The question on everybody’s lips…

After hearing the debate on Kyle and Jackie-O a few mornings ago, it’s been playing on my mind ever since, like an annoying small child jumping up and down screaming until being acknowledged.

Now I know that this topic may be better saved for the married and the middle-aged. but the question is, when you marry someone, and you promise to love them and be faithful to them and only them for the rest of your lives, are you giving up your right to have your needs fulfilled and yourself properly satisfied?

Suddenly if your partner doesn’t feel up to it, you just have to accept it. Gone are the days that you can toddle off and have your naughty way with someone you meet on a Saturday night. After you say “I do” your options go from multiple to just one. And on that one person, you place the responsibility for your off your dreams and your desires.

So when Kyle broached the question, “Is it okay to go elsewhere for satisfaction when you’re not getting any at home?”, ┬áthe feminist inside of me immediately arked up and practically screeched “NO Kyle you silly twat!”, before I piped down and actually thought about it.

Not only do you have to respect your partner’s wishes if they’re not on the same wave length as you (sexually, mentally, whatever), you also have to deal with that. With the fact that sometimes your partner may not always feel like a rough and tumble, and traditionally you can’t just walk out the door and ‘get fulfilled’ just like that.

Or can you?

This is the question I ask you. If you’re not getting any at home, like for an extended period of time, then do you have the right to go elsewhere to fulfill your human urges?

It seems bonkers, but you put all of your desires into this one person, and it can be kind of disheartening when the fire isn’t roaring from both ends can’t it?







What do you think? Is it okay to go elsewhere when your needs aren’t being met?

Do you think the idea is a heinous display of journalism? (From TodayFM, obvs not me guys!)