I've always been faithful in my relationships, but it occurs to me that suprisingly often, males relate to sex the way many females relate to dancing. I realize this is a stretch, but bear with me, and take the parallels for what they're worth.
Men in general have a greater appetite for sex than women do. Men are,comparatively speaking,sexual enthusiasts;women very often participate more frequently than they'd prefer, because their man needs a partner, but expect the man to be proficient, proactive while they remain passive; and if they are not satisfied, they see this as the man's failure to satify them, as opposed to a failure on their own part to be proficient and proactive in the process. Compared to men, they are not enthusiasts to the same degree. They may enjoy sex, but seldom if ever initiate it or take the lead.. They may be glad they allowed themselves to be talked into it. In a Woddy Allen movie, I think it was, a husband is complaining to his analyst about the dearth of sex in his marriage. They have sex only about once a week. Meanwhile, across town,a woman complains to her analyst that her husband demands sex from her constantly. You guessed it, EVERY week. The two are man and wife.
Men are wired to be sexually attracted essentially to any sexually available and reasonably presentable female, regardless of emotional attraction, indeed even to women they actively dislike. Many tragic marriages owe their origin to a sexual attraction that overwhelmed or masked an essential emotional incompatibility, which only became evident after lust had been (temporarily) slaked. Stanley Kowalski and Blanche Du Bois.
During periods of human history during which male mortality was especially high because of the danger associated with hunting and warfare, this predeliction no doubt was instrumental in keeping the species going. If a man had to be emotionally attached to every woman he impregnated, most of those widows would not have borne more children, and without robust procreation, motality would have overwhelmed thespecies.
On the other hand, women are often passionate about dancing the way men commonly are about sports; it is a means by which they experience themselves as actualized and beautiful, expressing themselves through the medium of skillful movement, which we more often find when in the groove in our chosen sports. This would explain Rhythmic Gymnastics and Synchronized Swimming as Olympic events.
Men seldom share this passion for dancing, and participate largely because their woman requires a (preferably) male partner. Absent a male partner, women are often content to dance with other women. You will never see this among straight men. Women will often be more than willing to dance with a man other than their mate, and will do so with men they are unattracted to in any way aside from their physical grace, which is to say, their suitability as a partner in a physical act about which they are passionate,and for which their husband may be an unskilled, reluctant and indifferent partner.
Men are frequently relieved that their mates find someone else to dance with; it takes the pressure off them to participate with their spouse in an activity in which their wives are avid participants. And the wife would consider it silly for their husband to regard their having a frequent dancing partner as infidelity. They will do it with perfect strangers.
Perhaps a closer parallel would be a non-running spouse's attitude toward their husband's or wife's opposite-sex training partner.
This is not to justify sexual infidelity,so much as to provide women with a parallel that they might relate to in terms of mens' ability to have sex with other women without it being emotionally significant to them. And since the harm done by infidelity has to do with the sense of emotional betrayal it implies, this may help draw a useful distinction.