This is correct. I could easily sleep with another woman with zero repercussions to my home life and my wife knows it. The reason I don't? Loyalty. I don't want her ever thinking another woman had something important to her.

That's it. The only reason.

I was monogamous for 25 years and then again for 7-- not sort of, actually monogamous. I also traveled all over the world for work, so I -- like all men -- was half-insane by the time I got home. All men want some strange. Candidly, I think it's really strange that your correspondent doesn't know this. A rewrite of her comment is: "My sexuality is thus; so yours is now, too! Happy wife, happy life, sucker!"

Neither woman realized that that was an opportunity. My impression is that this is yet another area where feminism teaches women to do what they want -- even if it's dreary routinized sex -- and shrug and walk away if the husband whips out the Kama Sutra app on his phone.

There's actually a fair bit of evidence that there are evolutionary reasons for both males and females to be nonmonogamous. In "Sex at Dawn," Christophe Ryan posits that early, pre-agricultural humans may have had a social/sexual structure more like that of bonabos, in which fairly promiscuous sex is part of social cohesion rather than a source of conflict.

It's all frightfully speculative but the fact remains, many humans (even--gasp!--ladies) fantasize about sex with someone other than their primary partners every so often. And many have found ways to make what Dan Savage calls a "monogamish" relationship work...combining pair-bonded social monogamy with a some pre-approved walks on the wild side. Doesn't work for everyone, but it's also more common than our nice sex-negative Judeo-Christian national character might indicate.

To build on what you said Anathema, from what I've read it's a pretty recent phenomenon that women are expected to be sexually monogamous.

When I say this people think I mean women in the past where hooking up or fucking strangers. And for some reason when I say the past they think of some European time period with a upper middle class prim and proper broad.

No, but the expectation of sexual monogamy in a woman or a man is a recent phenomenon. So is romantic "love".

In terms of male/female relationships we are kind of in unprecedented territory.

I'll take a crack at this, I think what LW's trying to say here is:

"Why can't a man be more like a woman?"

"To build on what you said Anathema, from what I've read it's a pretty recent phenomenon that women are expected to be sexually monogamous."

Well, yeah. The evolved female strategy is hypergamy: find a man with good genes to reproduce with, and a man of high status for support. Until fairly recently in human history, the paternity of most children was vague. What everyone found out was that in higher civilization, neither of the male or female primitive strategies works, because they don't build the trust between and among partners that allows larger societies to work.

This is probably the LW's truth:

"I don't want you to not cheat for my benefit. I want you to not cheat because you think it's WRONG! I THINK IT'S WRONG! WHY AREN'T WE ON THE SAME PAGE?"

The offendant is guilty of wrongthink. Shun him.

I think LW wants to feel that she is special and unique. She is wishfully hoping that his faithfulness can be more than mere duty. She wishes that his fidelity could be such a strong connection of hearts that he wouldn't even WANT to be with another.

Sounds to me like the voice of a young woman's heart with life lessons yet to be learned.

Sadly, even deep devoted love can fail to prevent minds, and sometimes bodies, from straying.

This letter is proof many women can never be happy.

She knows he isnt cheating on her.

By her own admission she knows the reason is that he cares for her so much he is actively denying his biological urges.

But the fact that he cares for her enough to suppress his desire isnt good enough.

She wants him not to have any such desire at all - but what is the consequence of a man having no desire for women?

The end result of that line of reasoning is he would have no desire for her either.

And I think thats what she really wants, She wants a devoted eunuch that will buy her crap, pay her bills, do her chores, and never ask for sex.

"unfeeling sex machines"

The fact that he does not seek sex from anyone other than her is proof he has feelings.

She doesnt want a relationship, she wants a gelded slave

So I took a look at this Christopher Ryan. Saying a guy who wrote a book is proof of something used to actually be worth something.

Once.

I would take him more seriously if his Doctorate wasn't at an online university and his Doctoral Mentor wasn't a parapsychologist whose experiments in (I can't make this up) dream telepathy can't be replicated. He also supported psychic frauds.

For those who want to believe that non-monogamous relationships are 'natural', no evidence is necessary. But it is nice that they make some effort.

Granted, it would be nice if they offered someone who didn't fail the Oxford University Press peer review process and drew mostly critical reception from scholars in the fields he comments on.

Let's just say that I will be waiting for additional evidence.

The way I look at it is if all he ever wanted was her there would be no need for a commitment. One doesn't have to commit themselves to cocaine in order to develop a habit and have it start taking priority over everything in their life. It simply becomes the best pleasure available at the time, always. The most self-indulgent schlub will hang around something that continues to be the most attractive thing at the moment.
Most things in life worth having come at a cost.

I'm a man, and I've known many men in my life who seem to want to f**k anything that moves. But I've also known many men who just don't get into that. Yes, they still like to look at naked boobs on TV. But they just aren't that turned on by the idea of sex with random strangers.
And as far as the guys who are the "love 'em and leave 'em types'. I believe the reason they run away is because they DO care, not because they don't. Because they've just bonded(oxytocin release after sex) with someone they barely know.

Meh. A male sex drive is a male sex drive. We are responsible for controlling it (or not). If he swears to always think she is the one and only, will she promise to never ever change in any way, physically, emotionally, or personally?

Both are unrealistic demands. He is never ever supposed to see anyone who is more attractive than his current girl? Best spend a lot of time in the house. Try deep rural living. Neighbors are SO overrated.

There are two kinds of monopoly (not sure of the proper phrasing). A 'natural service' monopoly and a 'single source' monopoly.

To be a 'natural service' monopoly, you gain incredible market share because you offer a great product at acceptable prices with good service, and are readily accessible. People go to McDonald's or Starbucks in vast droves because of this. These chains don't need to destroy the competition (though I am sure they do that too). They are just offering what large numbers of people want.

Then there is the 'single source' sort of monopoly like U.S. Steel and OPEC tried to operate. "If you want access to my...product, you need to meet my price."

This sort of monopoly is really good for that whole 'sexual extortion' plan that traditional matrimony offered (with a side of marital rape), but the Sexual Revolution put paid to that social construct.

It is nice to read that at least one woman misses the old days.

Social shaming is gone, sex is cheap, porn is free, so all she has left is 'romantic love' as the basis for her 'single source' monopoly.

Maybe she should try to be a 'natural service monopoly'. But that is SO much effort...

He is, to my mind, being more honest, sensible and forthright than she is being.

She didn't learn "dreary, routinized sex" from feminism. Society, the "status quo" taught her that you save yourself for the one right person and after you find that person, no one else is supposed to exist. That is changing but, old attitudes die hard. Also, it may be that women are hard-wired biologically to seek out one mate.

I remember in one post, Amy stated that women to men are like a ham sandwhich. They may enjoy looking at it, it doesn't mean they want to leave their wife or girlfriend for it. I'm totally paraphrasing here. Women have fantasies as well. That's what they are, just fantasies. I also think that if a couple can handle it without getting jealous, they should be able to be "monogamish".