Fidelity

[The Dragon]

Lets ask a hypothetical question.
Say a person was to get into a relationship with a "lad about town" eg. someone who was use to a busy sex life with a long string of sexual conquests behind him.
Is it unreasonable to expect that person to be monogamous?
Would the lure of new conquests-strange-new flesh be too much for him?
Would he ever be totally trust worthy?
Would it even be worth while even getting into a relationship with this person in the first place?

 

[D_Percival Puddleford Pukehorn]

unreasonable.

 

[Principessa]

Lets ask a hypothetical question.
Say a person was to get into a relationship with a "lad about town" eg. someone who was use to a busy sex life with a long string of sexual conquests behind him.

Is it unreasonable to expect that person to be monogamous?

Yes, it is.

Would the lure of new conquests-strange-new flesh be too much for him?

Most likely yes. Why would you expect him to change the essensce of his being for you?

Would he ever be totally trust worthy?

Doubtful. You already know he hasn't been capable of trust and fidelity in the past. Why, even though you are extremely beautiful and intelligent would you expect him to change now.

Would it even be worth while even getting into a relationship with this person in the first place?

Doubt Means Don't!​

A relationship? NO! A booty call/fuck buddy, yes. Just don't get upset when you see him about town with other women.

 

[DC_DEEP]

It all depends on whether or not he's "ready to settle down." Some people get the wanderlust out of their systems, some don't.

One approach would be to ask him, directly: Are you ready to settle down, or are you still interested in playing the field?

I think a lot of it would be how he viewed his past activity. Was is conquest? Notches on his belt? Something to "brag about?" If so, it's unlikely he would be able to be faithful.

If it was just availability and opportunity, that may be a different story.

 

[The Dragon]

It's ok My sweets..I'm not in a relationship but I do like a chap who does seem to be a "lad".
I just thought I would throw the questions out there to see what people thought.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Lets ask a hypothetical question.
Say a person was to get into a relationship with a "lad about town" eg. someone who was use to a busy sex life with a long string of sexual conquests behind him.
Is it unreasonable to expect that person to be monogamous?
Would the lure of new conquests-strange-new flesh be too much for him?
Would he ever be totally trust worthy?
Would it even be worth while even getting into a relationship with this person in the first place?

1. somewhat, though not entirely unreasonable. so... unreasonable (completely)? no. unrealistic? yes.
2. probably
3. probably not
4. depends on what your priorities are

people can change, but values change much more slowly than behaviors or attitudes or style or other more trivial things. If you don't share similar values on fidelity from the get-go, and it sounds like you don't, it is in fact unrealistic to expect that to change.

 

[Corius]

To me casual sex has always seemed a dead end street, but I suspect that some such men (and women) sometimes come to the realization that their feverish quest of many partners for sex alone is leading nowhere. I don't like to give up on any person and I would therefore not turn away from such a person who seemed to be offering genuine friendship with no sexual expectations. In my mind one doesn't go to bed for sex with that person until bonds of friendship and love have been established. I never have inquired about the sex history of any partner; sex is person and it is private. I have some inkling of what the sex life of my two male partners had been. I knew they, as I, had hanging over them the social expectation that they would some day marry, have children and live happily ever after. It did not happen that way for them; they divorced rather quickly and both have lived as gay men in long-term relationships for many years. Monogamous relationships have been the rule with me; I don't cheat. That would be asking for trouble which no one needs.

 

[alex8.5]

Both my BF and I were basically man sluts. We've been together 15 years. and I have never strayed or felt like straying. He feels the same way. We can look but we don;t touch. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to be faithfull. It's called maturity, and trusting the person your with unconditionnally..

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I don't think it's unreasonable, that jack the lad might have had a string of conquests who didn't want him for anything more than a one night stand.

 

[Corius]

Spoiled Princess, people are not objects to be used. Manipulation of another for one's own momentary pleasure does not ever deserve praise. For me, two people who are merely using each other for sex brings sex down to the level a pure animal lust. That may be the stuff of fantasy, but it will never be the basis of anything that can remotely be called love.

 

[Gillette]

It's ok My sweets..I'm not in a relationship but I do like a chap who does seem to be a "lad".
I just thought I would throw the questions out there to see what people thought.

From recent posts of yours I get the impression that you are moving to another country. If this is to be a long distance relationship on top of everything else, I'm afraid I wouldn't hold up much hope of a success.

With much time spent apart, even if he does remain faithful will you be able to keep from wondering? That doubt in itself could spell the end.

 

[Ethyl]

Lets ask a hypothetical question.
Say a person was to get into a relationship with a "lad about town" eg. someone who was use to a busy sex life with a long string of sexual conquests behind him.
Is it unreasonable to expect that person to be monogamous?
Would the lure of new conquests-strange-new flesh be too much for him?
Would he ever be totally trust worthy?
Would it even be worth while even getting into a relationship with this person in the first place?

Not enough information here. Is he ready to become monogamous? If so, then that's not unreasonable. Has he specifically stated that's what he wants now? Again, not unreasonable. Were his conquests really conquests or was he just so dissatisfied with his partners that he couldn't find someone whom he wanted a relationship with? His number of partners shouldn't necessarily dissuade anyone from starting a relationship with him. That's no better than guys calling women sluts because they've slept with more than 2 men.

 

[D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah]

If he has said he wants to be faithful then no it isnt to much to expect, but if you expect exclusive if you've had him on a one night stand then i wouldn't think he'd be changing his ways to soon and i wouldn't take the risk

 

[Drifterwood]

Are Dolphins happier in the wild or Sea World?

 

[The Dragon]

What the devil has dolphins got to do with it Drifter?
Are you drunk again man?

 

[thoreau]

It all depends on whether or not he's "ready to settle down." Some people get the wanderlust out of their systems, some don't.

One approach would be to ask him, directly: Are you ready to settle down, or are you still interested in playing the field?

I think a lot of it would be how he viewed his past activity. Was is conquest? Notches on his belt? Something to "brag about?" If so, it's unlikely he would be able to be faithful.

If it was just availability and opportunity, that may be a different story.

I agree with DC. If this "man about town" that we're speaking about has finished with his cavalier behavior and finished sowing his wild oats then he might be ready for a more meaningful relationship.

And regarding his trustworthiness, I think DC also had a good point about asking him directly. If you want him to be honest and forthright with you they best way to start would be building that foundation of trust.

 

[Drifterwood]

What the devil has dolphins got to do with it Drifter?
Are you drunk again man?

I wish I coud swim
like Dolphins can swim.

And in other news - what is this wild oats bullshit, settle down presumption?

:biggrin1:

 

[davidjh7]

There is an old fable.....
Once upon a time, a scorpion approached a turtle, asking him to carry him across the river. At first, the turtle was hesitant, because he feared the scorpion would sting him, but he decided that if the scorpion did so, that they would both die, so he agreed. Sure enough, half way across, the scorpion stung the turtle Just before they both went under, the turtle turned t the scorpion and asked him why he had stung him, since they now both would die. The scorpion replied "because it is my nature". Can people change, and do they change? Of course--all the time. But only when strongly motivated to do so. We are not completely bound by our nature, but it takes a great deal of effort to overcome it. If someone doesn;t have a strong motivation to change their basic nature, especially one that is personally rewarding to them, the chances are they are not going to change it easily.

 

[dreamer20]

Say a person was to get into a relationship with a "lad about town" eg.
Would he ever be totally trust worthy?
Would it even be worth while even getting into a relationship with this person in the first place?

If you are happy living with a swinger then the answer would be yes.

And knowing the nature of the beast, I wouldn't expect monogamy.:smile:

 

[dreamer20]

Are Dolphins happier in the wild or Sea World?

Ans=Sea World. They get free medical care, all fish that they want and to have sexcapades with humans.:wink:


YouTube - Random Funny Shit 6: Sex Edition