenty of women who wanted to have sex with me, by not affording them any sexual consent.
> 
> ...


Congratulations on your ability to attract women. 

Is there a law that says women must be enthusiastically consenting for sex to happen?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

As far as I know, laws in the US require "consent" but not "enthusiasm". The second would be a very fuzzy concept to define. I believe the definition of "consent" requires some sort of action, eg, an unconscious person is not consenting. (consent != lack of resistance) 

There have been suggestions of requiring consent to be "enthusiastic" but as far as I know, those are not part of the law. 




2ntnuf said:


> Congratulations on your ability to attract women.
> 
> Is there a law that says women must be enthusiastically consenting for sex to happen?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> The state tells a couple if they are eligible to get married. The state requires you to get a marriage license or contract with the state. The state requires you to get a divorce contract.
> 
> Yeah, it's not relevant, it's the only way to look at this from my perspective. Of course, none of you have to do that. You can make up your own thread.


There is no divorce contract. Marriage is pretty simple two party contract law. The contract exists exclusively between the two parties who enter into it. Divorce is just formal dissolution of the contract. Cheating is one of the generally accepted breaches of the contract. There is no action a third party can take that will breach the marital contract because they are not a party to the contract. There is no culpability for any third party for any action with regards to the contract because they are not party to the contract.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

This consent thing is triggering some bad stuff for me, because the idea of "consent" has changed so much over the years. My wife had a traumatic experience at a time when "consent" basically meant at the git-go and you really didn't have support for the idea of putting a stop to things once they'd started. If, for example, you let the guy put on a condom and didn't put a stop to things, you were pretty much giving consent and it would possibly (possibly? Hell no, likely) be seen as unfair or being a tease if you later said no, this isn't what I want to do.

Or let's put it another way. You get initial consent back then, and then she decides shortly thereafter no. But you keep at it, trying to convince her, and maybe you get 20 times no but you're looking for that one time ok. Almost wearing her down. Trying different angles. And 40 years ago, that would have been seen as the woman's fault, by many, not the guys. There was certainly nothing publicly done to convince a young woman she could say no at any time and that's it, everything stops.

I was never that guy. But I knew many who were. And I married a woman who pretty clearly got into that situation with a prior guy, and it really screwed her up.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> There is no divorce contract. Marriage is pretty simple two party contract law. The contract exists exclusively between the two parties who enter into it. Divorce is just formal dissolution of the contract. Cheating is one of the generally accepted breaches of the contract. There is no action a third party can take that will breach the marital contract because they are not a party to the contract. There is no culpability for any third party for any action with regards to the contract because they are not party to the contract.


I don't remember signing anything between my ex and I. I do remember signing a marriage license. Then, I remember signing a divorce contract. All of this has to be approved by the state, not my ex or myself. 

I don't know what the AP stuff is about. I don't care about that. 

I'm simply talking about how the laws seem to make the woman the gatekeeper and that's not bad, but it comes with ramifications like those I've previously mentioned. If we want to go even further, we can talk about how the laws make women have the power in a marriage and over children. The man's only responsibility, which is outdated, is to the financial welfare of his ex and any children whose birth certificate he has signed.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Casual Observer said:


> This consent thing is triggering some bad stuff for me, because the idea of "consent" has changed so much over the years. My wife had a traumatic experience at a time when "consent" basically meant at the git-go and you really didn't have support for the idea of putting a stop to things once they'd started. If, for example, you let the guy put on a condom and didn't put a stop to things, you were pretty much giving consent and it would possibly (possibly? Hell no, likely) be seen as unfair or being a tease if you later said no, this isn't what I want to do.
> 
> Or let's put it another way. You get initial consent back then, and then she decides shortly thereafter no. But you keep at it, trying to convince her, and maybe you get 20 times no but you're looking for that one time ok. Almost wearing her down. Trying different angles. And 40 years ago, that would have been seen as the woman's fault, by many, not the guys. There was certainly nothing publicly done to convince a young woman she could say no at any time and that's it, everything stops.
> 
> I was never that guy. But I knew many who were. And I married a woman who pretty clearly got into that situation with a prior guy, and it really screwed her up.


I"m sorry it's triggering you. I was afraid it might trigger some. It really isn't about consent, but the laws that make the woman the gatekeeper and it's ramifications. 

I met my first wife when I was 15. There was consent throughout. I didn't date anyone else until I was in my thirties. Then, there was definitely consent as the women pursued me. And, there were only two. Then, I met my second wife and there was consent there, as she moved in with me after two weeks of dating. Holy crap, I should have realized the red flag.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

any sensible consent law would make sex while too intoxicated to drive illegal
Good luck finding a politician willing to vote for that


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Closed at OP''s request


----------

