No you don't have a loophole. EVER.

Okay, I hate the argument people make that men need sex and that if they don't get it at home they'll get it elsewhere. That is bullshit. I also hate the (similar) argument that if sex is so unimportant that it's unnecessary to have it with your spouse then it should also be unimportant when they do it with someone else. Both of these arguments are forms of emotional blackmail, usually against women. The basic idea is that if you don't have sex, for whatever reason, then he is completely within his rights to cheat on you. Sometimes the claim is that even if you refuse sex because of illness or disability, he still gets a free pass to fuck around (read this guy's Rule for Cheating). Again, I call bullshit.

Sex is not food, or oxygen, or anything else that human's need to survive. It is not something anyone needs, only something everyone wants. There is a biological urge to have sex, but not a survival instinct. It is insulting to imply to women, or even just outright tell them, that unless they relent with the sex no matter how angry, neglected, sick, dying, hospitalized they may be, you're going to run out and give to some other woman the intimacy and companionship you swore never to give to another woman. And it's just as bad when women do it to men, or men do it to each other. It's a douchey thing no matter who does it. It's emotional blackmail, it's manipulative and controlling, and just saying it makes you an abusive partner even if you never act on it. Even if orgasms were integral to survival, you can do that without cheating. I mean, if guns can go off while being cleaned . . .

There is no loophole. EVER. You don't get to cheat because you got cheated on, or because you're in Vegas, or because your spouse is sick, or hurt, or just too tired. If you absolutely have to go fuck somebody else, finish what you started first and divorce. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too just because you're so self-important that you demand the taste of cake.