# Five Percent Agreement



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

Please delete thread. Thanks.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

Ya, no.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

I can do whatever I want anyway, assuming I haven't already committed to doing something else, so I'm not sure why this is necessary. But if someone wants to do it, more power to them.


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> I can do whatever I want anyway, assuming I haven't already committed to doing something else, so I'm not sure why this is necessary. But if someone wants to do it, more power to them.



^^This^^


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

I remember a wife bragging how this worked for her husband in her marriage. At first he liked to go out with his friends and she had no idea where he was, what he was doing, or when he would be home. This was a serious problem and she solved it in the following way for which her husband was very happy to agree to this. 

They built an addition onto their house just for him. It was designed to have leather couches, pool table, bar, big screen TV, and whatever else it was he needed to be happy. He can invite anyone at anytime but there are no women allowed in this area of their home, not even the wife! 

Now when her husband parties, and gets drunk with friends, she no longer has to worry, because he is right there at home in the house with her. All the other husband's wives like this too because they know she will not allow the men to party with any girls while they are over hanging out with her husband. 

Everybody is happy!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Why would I expect my partner to think that they could "not allow" me to do something? I am their partner, not their child.


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

This is obviously a bad idea unless there are some restrictions built into it. If it allows affairs you might as well have an open marriage and those usually fail.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I remember a wife bragging how this worked for her husband in her marriage. At first he liked to go out with his friends and she had no idea where he was, what he was doing, or when he would be home. This was a serious problem and she solved it in the following way for which her husband was very happy to agree to this.
> 
> They built an addition onto their house just for him. It was designed to have leather couches, pool table, bar, big screen TV, and whatever else it was he needed to be happy. He can invite anyone at anytime but there are no women allowed in this area of their home, not even the wife!
> 
> ...


She WANTS to babysit their sorry, drunken asses?


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

Not a chance. 40, married 16 years, happy and with kids. "Don't ask, don't tell"? No way. You, John, specifically listed potentially hooking up with someone out of town. And you really think this trend is a GOOD trend? All because you feel "asphyxiated"? Smh... takes all kinds.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> It is in fact a type of open marriage. One that limits how much people can play outside of the relationship. And one that keeps everything under wraps. In the monogamy-polyamory spectrum, it is a "monogamish" sort of deal with a secrecy clause. But one that goes well beyond sex. Sort of an acknowledgement that people want to do things their spouses will not want them to do, and that -up to a point- they should be entitled to pursue them. And yep.. that includes the occasional romp with someone other than their spouses. The idea is to help relieve the pressures of long term marriages... keep everyone happy and fulfilled, and keep families together.


Ahhh, now I get it. Just another push for open marriages. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Maricha75 said:


> Ahhh, now I get it. Just another push for open marriages.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


If it was really about skydiving it would have been in the general sub-forum.


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

[


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> *It really isn't.* Typical "open marriages" are scary and threatening to many. Seriously, why get married? But you are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> I see this as being more of a push by younger couples, from the very beginning of their relationships, to keep their spouses from controlling every single aspect of their lives, 100% of the time. People are increasingly protective of their own individualities and their personal pursuits of their happiness. The arrangement is an explicit recognition by partners that each person is entitled -within limits- to their own personal pursuits of happiness.



It really is. You stated it, yourself, in the post I had quoted. As you stated, I am entitled to my opinion. You asked for opinions on the trend. Were you expecting that more in long term relationships were into open marriages? If, as you say, this seems to be the trend of younger generations, I can only hope that my own children do not follow it. 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

[


----------



## 225985 (Dec 29, 2015)

Sounds good. Give it a try and report back in 6 months from the apartment you just moved into. 

Or you can do the 5% and not tell your wife. If she doesn't know it cannot hurt the family, right?


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

And you think your "clarification" makes it sound any better? Smh

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

50℅ is more like what I have in mind... 25℅ of that is "play Angry Birds", another 20℅ is "play with the cat", and 5℅ for guy nights out


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> It really isn't. Typical "open marriages" are scary and threatening to many. *Seriously, why get married?* But you are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> I see this as being more of a push by younger couples, from the very beginning of their relationships, to keep their spouses from controlling every single aspect of their lives, 100% of the time. People are increasingly protective of their own individualities and their personal pursuits of their happiness. The arrangement is an explicit recognition by partners that each person is entitled -within limits- to their own personal pursuits of happiness.


This is just white washed lying BS AFAIC. If you cannot be honest with your spouse why get married?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

IRresponsible non-monogamy, the new wave.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

I've never felt the need to control my partner's alone time activities. He's free to do pretty much anything he wants. I'm upfront about the things that I consider relationship deal-breakers. Even if my partner chose to do something that's a deal-breaker for me, he is entirely free to do that. But I'm also entirely free to select my own reaction to it, and end the relationship as a result. Otherwise, even things that might potentially be life-threatening get a conversation, rather than some sort of parent-like prohibition. However, as pretty much everything one partner does impacts the other in some way, I do expect that we would keep one another informed of our plans and activities. So, a "don't ask, don't tell" hall pass system just wouldn't work for me in a committed relationship. 

In the past, I've found that people who want to cheat will find a means and an opportunity to do so - even, perhaps particularly, with a partner who is not at all controlling. I see no upside to building those features into my relationships. Not into monogamy? No harm, no foul. Just be honest and we can both go find more compatible partners.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> Tech :
> 
> Many people in long term committed relationships cannot do "whatever" they want without some sort of consent from their spouses. While some couples can have arrangements where people can do "whatever" they want with few rules (including couples with open relationships), the 5 percent rules sets very specific boundaries for those "whatever" things.
> 
> Some people really might not need them (as spouses already have such freedoms) and some people just can't handle that lack of control over their spouses. Definitively not everyone's cup of tea... probably not even me


Everything I do in my relationship is completely of my own volition, and I would never use my alone time to pursue an activity that specifically harmed my relationship. I also don't need a quota for my alone time, nor does my partner - if she needs time to herself she can have at it because I know she needs time to take care of herself just like I do, but that does not mean toss out the boundaries of the relationship. I suppose if tossing the boundary away for 5% of the time is what you and your spouse truly want then have at it, but I don't think it's possible to compartmentalize and not cause damage to the trust if you are using your alone time for extra-marital activities.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would I expect my partner to think that they could "not allow" me to do something? I am their partner, not their child.


Maybe your partner can't actually stop you, but if it's that big a deal, they don't have to keep being your partner


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> Well, the issue with this arrangement is* the fact the wives are still supervising all the activities*... and putting limits on what happens in the man's cave. The guys know that and they can feel their wives' eyes looking over their shoulders.


So this 5% you are talking about is only for men? If you spend much time on TAM you will find that men are very reluctant for their wives to do whatever they want. This is not an issue about controlling wives. There are both men and women who try to control their spouse and their spouse's activities.



JohnDoeRobot said:


> FWIW, the probability of a bunch of drunk married men hooking up while playing pool at the local dive are probably close to zero. The one thing they have to worry about is a DWI... which could cost the family 20k... easy (or, worse, getting hurt in an accident).


I know of many men who have hooked up on these types of nights out and even carry on long-term affairs using the men's night out as a cover. And then there are the supposed all guy fishing trips.. where the guys bring their affair partners all the while telling their wives that it's just a bunch of guys.

Would you say the same about women? After all how likely is it that a much of drunk married women will hook up while playing pool, or just socializing at on a girl's night out at the local dive? There are very few guys who post on TAM who would be ok with their wives doing this.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Sawney Beane said:


> Maybe your partner can't actually stop you, but if it's that big a deal, they don't have to keep being your partner


He does not have to "stop me" or not "allow" me. He just has to talk to me.


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

[


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> Maybe your partner can't actually stop you, but if it's that big a deal, they don't have to keep being your partner


I could be wrong, but I think that's the point NS was making. Why would you be with someone when you obviously are not compatible? If your partner feels the need to "police" your every move, there's something wrong. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be accountable in any way, though. I think, whether in a monogamous or open relationship, you should still have some accountability... even during your "me time". I don't mean tell everyone single detail of what you are doing while you're out. I mean more like saying you plan to be out with someone but if things change, a quick text to let your spouse know. This just looks like an excuse to get some strange, nothing more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

This thread does not fit the rules of the SIM forum. I'm moving it to general.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Maricha75 said:


> It really is. You stated it, yourself, in the post I had quoted. As you stated, I am entitled to my opinion. You asked for opinions on the trend. Were you expecting that more in long term relationships were into open marriages? If, as you say, this seems to be the trend of younger generations, I can only hope that my own children do not follow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


It is such a wildly popular trend that when you google it this thread is the only result.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> It really isn't. Typical "open marriages" are scary and threatening to many. Seriously, why get married? But you are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> I see this as being more of a push by younger couples, from the very beginning of their relationships, to keep their spouses from controlling every single aspect of their lives, 100% of the time. People are increasingly protective of their own individualities and their personal pursuits of their happiness. The arrangement is an explicit recognition by partners that each person is entitled -within limits- to their own personal pursuits of happiness.



As a husband and a father, and owner of the dogs, and owner of the home, etc, I have certain responsibilities. Those include tasks, chores, and activities I might prefer not to do or to do at another time, but alas as a responsible adult I have to do them when they need to be done.

But then the rest of the time is all mine. I can choose to spend time with my wife (that should be both enjoyable and desired). I can choose to work out. I can choose to watch dumb tv.

And ditto for my wife.

5% is 8.3 hours per week. I find that one full day per month is usually not disruptive to the family, and I'll do an all day (8 hour) activity. Otherwise I have to find time in bits and pieces for my own activities, maybe an hour or two at a time.

Assuming my activities don't harm, threaten, impoverish, or otherwise create problems for my family, my spouse has no basis to oppose my choices.

And same when it comes to her activities. If she wants to knit, go out with friends, or whatever, it isn't my place to approve or not.

So really this 5% rule is all about doing things you know your spouse would have serious problems with. Unless, that is, your spouse is unreasonable and has fits if you want to watch a ball game, or unless you're a sloth who spends all your time doing nothing for or with the family.

Why would you want to do things like that?

I'm in agreement that this is really about a consensual open marriage with a certain set of limits.

If my wife approached me with this it would be game over.


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

I do what I want without recourse from my W. However, what I do is just simple stuff. Car shows. That is about it. No interest in the bars, clubs, flings and such. Call me ole'fashion I guess.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> After all how likely is it that a much of drunk married women will hook up while playing pool, or just socializing at on a girl's night out at the local dive?


Happens all the time, there's even movies about it.


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

[


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> I was recently reading about a new trend called the "5% Rule" among married couples. It is basically an agreement between partners that recognizes that each person needs a tiny slice of their time (5%) to be theirs and theirs only. It means that roughly one day every three weeks people get to do absolutely anything they want, without any sort of input or recrimination from their spouses.
> 
> There are two golden rules to the agreement: 1) it is a strictly enforced "don't ask, don't tell" private time, and 2) you must always protect the family and not do something stupid that might harm it.


Reminds me of that stupid movie "The Purge" where one day a year you can murder people with no repercussions. I mean what happens tomorrow, "Sorry Larry for trying to murder you no hard feelings okay?"

If you need a "break" from marriage then you shouldn't be married. Nor should you be any engaged in "don't ask, don't tell" activities. What you described is a free pass to call a hooker every 3 weeks.

Give me a break with these cake eating scenarios. Why don't you just try not taking your spouse for granted?!?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

jb02157 said:


> Happens all the time, there's even movies about it.


And we know that if it's in a movie, it has to be 100% true, 100% of the time. The same for the internet. If something is on the internet, you can rely on it being the absolute truth.

Yes, sometimes women who go out on girl's nights out end up in affairs. It's also true that sometimes when men go out on men's night outs, the men get into affair. 

Sometimes.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

If my husband, for some awful reason, decided to approach me with this, I would listen. No, seriously, I would listen. After he laid out his argument for this scenario, I would counter. I would absolutely tell him he has the freedom to do this, and he does. And, if he chooses to move forward with this "agreement", I would have the freedom to decide how to handle it. How would I handle it? Divorce. I will NOT be with someone who feels he *might* need to have sex with someone else, while staying in our marriage. If someone else wishes for this scenario, more power to them. But to sit there, and reprimand someone for standing firm on his or her standards is bullsh*t.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

jb02157 said:


> Happens all the time, there's even movies about it.





EleGirl said:


> And we know that if it's in a movie, it has to be 100% true, 100% of the time. The same for the internet. If something is on the internet, you can rely on it being the absolute truth.
> 
> Yes, sometimes women who go out on girl's nights out end up in affairs. It's also true that sometimes when men go out on men's night outs, the men get into affair.
> 
> Sometimes.


Besides that, I assumed Ele was simply responding to the assertion of the OP, regarding men and drunken BNO.

Yes, it happens. Yes, it happens often. It happens with both men and women... often.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## TRy (Sep 14, 2011)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> People use this agreement to do all kinds of things: from doing rock climbing, parachute jumping, taking a class in Buddhist philosophy, going hunting, getting that boob job they had always wanted, dressing in drag and going to a gay club, going to topless bars, the occasional fling at the far away convention, etc... Anything they want to do. Your spouse cannot ask about it, you can't tell your spouse. They just need to respect your time and privacy 5% of the time. The other 95% of the time you are accountable to your partner and your family.





JohnDoeRobot said:


> PDD. Posted in here because looks like no one really stops by the "Success in Long Term Marriage" forum.... and because it does open the door to non-monogamy.


 Your right "it does open the door to non-monogamy" and there is no other reason that you need 5% time where you are not "accountable to your partner and your family". Doing such things as "rock climbing, parachute jumping, taking a class in Buddhist philosophy, going hunting, getting that boob job they had always wanted" are things that you should share with your spouse. Doing things such as "dressing in drag and going to a gay club, going to topless bars" are things that should be talked about with your spouse. As far as the "the occasional fling at the far away convention", that would be called cheating to most couples, which you should not be allowed to do any percentage of the time. The fact is most cheaters are monogamous 95% of the time, and to most spouses that is not good enough.

Notice how often when you see the words "privacy" and "personal space" used in marriage, it is really about being allowed to cheat?


----------



## Abc123wife (Sep 18, 2013)

How would this 5% arrangement work? 5% is about 8 hours/week. So would 1 night a week say midnight to 8 am for a ONS be OK in this arrangement. Or how about a quick 1 hour stop every couple days at the massage parlor for a happy ending? Thoses would both be less than 5% of the time in a week. Does anyone really think the remaining 95% of the time would not be affected in either of these scenarios? The marriage and the relationship between the spouses would remain unchanged? 

I think most couples already have worked into their busy lives some time for their hobbies or alone time. Many guys and women have their golf league or craft night or whatever. No need to hide or lie about those activities. And usually it doesn't require permission (maybe just communication so the other spouse knows they are on their own or need to do the kid pickup, etc). The only purpose of a "don't ask, don't tell" free time for spouses would be for activities that don't support a loving relationship between the spouses.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> I am amazed how easily people talk about divorce in here. Sounds like ordering a pizza. Every time things do not go exactly the way people want or expect the solution is simple: ditch your spouse. Very easy to give that advice to someone else. It is not your family what is at stake. Would you seriously divorce your wife just for asking you something? just for her expressing something she wants to talk about?
> 
> I assume you have no children and have some Trump-esque type of prenup that would shield you from years of heartache. Families take a very long time to build and they can actually survive a lot of things.
> 
> The other issue with people constantly threatening with divorces is the fact their spouse will not tell you what they want for simple fear. Yep, a soup of bitterness ready to be served years from now. Or they might call your bluff... at which point you either have to cave in or go through a divorce you really do not want.


It's nothing to do with pulling the divorce card when your partner does something you don't like, and everything to do with having established boundaries in place. Having and upholding your boundaries is healthy.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> Tech :
> 
> Many people in long term committed relationships cannot do "whatever" they want without some sort of consent from their spouses.



If I wanted to do "whatever" without having to take a spouse into consideration, I'd have simply not gotten married.

I'm an all or nothing person. Either my husband wants to be my husband, with all duties and obligations, 100% of the time or 0% of the time. No in between. All in or get out.
@JohnDoeRobot

A lot of us here have been divorced. We know what divorce, with and without kids and assets, is like from personal experience. We also know what it's like to have been in unhappy marriages. If something like a 5% rule would make for an unhappy marriage for one or both spouses it's not at all unreasonable to think about divorce as an option.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

I agree with whoever said this is young people trying to keep control of their lives. I really think society has failed in large part to transmit fundamental values, morals and mores to a lot of the 'millennials'. Monogamy is optional and if you don't like it you're accused of not being 'with it' or whatever the equivalent is today.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Hope1964 said:


> Monogamy is optional and if you don't like it you're accused of not being 'with it' or whatever the equivalent is today.


I believe the term is 'judging'... anything goes except you can't make them feel bad about it!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

TRy said:


> Your right "it does open the door to non-monogamy" and there is no other reason that you need 5% time where you are not "accountable to your partner and your family". Doing such things as "rock climbing, parachute jumping, taking a class in Buddhist philosophy, going hunting, getting that boob job they had always wanted" are things that you should share with your spouse. Doing things such as "dressing in drag and going to a gay club, going to topless bars" are things that should be talked about with your spouse. As far as the "the occasional fling at the far away convention", that would be called cheating to most couples, which you should not be allowed to do any percentage of the time.


Or... for some of us that would be something you actually talk to your spouse about... not that convention flings appeal.


> The fact is most cheaters are monogamous 95% of the time, and to most spouses that is not good enough.
> 
> Notice how often when you see the words "privacy" and "personal space" used in marriage, it is really about being allowed to cheat?


For me, as a mother and wife, privacy means being able to pee in the bathroom by myself.


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

[


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Maricha75 said:


> If my husband, for some awful reason, decided to approach me with this, I would listen. No, seriously, I would listen. After he laid out his argument for this scenario, I would counter. I would absolutely tell him he has the freedom to do this, and he does. And, if he chooses to move forward with this "agreement", I would have the freedom to decide how to handle it.


It is not much of an agreement if you don't agree.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

No.

If my husband wanted to do something I object to, I would wonder why he hadn't been honest with me while we were dating, or if he was changing into someone I don't even know anymore.

He did downplay his interest in sports while we were dating, maybe out of shame or to win me over. I had made it clear that I was not interested in being married to a man who was glued to the television every week watching some sport. He is not like that, but he likes more than he initially admitted to. I don't find a real problem with him enjoying them some, I just don't want sports taking over our lives, or to have to watch with him.

Is what you suggested to give some freedom in a very controlling marriage, or is it an excuse for a person to act out and do something naughty or harmful to the marriage?


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> It is not much of an agreement if you don't agree.


Lol duh? My point is that if he were to press the issue, wanting to do it, I would tell him that's fine... he can do it while not being married because I won't be married to someone like that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> For me, as a mother and wife, privacy means being able to pee in the bathroom by myself.


*sigh* Once the kids got old enough to stop following me into the bathroom, the dogs started.

I don't even understand the concept of privacy in a marriage. Two become one and all that. One of the things that we've always prized about our relationship is our level of openness, honesty, and that we can and do say anything to each other. If either I or DH thought we needed privacy from one another, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have gotten married. 



JohnDoeRobot said:


> And that is just but one of the many apps allowing people to hookup on demand. Very difficult to see how marriage can totally wean them off that habit.


I used to enjoy hooking up very much. How did I wean off that habit? Growth and maturity. I started wanting something more, began to lose my taste for hooking up, and that was that.

If one still feels the desire to sow oats, keep it casual and don't get married. If one doesn't want to surrender some autonomy, keep it casual and don't get married. It's not that complicated.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Maricha75 said:


> Lol duh? My point is that if he were to press the issue, wanting to do it, I would tell him that's fine... he can do it while not being married because I won't be married to someone like that.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


I was being totally silly. I get you.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> *sigh* Once the kids got old enough to stop following my into the bathroom, the dogs started.
> 
> I don't even understand the concept of privacy in a marriage. Two become one and all that. One of the things that we've always prized about our relationship is our level of openness, honesty, and that we can and do say anything to each other. If either I or DH thought we needed privacy from one another, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have gotten married.


But I WANT to go to the bathroom without him in there. I mean... #2... Is that so wrong? =)



> I used to enjoy hooking up very much. How did I wean off that habit? Growth and maturity. I started wanting something more, began to lose my taste for hooking up, and that was that.


We both did too. We did not so much lose our taste for hooking up as recognized that this was much better. I remember the day he proposed. We were at the beach which, at the time, was not his favorite thing to do. I was laying in the sun while he went off to check the tidal pools. After spending an hour ogling young women he thought, what I have is already so much better than this! He ran down the beach and asked me to marry him. (He did tell me the context, and I was like... ok? Um? Huh?) The engagement did not stick until a couple of weeks later when I finally parsed what he meant.


----------



## optimalprimus (Feb 4, 2015)

I admit to only skimming the op and the idea of 5% individual time sounded really sensible. Too many marriages do die from personal asphyxiation, usually on the maternal side, and increasingly an issue for men like myself who work long hours and have childcare responsibilities.

I skipped the "don't ask don't tell" nonsense which imo negates the whole point of a marriage.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> But I WANT to go to the bathroom without him in there. I mean... #2... Is that so wrong? =)


YES! He must follow you in there so he can relay the state of your bowels to the entire population... of FACEBOOK!! 😛

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> But I WANT to go to the bathroom without him in there. I mean... #2... Is that so wrong? =)
> 
> 
> We both did too. We did not so much lose our taste for hooking up as recognized that this was much better. I remember the day he proposed. We were at the beach which, at the time, was not his favorite thing to do. I was laying in the sun while he went off to check the tidal pools. After spending an hour ogling young women he thought, what I have is already so much better than this! He ran down the beach and asked me to marry him. (He did tell me the context, and I was like... ok? Um? Huh?) The engagement did not stick until a couple of weeks later when I finally parsed what he meant.


I used to want privacy for #2, but we had 7 people living in a house with 1 bathroom. I gave up. He, however, can have all the bathroom privacy he wants!! Everyone and their dog needs to get into the bathroom when Mom is in there. Nobody even thinks about it when Dad is in there.

I was in my mid-20's with 2 kids and a sham marriage under my belt. I had a few people's share of casual sex and I was getting bored with it all. I wanted to move forward to a relationship that actually had some depth and meaning. 

I think what your husband said at the beach is sweet!

My DH started in on me about marriage 3 months after we met. I didn't take his first two proposals seriously, but third time was the charm.

Wanna know what got him thinking about it? Hearing a Talking Heads song and passing by a mall. "Once in a Lifetime" was playing and the "this is not my beautiful wife" part made him realize I wasn't his beautiful wife, but he wanted me to be. Because, get this, I'm like a parking spot at the mall. If he didn't snatch me up fast, he figured someone else would.


----------



## SunnyT (Jun 22, 2011)

Don't ask, don't tell...

Pretty much just voids the idea of an open, honest relationship. Also, I really really think I should know if my partner is having sex with other people...this can physically or emotionally effect me.

But, I do see relationships where one has to "ask" the other for what they want. Guys who are "not allowed" to have a motorcycle. Women who aren't allowed to have Girls Night Out. THOSE people might go for this 5%, even with the rule of no sex with others clause!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> IRresponsible non-monogamy, the new wave.


I don't think this "5% agreement" makes much sense, but since there is the provision that nothing must be done that would hurt the marriage I don't see the grave danger either.

And my previous answer also includes that provision by implication, because I have promised to love and cherish my wife. Doing anything that would hurt her would violate the condition that I stated: "assuming I haven't already committed to doing something else".


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MJJEAN said:


> Wanna know what got him thinking about it? Hearing a Talking Heads song and passing by a mall. "Once in a Lifetime" was playing and the "this is not my beautiful wife" part made him realize I wasn't his beautiful wife, but he wanted me to be. Because, get this, I'm like a parking spot at the mall. If he didn't snatch me up fast, he figured someone else would.


What an insult! Now, if he had said a *good *parking spot at the mall at *Christmas*, then I could see it. >


----------



## TRy (Sep 14, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> For me, as a mother and wife, privacy means being able to pee in the bathroom by myself.


:rofl:
As a parent, this line made me laugh.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> I don't think this "5% agreement" makes much sense, but since there is the provision that nothing must be done that would hurt the marriage I don't see the grave danger either.


I don't think you're reading between the lines. That clause equates to, "if you cheat, the other person can't find out because it would cause irreparable harm." This interpretation is reinforced by the "don't ask, don't tell" reference in the other condition. There's no such thing as a good secret in a marriage. It just sounds better to call this a "5% agreement" rather than a "free pass for debauchery agreement".


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Ok so Im reading this thread and trying to figure out when I will arrive at the point that I want/need some me time to get away from mh H. No seriously. We have been married for 11 years, a 2 year old, a 7 month old and one on the way. So when do things start to get old and stale to the point that I need breathing room?

I would rather be with my husband than anybody else every time. I kinda feel like maybe that's not a alwayss a good thing? I do spend time with my family and girlfriends apart from him but usually when he's out of town or having some time with HIS friends. And I enjoy that time. But if given the choice I would rather be with him. Just wondering at what point in the marriage you "get over" that. Again, I have hobbies and interests but my preference is doing them with him. Maybe Im codependent? IDK ... can you be codependent in a good relationship? 

Sorry for the threadjack. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

I thinking a bit more on this concept, it finally occurred to me that I basically lived a 5% marriage. Only without my agreement. My now-ex-husband sincerely believed that what I didn't know wouldn't hurt me or our marriage. Thus, he felt he was free to do whatever he wanted - entirely unencumbered in any way - when I wasn't around. In other words, if I weren't right there, he was a single man. Now, we were together a good deal. So I'd say that, especially in the early years, he was a faithful husband probably 95% of the time. His averages slipped over the years, so that at the end, he was probably a faithful husband maybe 80% of the time. Hey, the 80/20 rule works well with diet, so why not with monogamy? He was still, on average, faithful the great majority of the time! That's got to count for something right? 

Well, no. Because that's not a marriage. It's a character flaw. A decent human being does not marry a partner, agreeing to monogamy, and then get extra credit for sticking to that "most" of the time. This isn't a math class, where a 95 is an A+ and puts you on track to be an honor student. And let me assure you that, even not knowing what he was up to in his "free time", his actions had a huge effect on the marriage and on me. 

If a 5% agreement style marriage is what you want, then you need to be upfront about that - from well before an engagement is even contemplated. If you bring it up after the vows, then you need to be prepared to either accept, and abide by, a firm "no" or to be divorced. Or, hey, better yet! If you want to be free to sleep with other people - don't get married.


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

Due to work and parenting responsibilities, what I crave is more time WITH my spouse. I don't need 5% time to myself. 

Count me as another responder who sees this as just another push for open marriage. I have no interest in that. If I want to spend a day fishing or playing music with friends, I'll do it. If my wife wants a day to herself, go for it. But no screwing other people. That's called cheating. And no boob jobs without discussing it first.


----------



## tropicalbeachiwish (Jun 1, 2016)

No way for me. I rarely object to the things that my H wants to do which isn't much, but the curiosity would drive me mad with the 'don't ask, don't tell'. In fact, I encourage my H to get out of the house more often but he doesn't. So, I don't even think that my H would actually do anything with it but I don't like the idea one bit. The concept does open the door for open marriages, which isn't my thing. I think there isn't a point in being married if you have an open marriage. Why be married? It defies what a marriage means to me.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

BetrayedDad said:


> I don't think you're reading between the lines. That clause equates to, "if you cheat, the other person can't find out because it would cause irreparable harm." This interpretation is reinforced by the "don't ask, don't tell" reference in the other condition. There's no such thing as a good secret in a marriage. It just sounds better to call this a "5% agreement" rather than a "free pass for debauchery agreement".


Okay, I guess so. I agree that cheating is a bad idea, even if the other person isn't supposed to find out about it.


----------



## JohnDoeRobot (May 25, 2016)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> Is what you suggested to give some freedom in a very controlling marriage, or is it an excuse for a person to act out and do something naughty or harmful to the marriage?



The short answer is yes, yes, and no. Yes: this agreement is supposed to work as a escape valve in providing some degree of freedom in controlling marriages (i.e. motorcycles and girls night outs). Yes: this agreement does allow people to do naughty things without reprisals from their spouses (as long as they don't flaunt them or embarrass their families or bring home some sort of disease). No: this is not supposed to give people a carte blanche to hurt their partners and their families.

I think the crux of the matter is whether absolute monogamy is an indispensable requisite in a caring, loving, committed relationship. It is clear that to many people any sort of negotiation on monogamy nulls and voids a marriage (the argument of "why having a marriage if you want an open relationship?"). To others, that negotiation is only valid if it takes place BEFORE marriage. To others that negotiation can take place at any time. I think everyone agrees that it is something that needs to be negotiated (otherwise it is just plain old infidelity... which is, btw, more pervasive than most think).

The 5% rule is, in fact, a practical way to implement "monogamish" marriages (those interested should google "monogamish"... there are a lot people talking about it). 

To those arguing all those things need to be negotiated while dating and before marriage all I can say is: I wish I knew 10% of the things I know today when I was 22. I have changed, the world has changed, and life keeps teaching me new lessons every day. 

I believe the fascinating part of the "5% Rule" is that it reframes the issue of monogamy into one of personal freedom. Absolute personal freedom (which does include whatever we do with our bodies). Sort of a libertarian-ish version of marriage. I believe many people agree controlling marriage do asphyxiate and we should all be able to maintain some sort of privacy and control over our lives (even if it is just to pee in peace). The issue is where individual couples draw the line in what is acceptable and what is not.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> I am amazed how easily people talk about divorce in here. Sounds like ordering a pizza. Every time things do not go exactly the way people want or expect the solution is simple: ditch your spouse. Very easy to give that advice to someone else. It is not your family what is at stake. Would you seriously divorce your wife just for asking you something? just for her expressing something she wants to talk about?
> 
> I assume you have no children and have some Trump-esque type of prenup that would shield you from years of heartache. Families take a very long time to build and they can actually survive a lot of things.
> 
> The other issue with people constantly threatening with divorces is the fact their spouse will not tell you what they want for simple fear. Yep, a soup of bitterness ready to be served years from now. Or they might call your bluff... at which point you either have to cave in or go through a divorce you really do not want.


I would divorce if my wife asked for an open marriage. That's what this supposed 5% rule is about. It is about doing things your spouse would be so upset about that you cannot tell them you are doing it. For me those things would be screwing others , doing heroin, or torturing small children and animals. So, game over if she wants to do those things.


----------



## Acoa (Sep 21, 2012)

Not a fan of the 5% 'rule'. Too easy to abuse and there are better ways to ensure you keep your individuality. 

Everyone has things they like to do. Most good couples have things they like to do together. But both individuals also have interests that do no overlap. That doesn't mean they don't pursue those interests, it just means they do those things as individuals. This doesn't mean they don't talk about those things. 

Having your own personal space shouldn't have to equal keeping secrets.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Btw, my wife engaged in a 5% marriage as you describe it. She believed in "Don't ask, don't tell", and also "If he does ask, don't tell". She believed what I didn't know about wouldn't hurt me.

She was wrong.

We're getting divorced as a result.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> I believe the fascinating part of the "5% Rule" is that it reframes the issue of monogamy into one of personal freedom. Absolute personal freedom (which does include whatever we do with our bodies).


LMAO, what a cake eater you are. I'd have much more respect for you if you just said you wanted an open marriage. 

Instead, you want to redefine monogamy. Monogamy is an absolute like death. You are either monogamous or you are not. You can't be monogamous 95% of the time anymore than you can be dead 95% of the time. Nor can you circumvent it with agreements to secretly cheat on a spouse and still call yourself monogamous because she doesn't know. 

The whole concept of this topic is childish and absurd. You want an open marriage. Be an adult and call it what it is. If you don't want the guilt of being a cheat then get her permission for an occasional free pass. If your spouse agrees then more power too you.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> The short answer is yes, yes, and no. Yes: this agreement is supposed to work as a escape valve in providing some degree of freedom in controlling marriages (i.e. motorcycles and girls night outs). Yes: this agreement does allow people to do naughty things without reprisals from their spouses (as long as they don't flaunt them or embarrass their families or bring home some sort of disease). No: this is not supposed to give people a carte blanche to hurt their partners and their families.


It seems to me that a good marriage would include resolving issues of a controlling spouse. Furthermore, it seems to me that tolerating a controlling spouse would be the issue, not appeasing them then going behind their back ... but only 5% of the time. That means that 95% of the time, the spouse is still controlling!



> I think the crux of the matter is whether absolute monogamy is an indispensable requisite in a caring, loving, committed relationship. It is clear that to many people any sort of negotiation on monogamy nulls and voids a marriage (the argument of "why having a marriage if you want an open relationship?").


Seems to me that in a loving relationship, BOTH partners should agree on whether or not absolute monogamy is an indispensable requisite in a caring, loving, committed relationship. Otherwise, one is exercising deceit which most people agree is NOT loving.




> To others, that negotiation is only valid if it takes place BEFORE marriage.


To many, like us, this negotiation happened after marriage. Many years after. But since we were very close, caring and honest, we could discuss this, and anything else.



> To others that negotiation can take place at any time. I think everyone agrees that it is something that needs to be negotiated (otherwise it is just plain old infidelity... which is, btw, more pervasive than most think).
> 
> The 5% rule is, in fact, a practical way to implement "monogamish" marriages (those interested should google "monogamish"... there are a lot people talking about it).


There are RESPONSIBLE, non-decietful ways to be monogamish that does not white wash it with see no evil- hear no evil.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

It would also be beneficial to acknowledge that "controlling" is almost always used in a pejorative way, and things most often cited as controlling are not in fact, controlling. Throwing that word out there is a way of shaming, and silencing someone in an attempt to bully them into compliance with something their partner disagrees with. Most commonly, things labelled as controlling are actually the expectation that simple marital responsibilities be done.

I am not ashamed in the least to have high expectations of my wife, and that includes complete monogamy, no exceptions.


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

samyeagar said:


> It would also be beneficial to acknowledge that "controlling" is almost always used in a pejorative way, and things most often cited as controlling are not in fact, controlling. Throwing that word out there is a way of shaming, and silencing someone in an attempt to bully them into compliance with something their partner disagrees with. Most commonly, things labelled as controlling are actually the expectation that simple marital responsibilities be done.


Ya, THAT. Can you please tell my husband that please??


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

This whole thing would be more believable if you admitted its 100% about guilt free sex / cheating. I mean, I don't need secret time to rock climb, skydive or ride my motorcycle. She goes on plenty of girls night out. Neither of us are controlling on those sorts of things. Trying to keep them in the equation just make you look like you're trying to hide the sex in there. None of us are that stupid.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

I'm curious how old you are OP and what your relationship history is.

I've heard claims that this generation is x and that generation is y but I don't buy into those generalizations.

I do acknowledge that a LONG time ago divorce was not an option for many women because women simply weren't allowed to work. My grandparents aloped and stayed living with their parents because my grandmother would be required to quit Standard Oil once she was married - only single women were allowed to work.

Things took a long time to improve for women but certainly at least 50 years ago in the US women could earn a living and support themselves. So... the backlog of sh1tty marriages started to fall apart and women and men are free to divorce in the US today. So they do for various reasons.

But I know many young people - in their early 20's through mid-30's - who have old fashioned marital values and monogamous marriages. I don't buy the argument they have fewer boundaries and loser morals. Come on... do you think teens in the 1960's were puritans?

Look around. There are conservative, liberal, uptight, lose, fat, thin, blah blah people all around.

Your job is to pick someone that compliments you in the way you want and vice versa. And toss them back if you change or they change or either of you screwed up in picking, or you don't like the way they smell.

I'm a big advocate for marriage but DO NOT advocate staying in a bad one. Fix it first but if you can't then face that fact.

Requiring a 5% rule implies to me that 1) there is a real problem or 2) you want an open relationship with specific boundaries. All successful open marriages (I'm told) rely on very specific rules. The ones you OP stipulated are simply your comfort level and rules in your open relationship.

I would love to believe this could work. Unfortunately I honestly believe it only would work with 2 people who have a selfish character flaw, and selfishness IMO is a real marriage killer.

Just my $.02


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

WorkingOnMe said:


> This whole thing would be more believable if you admitted its 100% about guilt free sex / cheating. I mean, I don't need secret time to rock climb, skydive or ride my motorcycle. She goes on plenty of girls night out. Neither of us are controlling on those sorts of things. Trying to keep them in the equation just make you look like you're trying to hide the sex in there. None of us are that stupid.


Exactly. When you see a list of activities like:

"Riding a motorcycle, doing woodworking, quilting, having sex with someone else, playing scrabble online, etc."

it's obvious that one of these things is not like the others.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> It is in fact a type of open marriage. One that limits how much people can play outside of the relationship. And one that keeps everything under wraps. In the monogamy-polyamory spectrum, it is a "monogamish" sort of deal with a secrecy clause. But one that goes well beyond sex. Sort of an acknowledgement that people want to do things their spouses will not want them to do, and that -up to a point- they should be entitled to pursue them. And yep.. that includes the occasional romp with someone other than their spouses. The idea is to help relieve the pressures of long term marriages... keep everyone happy and fulfilled, and keep families together.


I look at this a different way.. these couples who need this are not compatible.. they should not have hooked up and married at all.. if you want to do something your spouse is vehemently against.. that IS a "Deal breaker".. such a couple should have parted ways early on...

I would never partake in a relationship like this... this is opening up & condoning secrecy... the enemy of authentic & lasting intimacy and Trust.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

JohnDoeRobot said:


> I was recently reading about a new trend called the "5% Rule" among married couples. It is basically an agreement between partners that recognizes that each person needs a tiny slice of their time (5%) to be theirs and theirs only. It means that roughly one day every three weeks people get to do absolutely anything they want, without any sort of input or recrimination from their spouses.


So it says you can keep secrets? Yeah, not so much.

Now, if you TELL the other person what you're doing, fine. But keeping secrets or lying? NO way it will survive. Partners should be best friends.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

I don't need to account for all my time because I'm not the sort of person who would ask for time to do stuff that I don't want my spouse to know about. If I did need to account for all my time, then it would probably be because my spouse didn't trust me (or possibly an abusive relationship), which would make this 5% idea seem fantastic.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

_Only_ 5%  
I like the idea, overall.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would I expect my partner to think that they could "not allow" me to do something? I am their partner, not their child.


This. If you need to check with your spouse, every move your making...maybe you married the wrong person.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

turnera said:


> So it says you can keep secrets? Yeah, not so much.
> 
> Now, if you TELL the other person what you're doing, fine. But keeping secrets or lying? NO way it will survive. Partners should be best friends.


I do agree with this, though. You shouldn't just 'disappear' and no one knows where you are...there shouldn't be secrets in a marriage.

But, there should also be trust. I think that when I'm married someday, if my husband wanted to go say to a sporting event with his friends, and he told me that's where they were going, I'd be cool with that. If they decided to do something else after, and he didn't tell me until he got home, I'd be cool with that, too. He would't need to check with me. Of course, if he went to hang out with his ex gf or something from the past, and lied and told me he was at a bar with friends, then I'd be sad. So, I can see where this 'arrangement' could get a little tricky, maybe. Just be honest, and don't smother your spouse, and it should all work out.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

*Deidre* said:


> I do agree with this, though. You shouldn't just 'disappear' and no one knows where you are...there shouldn't be secrets in a marriage.
> 
> But, there should also be trust. I think that when I'm married someday, if my husband wanted to go say to a sporting event with his friends, and he told me that's where they were going, I'd be cool with that. If they decided to do something else after, and he didn't tell me until he got home, I'd be cool with that, too. He would't need to check with me. Of course, if he went to hang out with his ex gf or something from the past, and lied and told me he was at a bar with friends, then I'd be sad. So, I can see where this 'arrangement' could get a little tricky, maybe. Just be honest, and don't smother your spouse, and it should all work out.


I think that the OP's idea is that a person can cheat in that 5% time frame and it's none of their spouse's business.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> I think that the OP's idea is that a person can cheat in that 5% time frame and it's none of their spouse's business.


Oh, I didn't know that is what was meant. That would be a bad idea.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Rowan said:


> I thinking a bit more on this concept, it finally occurred to me that I basically lived a 5% marriage. Only without my agreement. My now-ex-husband sincerely believed that what I didn't know wouldn't hurt me or our marriage. Thus, he felt he was free to do whatever he wanted - entirely unencumbered in any way - when I wasn't around. In other words, if I weren't right there, he was a single man. Now, we were together a good deal. So I'd say that, especially in the early years, he was a faithful husband probably 95% of the time. His averages slipped over the years, so that at the end, he was probably a faithful husband maybe 80% of the time. Hey, the 80/20 rule works well with diet, so why not with monogamy? He was still, on average, faithful the great majority of the time! That's got to count for something right?
> 
> Well, no. Because that's not a marriage. It's a character flaw. A decent human being does not marry a partner, agreeing to monogamy, and then get extra credit for sticking to that "most" of the time. This isn't a math class, where a 95 is an A+ and puts you on track to be an honor student. And let me assure you that, even not knowing what he was up to in his "free time", his actions had a huge effect on the marriage and on me.
> 
> If a 5% agreement style marriage is what you want, then you need to be upfront about that - from well before an engagement is even contemplated. If you bring it up after the vows, then you need to be prepared to either accept, and abide by, a firm "no" or to be divorced. Or, hey, better yet! If you want to be free to sleep with other people - don't get married.


It turned out my marriage was a 5% marriage, only I didn't know. Then it was a 10% marriage. Then 15%. When it reached 50% I started sensing something was off. I had no idea what, because I was stupidly naive, but later found out my ex had a whole other relationship. When it became clear to me that I was in a barely 95% marriage and there was no hope of reversing that, I had to leave.

That's the nasty thing about secrets. Once you start, and they're successful, you start applying secrecy to everything.

You can't have a marriage based on lies instead of trust. Even just asking for a 5% marriage would start destroying the foundation of trust, because why would you ask for that if you didn't want to do something you know your spouse would not approve of?

Even if it wasn't about non-monogamy at all, it would still destroy trust.

"Oh yes, honey, I am not a drug user at all. I share your values." _I just like to go get high once a week or so and not tell you. I make sure to come down before I come home._

"Of course I'm a vegan, too, dear." _I just can't resist a steak when I'm invited to dinner with my boss at a conference. I just won't tell you and I'll be good the rest of the time._

"I would never purposely do anything dangerous that could paralyze or kill me, I would never do that to our future, babe." _I just need the rush of skydiving once or twice a month to feel alive. You don't need to know that._


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

I'd go for it if during that 5% of the time he gave me free run of his credit card. Then when he got home I would tell him to piss off. He would then be in major debt and single. Yeah, so worth it for a 5% of freedom to cheat.


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> I'd go for it if during that 5% of the time he gave me free run of his credit card. Then when he got home I would tell him to piss off. He would then be in major debt and single. Yeah, so worth it for a 5% of freedom to cheat.


I could end up with some seriously nice guitars in this deal!


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> That's the nasty thing about secrets. Once you start, and they're successful, you start applying secrecy to everything.
> 
> You can't have a marriage based on lies instead of trust. Even just asking for a 5% marriage would start destroying the foundation of trust, because why would you ask for that if you didn't want to do something you know your spouse would not approve of?
> 
> ...


The 5% suggestion sounds like a mutual agreement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" yet knowing it means an open marriage. Or perhaps as you suggest, another possibility is an agreement of DA/DT regarding drug use when both people know that is what it is about.

But you hit on what I have experienced, which is the underlying attitude or belief system of keeping secrets about things you know your spouse _fundamentally_ opposes and would stay in a marriage knowing about them. It is the old give an inch take a yard scenario. Once the perp gets away with on lie or deception they become emboldened about others. They rationalize it that the last thing which wasn't discovered didn't harm their spouse, so this new deception will be fine too.

Until it isn't fine. Until it is discovered and it destroys the marriage.

My personal belief system has changed after experiencing this. I used to think one could discuss deceptions to find a resolution. My new belief is that a partner should be jettisoned at the first event of disloyalty or deception.


----------

