@oldwounds
And yet, your balance the scales response is to add MORE cheating to the relationship...Suggesting more infidelity, even if it is presumably rubber stamped, appears as flexibility to me.
"Rubber-stamped infidelity" is a flat-out contradiction in terms. Infidelity, by definition, is a breach of trust and a unilateral violation of a relationship's agreed-upon boundaries. If an action is explicitly discussed, negotiated, and mutually agreed upon by both partners, it is, by definition, not infidelity.
Equating consensual agreements with cheating is a fundamental category error. You cannot "cheat" when you are playing by a mutually rewritten rulebook.
Appealing to the popular choice of the masses — like leaning on Western Civilization — is the logical fallacy. If your point was strong enough to stand on its own, you don’t bring in masses to back it up.
You are still misunderstanding the fallacy you yourself mentioned. I wouldn't recommend using ten-dollar phrases if you only have an eight-dollar account. If I had argued, "Ethical non-monogamy is morally correct BECAUSE Western societies allow it," that would indeed be argumentum ad populum.
But I didn't. I made a descriptive statement about societal freedom, not a prescriptive argument about moral truth. Pointing out that we live in a society that legally and socially permits adults to make their own relationship rules is simply stating a geographical and legal fact, not using the masses to prove a moral claim.
As in, why would one lower their own standards or use another human to feel better about themselves? If you or anyone NEEDS a Hall Pass, isn’t that offering the same WS path to unhealthy validation...
To equate consensual adult sex with "using another human" is a remarkably puritanical take for someone claiming not to be one. By this logic, any sexual encounter that isn't geared toward lifelong romance is merely "using" someone. In reality, two consenting adults can share physical intimacy for mutual pleasure without "using" each other or seeking "unhealthy validation."
Irrespective of that, even if I were to grant you that sex can sometimes be about seeking validation, this is not immoral in and of itself; it only becomes so when it is done to the detriment of your partner.
If the original poster claimed they would love to grant this hall pass because it would relieve their guilt and make them feel like they are proactively helping their betrayed spouse heal, where is the harm in this? I'm not saying the betrayed partner should accept this if they cannot live with it, obviously. Personally, I would find a refusal to grant it in that context somewhat hypocritical, but nevertheless, the choice belongs to them.
Most importantly: the trauma inflicted by a Wayward Spouse does not stem from the physical act of sex. It stems from the lies, the gaslighting, the broken vows, and the systematic theft of their partner's agency. To compare a mutually agreed-upon "hall pass" to the devastating psychological abuse of betrayal is intellectually dishonest, and quite frankly, offensive to those who have actually survived the latter.
I don’t need to use another person for sex to feel better. That’s not a puritan value, I just LIKE me enough to not need it.
Good for you. Truly. But projecting your personal boundaries as a universal metric for psychological health and moral superiority is the very definition of self-righteousness. This wasn't the case for me, what should my punishment be? Stoning perhaps. Cast the first stone.
There is no "dodge" here. I am entirely happy to discuss the actual complexities, emotional risks, and practical hurdles of open relationships—which are indeed immense, and rarely work as a "fix" for a marriage broken by betrayal. But we cannot have an honest, nuanced discussion about those risks if you continue to conflate mutual consent with betrayal, and your personal preferences with universal moral laws.
In respect of the original poster, I won't fall bait to your further responses. If you want to discuss this further start a threat or private message me.