Male sexual fidelity is the ultimate shit test

Below is another old post of mine.


The basic concept of marriage is that the man invests in the family in return for the sexual fidelity of his wife.  This way, the man can invest in kids who he knows are his.  If the husband invests resources in other women besides his wife, then he is violating the marriage contract and his wife has every reason to be jealous.  But why do women insist on a commitment of sexual fidelity?  One argument is that male sexual infidelity can lead to a relationship in which the man will invest.  But this still doesn't explain why a wife would insist so strongly on complete male sexual fidelity including no casual sex.

It is well known that women prefer men who are successful with other women.  The evolutionary benefits are obvious.  A man who has the opportunity to spread his genes to many women will probably produce sons with the same opportunity, thereby also spreading the mother's genes.  This would indicate that women would actually prefer to marry men who can have sex with other women.  So why do women insist on the opposite?

PUAs have a concept of the "shit test" where women test men to see how good they are as reproductive partners.  These tests are passed not by answering logically, but by showing strength.  The insistence of wives that their husbands commit to sexual fidelity only makes sense as an extreme shit test.  If the husband agrees and commits to sexual fidelity, then he has shown that he is weak and has failed the test.  By committing to sexual fidelity, he is showing that he has no backbone and will give in to his wife on all issues.  If his wife believes her husband's commitment, she will view him as a doormat and will soon find him boring and lose interest in having sex with him.  If she doesn't believe his commitment, she will consider him a lying bastard and the marriage will be full of drama until it finally falls apart.  Either way, the husbands loses.  By refusing to commit to sexual fidelity, the husband passes the shit test.  The wife will then feel that she still needs to compete with other women to hold on to her husband, so she will continue to be sexually attracted to him.

To be clear, I am not advocating male sexual infidelity.  I am only advocating a refusal to commit to sexual fidelity.  In this situation, your wife will inevitably ask you if you have been going with other women.  If you have, then you have three choices, lie, refuse to answer, or tell the truth.  Lying to your wife is so contemptible that I won't discuss it.  If you refuse to answer, then she will think much worse things than what actually happened.  If you tell the truth, you will hurt her but she will probably get over it.  None of these cases are ideal.  The ideal is actually to be sexually faithful to your wife without ever promising to do so.  In this case, when your wife asks you about other women, you can honestly tell her that you haven't had any.  It is very likely that she will believe you since you had the strength to refuse to promise this.  She will be thrilled that she has succeeded in keeping you for herself, and she will love you for having been faithful to her on your own terms.

I think I would fail this shit test and all other kinds of shit tests.

Why?

Suppose your wife asked you to become vegetarian.  Would you do it?

The correct answers aren't obvious to me. Nor do I know when I'm being shit tested.

In the context of a shit test what's the correct answer to that vegetarian question? I would not do it and I would tell her no. Is that the correct answer?

Forget the correct answer for a minute.  You said that you would not do it [become vegetarian] and you would tell her no.  How is a promise of sexual fidelity different from becoming vegetarian?  If your answer is that you consider sexual fidelity reasonable but becoming vegetarian unreasonable, let me ask you if you think being sexually faithful is reasonable in the case that your wife denies you sex for an extended period of time?

In a perfect relationship, which I'll probably not find - I'd prefer my mate not require sexual fidelity from me. I think it's unreasonable to ask a man to be sexually faithful if his wife denies sex for an extended period of time. I'm not sure what answer this translates to in the original question.

So it sounds to me that you would pass this test just fine.

What is this for a test sexual fidelity...i don´t understand

Because I, the wife of 22 years, would be devastated.  I simply can't compete after 22 years of age on my body with the going market out there.  I'd rather he put me away if I am that utterly without worth.

I am also biologically unable to bear children.

Ember wrote

Because I, the wife of 22 years, would be devastated.  I simply can't compete after 22 years of age on my body with the going market out there.

You don't have to compete in that way. Men are not as shallow as you seem to think. A kind and loving wife is worth her weight in gold. Male sexuality is such that sex with young whores on the side actually will increase his libido and desire for the real thing (you). Anyway, females can still be hot in their 40s. Try joining a gym.

You don't have to compete in that way. Men are not as shallow as you seem to think. A kind and loving wife is worth her weight in gold. Male sexuality is such that sex with young whores on the side actually will increase his libido and desire for the real thing (you). Anyway, females can still be hot in their 40s. Try joining a gym.

I do keep myself in shape - well, I went to the dr yesterday and I have gained a few pounds.  Why do you think I'm accusing men of being shallow.  This thread indicates they don't want to be bound to sexual fidelity.  How am I supposed to feel?

I refer to this quote from above:

By refusing to commit to sexual fidelity, the husband passes the shit test.  The wife will then feel that she still needs to compete with other women to hold on to her husband, so she will continue to be sexually attracted to him.

Let's be realistic.  I can't compete with a 20 year old.

Ember I think it's important to understand that a man's instinct is to want variety regardless of whom they are with. Even when Hugh Grant was married to Elizabeth Hurley, whom most people would consider very attractive, he went to a prostitute. So the desire is not for someone more attractive, just for someone different. This is the same reason why men never watch the same pornography twice.

The bolded reference is about a woman feeling she needs to compete. It's not about a real scenario. Women will not desire men whom they consider an easy catch. If a man says to his wife "you're the only woman who thinks I'm handsome... no other women try flirting with me" she will find her husband less desirable.

 

So you're suggesting he sleep with other women to maintain my interest?  Because then I'll compete against a variety of much younger women?

Ember wrote

Why do you think I'm accusing men of being shallow.

Let's be realistic.  I can't compete with a 20 year old.

Your second quote answers your first question.  Reread Cornfed's post.

There is a big problem in America of women your age getting bored of their husbands.  These women are generally not even aware of why this happens.  The reason it happens is that these women take their husbands for granted.  My initial suggestion in this thread prevents this problem by keeping some competitive spirit in the wife.  While a wife (and a husband) should stay in shape to remain attractive, the main way to compete is simply to be a good wife.

I'm not at all bored.

Part of being a good wife is feeling <?> when he decides to get variety.  And, use that to be a better wife?

Should I feel devastated and demoralized, what should I do?

I don't suppose there's a female counterpart for this discussion?

Ember wrote

Part of being a good wife is feeling <?> when he decides to get variety.  And, use that to be a better wife?

No, he should exercise restraint and not do anything to hurt you.  My point isn't that husbands should have sex with other women.  (See the last paragraph in my original post.)  My point is that the husband shouldn't make an unconditional promise of fidelity which can easily be abused by the wife and often leads wives to become bored of their husband.

I don't suppose there's a female counterpart for this discussion?

The Old Testament does a good job laying out the obligations of husbands and wives.  The wife has an obligation for sexual fidelity which the husband does not have.  The husband has an obligation to provide for the family and to sexually satisfy his wife, and not to let other women compromise this in any way.  The wife does not have these obligations.

Ember wrote

I'm not at all bored.

Part of being a good wife is feeling <?> when he decides to get variety.  And, use that to be a better wife?

Should I feel devastated and demoralized, what should I do?

I don't suppose there's a female counterpart for this discussion?

No, just us guys.

Get it through your head that kind and loving wives are like gold dust and that young whores are not your competitors. Suppose you husband fucks a young whore. Is that whore going to be posting on an Internet forum about how she can please him 22 years later? Of course not. You've got the wrong idea about men. A kind and loving wife is something to kill and die for, even if the man gets sexual release elsewhere. If you are a kind and loving wife and even half-way attractive, your position is secure. You really shouldn't worry about it.

Is my concern the shit test, then?

Yeah, probably.

Ember wrote

Is my concern the shit test, then?

I don't think so.  It would only be a shit test if you are giving your husband a hard time about it.