Absolutely. Cheating is completely justified I’m sexless relationships. It’s not cheating anyways if the relationship is no longer sexual.
Before you blame Wilfred for posting what seems like a self-evident survey, this is a result of three weeks of women going nuts on social media claiming that men who expect sex in monogamous relationships are abusive, rapey bastards.
Oath-breaking is never moral.
The resolution for treachery is to, at minimum, dissolve the bonds of fealty. Ideally, punishment and restitution are required as well.
It’s not to become a traitor oneself.
Faugh.
LikeLike
Well, lefty/feminist fools have been tinkering with the wedding oaths for over a century, but the original meanings are largely intact to this day. If your oaths sworn in front of your lover, among your families and friends, and before all the beliefs that you might have, are meaningless, you are lower than whale shit on the bottom of the Marianas Trench — says this “abusive, rapey bastard” ;-D
LikeLike
I completely agree. And you can literally show it using mathematical logic.
If I’m not allowed to have sex with anyone else (statement A), it is implied that I will have sex with my partner (statement B). In other words, A => B.
But if I don’t get to have sex with my partner (NOT B), it follows that I no longer have the obligation to not have sex with anyone else (NOT A). That is because A => B is logically equivalent to NOT B => NOT A.
You cannot withhold sex and also expect the other person to just accept the miserable existence “because vows.” Barring illness or injury, having a sexual relationship is a vow, too.
Well, Kid, could the problem be that a segment of women have had so many prevous relationships that they are no longer capable of bonding? Sadly, have a relatively well educated niece that seems to be far more enamored with weddings than with marriage ;-D
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment