A 28-year-old woman (OP) was informed by a friend of her boyfriend that he had been unfaithful during a work trip to Utah. The boyfriend, a 29-year-old man, had always identified as straight.
When confronted, the boyfriend admitted to having a one-night stand with a male co-worker but insisted this was not a reflection of his true identity. He claimed that the high altitude in Utah had temporarily altered his brain chemistry, causing him to become ‘gay’ for the duration of the trip. The OP is now confused about whether to end the three-year relationship over the cheating incident, given his unusual explanation.
AITA for not believing my boyfriend that “suddenly became gay” due to “the altitude difference” when he was on a work trip in Utah?
According to Dr. Sloane Ross, a specialist in interpersonal conflict resolution, ‘When one partner reframes a conscious choice as an involuntary physiological response, it is a classic avoidance tactic designed to deflect accountability and manage cognitive dissonance.’
The boyfriend’s assertion that his sexual orientation was temporarily altered by altitude displays a profound misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of sexual identity and agency. Sexual orientation is not a temporary state easily flipped by environmental factors. By blaming ‘accidental brain chemistry,’ he attempts to absolve himself of responsibility for the choice to engage in infidelity, framing himself as a victim of circumstance rather than an actor who violated the relationship contract. This narrative conveniently sidesteps the established boundary of monogamy.
The OP’s confusion is understandable because she is being presented with two conflicting realities: the observable fact of cheating and the boyfriend’s scientifically dubious defense. A healthy relationship requires both parties to acknowledge harm and take ownership of their actions. A potential path forward involves the OP firmly rejecting the altitude defense, focusing solely on the breach of trust, and assessing whether the boyfriend is capable of genuine accountability. If he remains committed to this unsupportable justification, it signals a deeper issue with integrity and conflict management that makes the relationship unsustainable.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The central conflict involves the OP grappling with a clear act of infidelity against the boyfriend’s bizarre, non-apologetic defense that framed his actions as an unavoidable, temporary medical event caused by geography. The boyfriend appears unwilling to accept responsibility, shifting blame to external factors like altitude and accusing the OP of being unreasonable for being upset.
The core question facing the OP is whether the underlying breach of trust, regardless of the reason given, warrants ending a long-term commitment, or if the sheer implausibility and avoidance of accountability make the relationship untenable. Should she accept a scientifically unsupported excuse for cheating, or is this behavior proof that the relationship cannot continue?
