i find such rule to be inherently controlling and coercive. and used to punish abused and neglected partners who find affection elsewhere but can’t leave their relationship due to coersion or fear of homelessness.
Cheating like that should be like “we agreed were both in a diet, but I had a donut that someone brought to the office”, not “you are inherently a horrible human being who deserves to be shamed and hated for seeking human connection”.
If two parties agreed to it under no sense of duress then anyone who betrayed the mutual trust required is making a selfish choice.
If your feelings toward the agreement change you need to have a discussion with the other person.
You can say they’re antiquated for agreeing to it, you can even say that it’s an unrealistic expectation but if it’s consensually agreed to it’s about trust in your partner’s word
i find such rule to be inherently controlling and coercive. and used to punish abused and neglected partners who find affection elsewhere but can’t leave their relationship due to coersion or fear of homelessness.
Cheating like that should be like “we agreed were both in a diet, but I had a donut that someone brought to the office”, not “you are inherently a horrible human being who deserves to be shamed and hated for seeking human connection”.
If two parties agreed to it under no sense of duress then anyone who betrayed the mutual trust required is making a selfish choice.
If your feelings toward the agreement change you need to have a discussion with the other person.
You can say they’re antiquated for agreeing to it, you can even say that it’s an unrealistic expectation but if it’s consensually agreed to it’s about trust in your partner’s word