Humans are more complex than if a then b. Many women are OK with it without being explicitly OK with it. Being faced with it can be humiliating for anyone which is what sets the stage for collapse, not the act itself. So keep it discreet because otherwise a friend of hers will definitely try to cause a problem. For what it's worth, I have a way to make it clear from the outset that I am like that without being explicit. I know it works because she has to confirm it with her words, not mine. If a woman is happy to just be with you and you give her what she needs, it's not remotely the biggest issue in a relationship.

No, I wouldn't be OK with it if it was flipped.

You state yourself exactly the problem with this and many similar situations.

"I may do injury to others, but they may not to me."

From observation, many women are NOT OK with it. They may be not explicitly not OK with it (which of course is wrong too).

A few other thoughts:

Causing injury is fine as long as the recipient, and "most of the world," is unaware? The onus is on the rest of the world not to "cause a problem," and for the recipient to point out that injury is being done, and not on the afflicter not to do injury in the first place? A woman should just be happy to be with you "as long as you give her what she needs," which apparently doesn't include fidelity?

I would be less sure.

1) You're putting words in my mouth.

2) You sound very controlling.

A woman is free to be who she wants to be when she is with me, with the understanding that her fidelity is part of that. Most women want to be monogamous, or at least are serially monogamous. Men are perpetually non-monogamous. I think Dave Chappelle had a bit on this.

1) Nope, just stating what I've seen time and time again to be the case/interpretation of your points. This might not be the case for you, but I do want to point out an alternate perspective that is infrequently given coverage in such threads.

2) Also nope! Sorry if I seem a bit amused now. Controlling implies "You have to do such-and-such and be dominated by me, and I don't have to do such-and-such and be dominated by you." My philosophy is that what I expect from my partner, I follow all the way through myself. There is no power issue, because both contribute equally to the relationship.

I will again point out the seeming contradiction between "I don't need to be faithful; my partner[s] do," or if you don't like that, "Men don't need to be faithful; women do." Perhaps that's not what you intend, but it sure sounds that way.

In terms of "controlling," if you expect fidelity from your partners but not yourself, and if you say that expecting fidelity sounds controlling, that would logically imply you are controlling.

Incidentally, I hope you recognize nothing I've said should be taken as ad hominem attacks. Again, I'm just pointing out how many people might take your points.

There is no contradiction. I am not her and she is not me.

You use too much passive aggressive language for me to seriously consider your points.

Clearly!

My points are straightforward, so perhaps you're reading more deeply than you need.

I understand why you would say their language is passive aggressive though.

It's been an interesting discussion at any rate. Best of luck!

I find it very hard to believe that you take yourself seriously with that sort of outlook on genders.

Your statement so is full of substance, that I have completely changed my worldview based on it.