The coming out thread got me to thinking. This is not always a good thing, but it happens.

I made a comment about homosexuality being a social norm now. Steave pointed out that is not the case everywhere and I can certainly agree with that notion. However, I think it is safe to say it is headed in that direction. So this got me to thinking about sexual behavior in general.

So what I was curious about is being gay is acceptable because it is claimed to be in a person's nature, why is it such a big deal if a man or woman has sex out of their primary relationship? Especially if the other person knowingly enters a relationship where their partner has cheated in the past. It's in their nature so why are they the bad person?

I think in this instance it's about the verbal contractual agreement one enters when beginning a major relationship. If a couple agrees to remain monogamous (even if one half of the couple cheated before), and someone steps out, the agreement has been broken, which means a loss of trust and a loss of honesty.

Now, there are plenty of couples who do not agree to be monogamous - they agree to varying levels of polyamory. Having sex with other people outside of a core relationship can be done honestly and with trust intact.

I think in this instance it's about the verbal contractual agreement one enters when beginning ... Actually I think weatherwax covered it.

But are agreements really made or simply implied? Ok for marriage I can see it, but dating? Even long term dating I can see an implication, but do people set actual parameters or merely go in with an understanding?

I guess the default is, that you have to state any commitments you already have before sex, and that if you have sex more then once, it is monogamous. Other arrangements should be stated, but it is fine if you are stateing them implicitly, as long as the partner is aware of all deviations from the default.

Ridcully and I did, even when we were still just dating. You know, the "you wanna be exclusive" conversation. I figure that's a pretty important conversation to have, unless you're in high school or something. High schoolers are awfully dramatic creatures, and implied exclusivity that is broken is, I think, an essential part of high school dating.

yeah, I never did any of that. Hence, my questions. I had all of three relationships prior to getting married. One lasted a month, one lasted about 9 months and the other was a little over a year. So my experience in this department is rather limited.

Still with so many people now being accepting of homosexuality I don't see why those same people get bent out of shape when a partner strays if it is human nature.

Not everyone is fully aware of their sexuality early on. There are plenty of people who don't discover who they really are until later in life, but during that time they may be labeled cheaters or simply feel like something is missing/wrong. Monogamy is how some people function and they are comfortable with that. Others work better in a polygamous setting. Being bi-sexual, I'm actually pretty lucky that the man I'm with makes me feel complete while others may still need a woman's touch to feel fulfilled. In such a case as discovering yourself while already in a relationship, it is your responsibility to discuss your desires with your SO and work together to find a conclusion that works for both parties even if that means ending the relationship.

I don't understand why non-heterosexuality is assumed to mean non-monogamy here. Sexual attraction is separate from sexual activity, it has no bearing on sex drive. Just because the ballplayer indicates that he has sexual attraction to other males does not mean he must immediately stop having sex with his wife and any other woman, and go find men to have wild wooly gaysex with. A person's sexual nature does not dictate any other facet of their nature, and homosexuality does not make a person a cheating evil bastard.

Jorodryn, I don't want to assume anything but your phrasing of the question saying "claimed to be in a person's nature" sounds like it is coming from someone who is struggling to believe homosexuality is not a choice. We could go over what current science says but I think that is a separate discussion. SGM touched on the fact that who you are attracted to is not the same as who you choose to have relations with. One is an integral part of a person's being, the other is an action the person takes. This is the loophole some people cling to when they say they have nothing against gay people as long as they don't commit the "act of homosexuality". Many gay people sleep with the opposite gender to keep up appearances when they are in the closet just as some straight people have sex with the same gender when doing porn (where the term gay-for-pay comes from). In both cases they are choosing to take an action that goes against their nature but it does not change who they are at their cores. Maybe some individuals really are hardwired to always want to sleep with multiple people but they still have to choose whether or not to act upon that desire.

But, (and this is from the male perspective as an example not to exclude the females) if spreading your seed is an integral part of your nature then you will have a tendency to act on it. Yet when someoned does that is frowned upon as cheating or whatever. My point is, if homosexuality is hardwired as part of a person's nature and it is becoming acceptable, why not the seed spreading nature?

A person comes out as gay and current response is, good for him/her. If a person announces they can't settle for one person, it is seen as a character flaw, yet it may just be they are hard wired that way, right?

Sociologically speaking, it wasn't until fairly recently in history that being gay was understood as an identity. A few hundred years ago, homosexuality was a (sinful) thing that people did, not a thing that a person is.* Considering that marriage and childbearing was pretty much socially mandatory, this kind of thinking is not entirely surprising. Today we would say that gay people were forced to live a closeted existence, but back then, people didn't even recognize the existence of the closet.

I think so far, polyamory is not widely socially recognized as an identity. Yes, there are some people who identify as polyamorous, but the general public still thinks of it as "this kinky thing that some people are into" and not an identity.

The number of people who want more than 1 contemporaneous sexual partner > The number of people who call themselves polyamorous.

Those people say they like to play the field. They say they're commitmentphobes. They say they stray. They think of themselves as mostly loyal spouses or partners who just have some extra needs to fulfill once in a while. Even if monogamy isn't in their nature, they don't call themselves polyamorous. They outwardly define themselves by the social standards of monogamy, and others judge them according to those standards. But maybe one day, social norms will shift, and polyamory will become a thing that some people just are.

* I believe the inclination towards homosexuality is largely biological. I also believe gayness as a personal and social identity is a social construct. I do not believe that these two positions are contradictory.

Heck, if someone has multiple partners, it's considered a sexual addiction. Homosexuality also used to be seen as a mental disorder of sorts. I'm just seeing a double standard in the sex department here.

Well, the standard for classifying something as a mental disorder is if it causes the person significant distress and renders them unable to live functionally. So two people can be equally promiscuous, but the one who's happy with it isn't a sex addict, but the one who's miserable is.

As for the double standard - well, social standards change over time and are rarely entirely consistent. Right now, there is a default expectation of monogamy, and those who do not wish to be monogamous have the burden of declaring it so that they do not mislead their partners. And unless a gay person tries to enter into a heterosexual relationship without disclosing their orientation, deception just isn't an issue there.

Edit: Actually I'm not even sure where the alleged double standard is. If you're saying that it's more socially acceptable to be gay than it is to be promiscuous, well maybe? But I don't think that's true even in all of the US. I'm sure there are still plenty of communities in which being gay gets you way more social ostracism than having cheated on your wife. But if the standard is just "Don't lie to your partner(s)", then there isn't a double standard.

You are conflating two things. Having multiple partners may not be to everyone's tastes but it usually isn't considered so bad when it is done openly and honestly. Cheating is a betrayal of trust when one goes beyond the accepted limits of the relationship with someone else. Any kind of betrayal tends to create hurt feelings, especially when of such an intimate nature. Moral of the story, if you want to bounce from bed to bed don't be dishonest to the other person and make them think they are the only one for you.