Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, January 4, 2012
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Monogamish Week, Day 2
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM
A lot of folks were annoyed by one of the letters that appeared in this week's column. Here's the letter:
So I had a four-year affair without getting caught. Here's how I pulled it off: I never told anyone about it ever, I chose a partner who wanted exactly what I wanted, we didn't film ourselves (as hot as that sounded), we used condoms, I kept my computer clear of any evidence, and we never called or texted each other.
Readers are crying foul: this isn't a letter from someone in a successful monogamish relationship, it's a letter from someone who had an affair—and the CPOS got away with it!
First, here's what I wrote my original column calling for letters from the monogamish:
ARE YOU MARRIED? Have you had successful flings, affairs, swinging experiences, and three-ways that your friends and family members will never know about? Send me an e-mail, share your story, and I'll publish it.
Including a letter from someone who had a successful affair didn't violate the spirit of the monogamish column. The point is that there are more people out there in non-monogamous relationships than many-to-most people realize. Included in the numbers of non-realizers, sadly, are people who are in monogamish relationships and don't know/realize it.
And not everyone who cheats on his/her spouse is a CPOS ("cheating piece of shit"). As I've said on many occasions: there are times when having an affair represents the least worst option. In some cases it's better for all involved if the sexually denied/deprived/rejected/resentful partner cheats, stays sane, and stays married than it is for the sexually denied/deprived/rejected/resentful partner to "do the right thing" and divorce his low-to-no libido spouse. It was my opinion—my column, my opinion—that the particular circumstances the LW found himself in constituted one of those times.
And, um, those circumstances were entirely left out of his letter. I cut the letter down to get it into the column and then, after I turned the column in, it was edited again for space considerations. As a result of all that editing, all of the detail and nuance—all of the exonerating evidence—was omitted. That was unfortunate. So the entire and complete letter is after the jump. Judge for yourselves whether this was one of those times when a person could cheat without being CPOS. I think it was.
I've been married for more than 12 years. For the first 6 or so, everything was great. GGG sex on both sides, lots of love, lots of openness. Then my wife's libido failed. At first I suspected an affair on her side, but as smart as she is, her Catholic upbringing made her too guilty a person to ever be a good liar, and her computer skills are questionable, so I quickly figured out that there was nothing to suspect.
We had a lot of discussions about it. Whatever the problem was, she couldn't articulate it. I tried everything in the book—romantic nights out, gifts, thoughtful surprises, not trying to initiate sex for weeks (and months), and hundreds of other things. After a year where we'd had sex just once, I realized I was with a woman who I loved, and who loved me, but whose libido was dead.
Eventually reached out to someone else.
I used Craigslist, and I used it honestly: I said exactly what my situation was, explained that I had no intentions of leaving my wife, and that I was looking for someone in a situation similar to mine. It actually took months to find someone who was not spam, to whom I was attracted, and who had no desire to take a relationship past fuck-buddy status. We struck up a years-long affair, and it was incredible. Some of the best sex of my life. Fantasies fulfilled, honest talk. At the same time, I had a wonderful-yet-sexless marriage going on.
After nearly four years, an interesting thing happened: My wife's libido came back. It came back strong. To this day, she cannot explain why it left her, or why it came back. With the reason for my affair gone, I ended things with my fuck buddy. And you know what? Years of honest talk with my fuck buddy made this easy for both sides. She understood, and we went our separate ways.
So, I had a 4-year affair without getting caught. I pulled this off because:
1. I never told anyone about it. Ever.
2. I chose a partner who wanted exactly what I wanted, and who was not someone I knew socially.
3. I never took stupid risks—we met up when we both had clear time where we weren't jeopardizing our secret.
4. We didn't film ourselves, as hot as it sounded.
5. We used condoms.
6. I kept my computer clear of any evidence.
7. We never called or texted each other.
8. When it ended, we didn't try to keep in touch.Happily Married
2
hmm, i thought that story sounded familiar so i went back and re-read the column. the LW's circumstances ARE included, but the first few words of the second paragraph are in bold, leading readers to assume the paragraphs are from two separate people. one person whose wife had a 5 year hiatus from sex, and one person who had a 4 year affair.
3
... I think it's just unclear that that letter was related to the one above it. Which apparently it is. Right?
4
So adultery without getting caught is also Monogamishit?
What about rape. If you don't get caught is it cool?
What if you rape a child. As long as you don't talk about it and your family and friends don't know is it all good clean fun?
What about rape. If you don't get caught is it cool?
What if you rape a child. As long as you don't talk about it and your family and friends don't know is it all good clean fun?
5
The evidence in the letter suggests this person is a CPOS. That is, there's no reason he couldn't have told his wife that he was thinking of going outside the marriage for sex, and dealt with the consequences. No disabled child, not a one-time mistake, his spouse is neither insane, vindictive, nor seriously ill. He just didn't want to deal with it, so he lied to her for four years straight (and intends to keep lying to her the rest of his life). I honestly don't see why Dan would give this guy a get-out-of-cheating-free card, instead of telling him to be honest and ask for what he wants out of life.
6
I'm still going with CPOS. He still chose to be dishonest to his wife without a reason in which is was the lesser of two evils (leaving a sick spouse or breaking up the home of a disabled child who needs constant care would be greater evils than cheating). Did he do it in a way that minimized the possible damage of his cheating? Yes. But that doesn't excuse violating your partners trust. He says he discussed the libido issues and tried to help her but did they ever discuss non-monogamy? Or did he just assume that with her "catholic upbringing" that she'd say no?
7
@5: there's no reason he couldn't have told his wife that he was thinking of going outside the marriage for sex, and dealt with the consequences.
Who's to say that disclosure would have caused less overall pain and suffering than discretion?
Human history is filled with millions of happy marriages in which one or both of the participants cheated. I think those relationships are just as legitimate as other configurations.
Who's to say that disclosure would have caused less overall pain and suffering than discretion?
Human history is filled with millions of happy marriages in which one or both of the participants cheated. I think those relationships are just as legitimate as other configurations.
9
"the least worst option."
Why oh why do you keep using this phrase?? It's absolutely abominable English. If you wouldn't write "the most best option" (which is equally terrible English) you shouldn't write this either.
Why oh why do you keep using this phrase?? It's absolutely abominable English. If you wouldn't write "the most best option" (which is equally terrible English) you shouldn't write this either.
10
@7 In our culture, we used to lie to people who were dying, but we stopped because it turned out that people prefer to know the truth about their lives, no matter how painful. For most of us, emotional pain is unfortunate, but living a lie is worse.
I'll agree that if your wife wants to know that you only fantasize about her, it's reasonable to lie about other fantasies. If you're very discreet about your porn use, go ahead and lie about that too (though I recommend talking about it instead, and not putting up with any emotional abuse). But once you're involving another person, you can't be confident that your wife won't hear about it, through gossip or vindictiveness.
Really, what's the reason for not telling in a case like the LW? Cowardice, pure and simple.
I'll agree that if your wife wants to know that you only fantasize about her, it's reasonable to lie about other fantasies. If you're very discreet about your porn use, go ahead and lie about that too (though I recommend talking about it instead, and not putting up with any emotional abuse). But once you're involving another person, you can't be confident that your wife won't hear about it, through gossip or vindictiveness.
Really, what's the reason for not telling in a case like the LW? Cowardice, pure and simple.
11
Also - how long did he wait after he started having sex with his wife again, before he cut things off with his lover? Note that he doesn't talk about STI testing, at any point in his list.
12
@10: I disagree that people universally want the truth. In fact, people tell themselves little dozens of little lies everyday to soothe themselves (e.g., "this is only my 3rd glass of wine, that woman across the room is into me, i could have been a rockstar, I'm only 135 pounds, etc.).
I hear what you are saying about trying to live your life honestly, though.
And perhaps it is cowardly to try to prevent someone from being hurt by the truth.
I hear what you are saying about trying to live your life honestly, though.
And perhaps it is cowardly to try to prevent someone from being hurt by the truth.
13
It is very true that, while he maximized his chances, he still got lucky.
I don't know why Mr Savage refers to "all the exonerating evidence" - what strikes me is the gaping hole of how his wife reacted to her vanished libido. I find it hard to believe that she just went about her life for four years having no sex without at least wondering what it was like for him. I'd advise anyone in such a position to initiate the conversation if one possibly can. (Personally, always expecting partners to have much higher libido than I did, I was always ready and had what to say down fairly pat, but for some reason I always found good matches in that department - don't ask me how.)
I don't know why Mr Savage refers to "all the exonerating evidence" - what strikes me is the gaping hole of how his wife reacted to her vanished libido. I find it hard to believe that she just went about her life for four years having no sex without at least wondering what it was like for him. I'd advise anyone in such a position to initiate the conversation if one possibly can. (Personally, always expecting partners to have much higher libido than I did, I was always ready and had what to say down fairly pat, but for some reason I always found good matches in that department - don't ask me how.)
14
This guy is about as much of a CPOS as fire is cold.
There was a year when they had sex ONCE. One day out of 365. After that, NOTHING for four YEARS.
That would be 1,460 days without sex.
Stop and let that one sink in. 1,460 days.
The guy tried everything he could think of, the wife offered no help or advice whatsoever.
Rather than pressuring her further or leaving somebody he loved, he had his needs seen to elsewhere. Rather than running off with the other woman he just let her go as soon as his wife started acting like a fully functional human being again.
How is that bad? The wife wasn't hurt, the husband stayed sane, and the 3rd party didn't become a problem.
If I ever senselessly denied my boyfriend sex for 1,460 days, I would be singlehandedly shoving him into another woman's arms. That just IS what happens.
We can whine about it, or we can take responsibility for the needs of our partners.
There was a year when they had sex ONCE. One day out of 365. After that, NOTHING for four YEARS.
That would be 1,460 days without sex.
Stop and let that one sink in. 1,460 days.
The guy tried everything he could think of, the wife offered no help or advice whatsoever.
Rather than pressuring her further or leaving somebody he loved, he had his needs seen to elsewhere. Rather than running off with the other woman he just let her go as soon as his wife started acting like a fully functional human being again.
How is that bad? The wife wasn't hurt, the husband stayed sane, and the 3rd party didn't become a problem.
If I ever senselessly denied my boyfriend sex for 1,460 days, I would be singlehandedly shoving him into another woman's arms. That just IS what happens.
We can whine about it, or we can take responsibility for the needs of our partners.
16
LW's certainly got a good utilitarian justification for his actions. No one was hurt, his sexual frustration was abated, and pleasure was had (by multiple parties, no less) without apparent guilt. Utility achieved. Justification along Kantian and Virtue ethical lines is murky at best, but a consequentialist approach would hold LW's actions to be morally permissable (and, if not moral, then at least not immoral). There are and have been a host of ethicists who would see no issue with what he did.
If Dan fails to look down on LW, he is in good company.
If Dan fails to look down on LW, he is in good company.
17
It seems that the husband had a "monogamish" relationship, while the wife had a platonic relationship. Since the spouses probably had different takes on the subject, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the overall relationship was "monogamish".
That said, the guy was a CPOS because he was too cowardly to address the issue head on and give the wife an ultimatum: have regular, involved sex or allow him to get his sexual needs met elsewhere. If she couldn't stand either option, then he would be perfectly entitled to leave the relationship.
Lastly, I have two questions:
1) Why would anyone's sex drive kick off for four years and then "come back strong"? I find this hard to both comprehend and accept.
2) How can a relationship like that survive for four years?
That said, the guy was a CPOS because he was too cowardly to address the issue head on and give the wife an ultimatum: have regular, involved sex or allow him to get his sexual needs met elsewhere. If she couldn't stand either option, then he would be perfectly entitled to leave the relationship.
Lastly, I have two questions:
1) Why would anyone's sex drive kick off for four years and then "come back strong"? I find this hard to both comprehend and accept.
2) How can a relationship like that survive for four years?
18
@17, if neither partner wanted the relationship to end, which seems to have been the case, why would he pose such an ultimatum? Because both of them must value the Truth above feelings or consequences? Why should that be? If he valued his relationship with his wife more than truth, but was unable to live a more or less celibate life out of faith, what should have compelled him to force a seemingly relationship breaking decision upon his wife?
If he was happy to break her trust or take the easy way out, he wouldn't have made what efforts he did at salvaging their sex life. When those didn't work, and considering that the ultimatum you suggest probably didn't seem like a good or viable option to him, what places trust and truth above everything in the relationship? You might say these are the foundations of a healthy relationship, but his reportedly loving marriage appears to be in decent shape despite his having broken her trust in this matter. So, clearly, their relationship does not hinge on his not having cheated or not having done some certain things which she seemingly would not have consented to. Perhaps it hinges on her not knowing of these matters, but LW seems to have handled that alright, short of writing to Dan anonymously.
It is not clear that he made a cowardly decision. Perhaps he made the best decision he could under the circumstances for both he and his wife. If it was a thought out and justified course of action (which took into account his needs, his wife's feelings, and their attachment to eachother) is it cowardly because he avoided an unnecessary and roundly undesirable confrontation likely to cause suffering for all parties involved? If so, I wonder how you can consider any attempt to stem suffering anything but cowardice, and if that's a problem for you, I suggest you may turn your stove on high and leave your face atop it or live your life a coward.
More...
If he was happy to break her trust or take the easy way out, he wouldn't have made what efforts he did at salvaging their sex life. When those didn't work, and considering that the ultimatum you suggest probably didn't seem like a good or viable option to him, what places trust and truth above everything in the relationship? You might say these are the foundations of a healthy relationship, but his reportedly loving marriage appears to be in decent shape despite his having broken her trust in this matter. So, clearly, their relationship does not hinge on his not having cheated or not having done some certain things which she seemingly would not have consented to. Perhaps it hinges on her not knowing of these matters, but LW seems to have handled that alright, short of writing to Dan anonymously.
It is not clear that he made a cowardly decision. Perhaps he made the best decision he could under the circumstances for both he and his wife. If it was a thought out and justified course of action (which took into account his needs, his wife's feelings, and their attachment to eachother) is it cowardly because he avoided an unnecessary and roundly undesirable confrontation likely to cause suffering for all parties involved? If so, I wonder how you can consider any attempt to stem suffering anything but cowardice, and if that's a problem for you, I suggest you may turn your stove on high and leave your face atop it or live your life a coward.
19
@7 you have no idea of the pain and humiliation that comes when a person whom you love looks you in the eye and repeatedly lies to you about his fidelity. He is a selfish and manipulative coward, plain and simple. Be honest and expect honesty in return. Say what you want and then be honest in your reaction to your partner's response. Absolutely he should not have his sexual desires ignored. Neither should his partner's possible desire for a faithful spouse be ignored. How does one trump the other? He just unilaterally decided -- she is denied the opportunity to live in an honest marraige. He is a CPOS.
21
@19, you seem to think all people who cheat are pieces of shit, in which case, you don't have to call him a CPOS. Just call him a cheater.
But I wonder. In questioning how one might trump the other, you seem to equate the maxims 'he should not have his sexual desires ignored' and 'his partner's possible desire for a faithful spouse [should not] be ignored'. Does this mean you think his wife is a piece of shit as well? If so, mightn't they deserve eachother? If not, then you (a person unrelated to and untouched by the events in question) have already decided which one trumps the other. And, if you are capable of doing so, why shouldn't LW be, too?
But I wonder. In questioning how one might trump the other, you seem to equate the maxims 'he should not have his sexual desires ignored' and 'his partner's possible desire for a faithful spouse [should not] be ignored'. Does this mean you think his wife is a piece of shit as well? If so, mightn't they deserve eachother? If not, then you (a person unrelated to and untouched by the events in question) have already decided which one trumps the other. And, if you are capable of doing so, why shouldn't LW be, too?
22
Ah! As most reading it suspected, those two entries that annoyed folks in the column this week were actually the same letter.
Hmm, I dunno, Dan. I missed the part in your seeking of monogamish letter solicitation where you said to write in if you have "affairs". Thus I'm vexed about a word you (and/or a SL reader, I dunno) came up with: that's not what I understood it to mean.
I grant you that this guy seems like a less-shitty cheater. Definitely if you'd solicited for letters on how to get away w/ an affair & not tell your spouse about it, his letter should be on the top of the pile. But whereas those details might exonerate him from cheating for understandable reasons, maybe, it still doesn't make him monogamish.
What I thought monogamish meant: not all the way monogamous, not quite all the way open/poly. It would cover anything from freely ogling/commenting about this or that hot person to each other, to flirting with others, to making out or even the occasional approved-of booty call; birthday sex 3-ways, whatever. BUT, both partners knew or were in on it. Going behind your partner's back - even if your S.O. is sick or their libido disappears - is cheating, not monogamish. Whether it's mostly-seemingly-ethical, non POS cheating or not, still cheating.
& if you open things up all the time, or even have a regular other, besides your main partner, that would seem to be to be poly or open, not monogamish.
I've been going to bat for the idea of "monogamish" amongst my friends group. I don't support cheating, though, & cases like the LW's are gonna be rare. Will stop talking up monogamish 'til we suss out what it means.
Hmm, I dunno, Dan. I missed the part in your seeking of monogamish letter solicitation where you said to write in if you have "affairs". Thus I'm vexed about a word you (and/or a SL reader, I dunno) came up with: that's not what I understood it to mean.
I grant you that this guy seems like a less-shitty cheater. Definitely if you'd solicited for letters on how to get away w/ an affair & not tell your spouse about it, his letter should be on the top of the pile. But whereas those details might exonerate him from cheating for understandable reasons, maybe, it still doesn't make him monogamish.
What I thought monogamish meant: not all the way monogamous, not quite all the way open/poly. It would cover anything from freely ogling/commenting about this or that hot person to each other, to flirting with others, to making out or even the occasional approved-of booty call; birthday sex 3-ways, whatever. BUT, both partners knew or were in on it. Going behind your partner's back - even if your S.O. is sick or their libido disappears - is cheating, not monogamish. Whether it's mostly-seemingly-ethical, non POS cheating or not, still cheating.
& if you open things up all the time, or even have a regular other, besides your main partner, that would seem to be to be poly or open, not monogamish.
I've been going to bat for the idea of "monogamish" amongst my friends group. I don't support cheating, though, & cases like the LW's are gonna be rare. Will stop talking up monogamish 'til we suss out what it means.
23
Also, @19 if you think your being unrelated to and untouched by the events allows you to be impartial where LW could not have been, we may replace Dan's judgment for LW's regarding whether or not what LW did was permissable or excusable.
24
@9: "Least worst option" had become an idiomatic expression. It communicates a very specific idea and is effective at it.
25
@24: there's already a phrase for the idea "least worst" is supposed to communicate: "least bad."
26
@18: I appreciate your putting forth the idea that for some people, truth is not a value that trumps all others -- that some people may value their relationship, or their partner's mental well being, over Truth. Knowing when to be completely truthful, when to withhold information, and when to tell white lies (*I only fantasize about
you*) in order to maintain the healthiest, happiest relationship is a hard realm to negotiate.... and sometimes smoke and mirrors can be incredibly sexy... some people are comfortable taking a shit in front of their partners, but that is something I hope my partner will never see me do.
I can't call the LW a CPOS from just the info written in his letter, but I can't say he did the right thing, either -- I'm sure his situation was as complicated as any, and we know very little about his wife's personality, her life experiences, etc. But I think it is very possible that his having an affair and keeping it completely secret from his wife saved their marriage and could have prevented much suffering on both their parts -- which, IMO, is always the ethical choice.
you*) in order to maintain the healthiest, happiest relationship is a hard realm to negotiate.... and sometimes smoke and mirrors can be incredibly sexy... some people are comfortable taking a shit in front of their partners, but that is something I hope my partner will never see me do.
I can't call the LW a CPOS from just the info written in his letter, but I can't say he did the right thing, either -- I'm sure his situation was as complicated as any, and we know very little about his wife's personality, her life experiences, etc. But I think it is very possible that his having an affair and keeping it completely secret from his wife saved their marriage and could have prevented much suffering on both their parts -- which, IMO, is always the ethical choice.
28
@26, you're absolutely right that we cannot know the whole story. I try to be charitable in my reading of the situation because I cannot know all about it. Of course, a harsher assessment might be appropriate in this case (or any other). Hell, every LW could be holding back deeply incriminating evidence, or wholly fabricating their experiences. But taking that level of doubt seriously renders any conversation on the letter moot. So, again, I try to be charitable.
So, I can't say he did the right thing, but I take from the given information that he seems to have done so.
So, I can't say he did the right thing, but I take from the given information that he seems to have done so.
29
@28: I hope you understood that I agree with your points, and I enjoyed reading your comments; my second paragraph, about not being able to make a definitive judgment of the LW, was directed more at those who are calling him a CPOS.
30
It's really wonderful that they had "discussions" about her failing libido (but of course, not his desire to cheat)...and discussions are a great way to deal with things that can be dealt with simply by talking...however...no where does he mention that she saw her doctor. The failing libido could have been a medical problem, and frankly, I am surprised that Dan didn't seem to notice that omission...
31
#30 my thoughts exactly. seems like a hormonal medical issue, if it just "went away" and then "came back" 4 years later. or else she secretly resented the hell out of him and couldn't stand for him to touch her, but that would be projecting, wouldn't it? LOL ;-)
32
@18: It took ma a while to digest what you wrote...much of which is utter nonsense.
Obviously, the wife didn't want the relationship to end as it was four years ago. Apparently, the LW had an issue, and resolved it the way that he did. If he had been forthright with the wife, perhaps she would have wanted the relationship to end.
I'm not advocating that we place the "Truth" above all things, but it is decidedly healthy in an adult relationship for a spouse to grant his/her mate an equal degree of regard and respect...and this requires that the spouse be fully informed of all the facts. If you want to get all philosophical and shit, Sartre would say that you employ good faith and treat the spouse as a Being-For-Itself, and not a Being-In-Itself.
You are using very poor logic, as you: 1) assume that the wife is not amenable to compromise; 2) create a false dichotomy by creating only two possible outcomes to the situation. This means that your assumption that giving her an ultimatum was not a viable option is faulty, not to mention being quite convenient for the husband and also removing the wife from consideration. Not giving the wife (who is an equal partner in the relationship) any agency is really a shitty thing to do. Ergo, the guy is a CPOS.
You say that their "relationship has survived despite his having broken her trust in this matter" when she does not know that her trust has been broken! Wow, what a paradox! Is it possible to break a person's trust if they don't actually know that you have broken their trust? Won't they still trust you? Wow, so deep there!
And from this astounding piece of logical fallacy, you say: "So, clearly, their relationship does not hinge on his not having cheated or not having done some certain things which she seemingly would not have consented to." Oh, yes, so clear. But now we know that you are jerking everybody's chain and wasting everyone's time. So, see ya...and go back and have fun masturbating with your rhetoric next semester in Philosophy 102...
If you can't be sincere, don't bother. Even SeattleBlues is sincere in what he says, if a total douche bag.
In your last paragraph you actually get down to your point: "Perhaps he made the best decision he could under the circumstances for both he and his wife." There is your problem, boyo. If you believe you can go around making decisions FOR other people (without their knowledge, input and consent), then where does that put you?
I'll tell you...
When you're creating a hierarchy of your subjective normative values (when you actually get a clue), in the ethical domain (as opposed to the aesthetic domain) you will put "giving others agency" right up there. If you don't, well then FU and have fun relating with others when you're older.
More...
Obviously, the wife didn't want the relationship to end as it was four years ago. Apparently, the LW had an issue, and resolved it the way that he did. If he had been forthright with the wife, perhaps she would have wanted the relationship to end.
I'm not advocating that we place the "Truth" above all things, but it is decidedly healthy in an adult relationship for a spouse to grant his/her mate an equal degree of regard and respect...and this requires that the spouse be fully informed of all the facts. If you want to get all philosophical and shit, Sartre would say that you employ good faith and treat the spouse as a Being-For-Itself, and not a Being-In-Itself.
You are using very poor logic, as you: 1) assume that the wife is not amenable to compromise; 2) create a false dichotomy by creating only two possible outcomes to the situation. This means that your assumption that giving her an ultimatum was not a viable option is faulty, not to mention being quite convenient for the husband and also removing the wife from consideration. Not giving the wife (who is an equal partner in the relationship) any agency is really a shitty thing to do. Ergo, the guy is a CPOS.
You say that their "relationship has survived despite his having broken her trust in this matter" when she does not know that her trust has been broken! Wow, what a paradox! Is it possible to break a person's trust if they don't actually know that you have broken their trust? Won't they still trust you? Wow, so deep there!
And from this astounding piece of logical fallacy, you say: "So, clearly, their relationship does not hinge on his not having cheated or not having done some certain things which she seemingly would not have consented to." Oh, yes, so clear. But now we know that you are jerking everybody's chain and wasting everyone's time. So, see ya...and go back and have fun masturbating with your rhetoric next semester in Philosophy 102...
If you can't be sincere, don't bother. Even SeattleBlues is sincere in what he says, if a total douche bag.
In your last paragraph you actually get down to your point: "Perhaps he made the best decision he could under the circumstances for both he and his wife." There is your problem, boyo. If you believe you can go around making decisions FOR other people (without their knowledge, input and consent), then where does that put you?
I'll tell you...
When you're creating a hierarchy of your subjective normative values (when you actually get a clue), in the ethical domain (as opposed to the aesthetic domain) you will put "giving others agency" right up there. If you don't, well then FU and have fun relating with others when you're older.
33
I really hope that the wife was fucking the shit out of some 23 year old hard body pool boy for that 4 years. At least then, they'd be on equal footing.
34
There sure are a lot of people willing to excuse this piece of shit cheater. Not all cheaters are pieces of shit; some have good reasons for their lies. (see @5, @6). If we let every guy who says "Ooh, I'm sparing her pain" not call himself a CPOS -- that's pretty much every fucking cheater in the world. Granted, he used condoms. So he's not an idiot. Still a CPOS.
Now, I'm not saying that's a crime. But as someone who was cheated on & lied to -- I'll take truth and pain over lies and more lies every day of the week.
His marriage is fine now because his wife hasn't yet got herpes from him. When she does (and since he got away with it so well right now, he'll be back to the same tricks before you know it)... then where will he be with his pretty defenses against getting caught?
If you want to build a strong marriage that can withstand some sexual droughts, pick someone open-minded, talk about these issues, and open up your marriage. Or accept the label CPOS and do what you want.
Now, I'm not saying that's a crime. But as someone who was cheated on & lied to -- I'll take truth and pain over lies and more lies every day of the week.
His marriage is fine now because his wife hasn't yet got herpes from him. When she does (and since he got away with it so well right now, he'll be back to the same tricks before you know it)... then where will he be with his pretty defenses against getting caught?
If you want to build a strong marriage that can withstand some sexual droughts, pick someone open-minded, talk about these issues, and open up your marriage. Or accept the label CPOS and do what you want.
36
The LW is only "Happily Married" because he humped his way through a tough time. People need to Grow The Fuck Up. Sex isn't everything, and you can sex yourself. You can still bring home a disease, even with a condom. And no matter how careful you are, you could get caught. The wife would be horrified and humiliated if she ever found out - like by reading this column. It happens.
37
It's your call Dan, but I still don't think people with successful affairs should be included in the ranks of the monogamish.
My definition of being monogamish is being in a mostly exclusive relationship, but with a certain degree of freedom agreed to by both partners. This is morally unambiguous as far as I'm concerned, because mutual consent is involved.
Does your definition of monogamish include people who occasionally cheat but get away with it? That's the impression I get from putting people with successful affairs under the banner of "Monogamish Week". Now, I'm not saying there are absolutely no conditions under which cheating is justified, but I have to strongly dissent on the matter on cheaters, even "good" cheaters, being included within the monogamish/open. It's bad enough dealing with folks who think people in such relationships are just promiscuous cheaters who want to pretty up their image without muddying the waters with actual, bona-fide cheaters, no matter how loving and justified.
My definition of being monogamish is being in a mostly exclusive relationship, but with a certain degree of freedom agreed to by both partners. This is morally unambiguous as far as I'm concerned, because mutual consent is involved.
Does your definition of monogamish include people who occasionally cheat but get away with it? That's the impression I get from putting people with successful affairs under the banner of "Monogamish Week". Now, I'm not saying there are absolutely no conditions under which cheating is justified, but I have to strongly dissent on the matter on cheaters, even "good" cheaters, being included within the monogamish/open. It's bad enough dealing with folks who think people in such relationships are just promiscuous cheaters who want to pretty up their image without muddying the waters with actual, bona-fide cheaters, no matter how loving and justified.
38
Just as a hypothetical for people who think he's a POS... if he'd been seeing the same professional for 4 years, would you feel the same way? Because that's how I see his fuckbuddy, and since I don't know his wife, I'm not really sure what I would've done in his situation.
39
Why does everyone assume LW lied to the wife? Maybe after she stopped putting out and he stopped bugging her for it they just didn't talk about it again. She knew he had a need for sexual activity that she couldn't be bothered to meet. I mean, seriously, how hard is it to suck or fuck someone you "love" occasionally, for their sake, even if you have no interest? Wife was probably happy he quit bugging her and didn't want to know what LW was up to as long as it was discreet.
40
@2, yes, that threw me off, too. I suppose it was a simple editorial mistake.
Now, whether or not the person in question is a CPOS... Here's the problem, to me, and I'd be interested in other people's opinions, including Dan's. (Maybe you've already discussed it in the comments above, I haven't gone through them yet).
The LW decided to have a successful affair -- and pulled this off -- because his wife's libido suddenly ebbed, leaving his needs uncared for. This is good motivation. But he didn't get his wife's permission. This is a red flag.
The letter doesn't conclusively state that he tried to get it; maybe he did ask her and she freaked out, or imposed impossible conditions, or... In other words, maybe she was the kind of partner who both wants sex to mean nothing ('our relationship is so much more than sex, isn't it') but won't let her partner get this meaningless nothing elsewhere ('you have to stay faithful to me!'); the kind of meanness that Dan has claimed, in similar situations, to justify cheating.
So -- is this a sine qua non? Is the LW a CPOS if he didn't ask his wife permission but simply assumed he wouldn't get it ('I'm sure she would freak out') and went on with his well-planned affair? Or isn't he -- i.e., is his presumption that she would freak out and be mean sufficient? I fear a slippery slope here.
Now, whether or not the person in question is a CPOS... Here's the problem, to me, and I'd be interested in other people's opinions, including Dan's. (Maybe you've already discussed it in the comments above, I haven't gone through them yet).
The LW decided to have a successful affair -- and pulled this off -- because his wife's libido suddenly ebbed, leaving his needs uncared for. This is good motivation. But he didn't get his wife's permission. This is a red flag.
The letter doesn't conclusively state that he tried to get it; maybe he did ask her and she freaked out, or imposed impossible conditions, or... In other words, maybe she was the kind of partner who both wants sex to mean nothing ('our relationship is so much more than sex, isn't it') but won't let her partner get this meaningless nothing elsewhere ('you have to stay faithful to me!'); the kind of meanness that Dan has claimed, in similar situations, to justify cheating.
So -- is this a sine qua non? Is the LW a CPOS if he didn't ask his wife permission but simply assumed he wouldn't get it ('I'm sure she would freak out') and went on with his well-planned affair? Or isn't he -- i.e., is his presumption that she would freak out and be mean sufficient? I fear a slippery slope here.
41
Well, on the scale of the morality of affairs, it's definitely not the worst it can get, but still..
As someone already said, all cheaters justify themselves with this kind of excuses.
And he had an other possibility, one he knew but decided not to use: asking. Which would have given the wife to possibility to chose for herself. If he respected her as a adult, he should have given her this choice. Maybe she would have said "If your were cheating I wouldn't want to know" "I'd prefer you to leave than that" or maybe she would have said yes under conditions. Hell, maybe her seeing other people would have woken up her libido! But he chose for her, so we'll never know.
Though I understand the concept that sleeping with someone else while taking care of your four children and your spouse with lock-in syndrome doesn't make you a piece of shit, the definition seems to widen with every example. She wasn't sick, LW speak of no children, no reason to think she would have gone homeless in case of divorce, one of the usual reasons you invoke to justify it. So what? Because he was very discrete it does not matter?
As someone already said, all cheaters justify themselves with this kind of excuses.
And he had an other possibility, one he knew but decided not to use: asking. Which would have given the wife to possibility to chose for herself. If he respected her as a adult, he should have given her this choice. Maybe she would have said "If your were cheating I wouldn't want to know" "I'd prefer you to leave than that" or maybe she would have said yes under conditions. Hell, maybe her seeing other people would have woken up her libido! But he chose for her, so we'll never know.
Though I understand the concept that sleeping with someone else while taking care of your four children and your spouse with lock-in syndrome doesn't make you a piece of shit, the definition seems to widen with every example. She wasn't sick, LW speak of no children, no reason to think she would have gone homeless in case of divorce, one of the usual reasons you invoke to justify it. So what? Because he was very discrete it does not matter?
42
I also question why no mention of seeing a doctor, counselor or sex therapist? I've enjoyed how Dan has had experts on the podcast lately, and would like to hear from one about these issues--libido changing that drastically in a marriage, and also counseling couples through opening up a marriage as one option.
43
As I expected, the discussion above had already become interesting. Thanks to all who contributed on the is-truth-always-important discussion (especially Post_Mortem) for good, well-reasoned arguments!
I don't think that the question 'does Truth trumps consequences' is merely objective. After all, it depends on which truth, and which consequences. If you want, it's the Matrix all over again: "should the LW have told the truth to his wife?" is equivalent to "would you take the red pill, or the blue pill?"
So, rather than trying to justify the LW's decision with an a priori ethics, be it Kantian or Benthamist, I will play the pragmatic/experimental game and ask people how they feel about being told the truth. Here are two questions:
(a) If you were the wife in the LW's situation, would you, personally, rather know the truth and deal with whatever bad consequences would follow (including the end of an otherwise happy relationship), or would you rather not know?
(b) Regardless of your answer to (a), are there any situations in which you would rather not know the truth? Or do you always want to know the truth, no matter what consequences there are? Would you always choose either the blue pill, or the red pill, or are there situations in which you'd choose one or the other -- and why?
My answers:
(a) I would rather know the truth, even if it destroyed my happiness. I have a truth fetish.
(b) I can't think of any situation in which I would rather not know the truth. In fact, if I even suspect that what I believe to be the truth about my situation in life is not really true, I would make all efforts to find out -- the doubt would keep eating me from inside. I do have a truth fetish, I think.
What do y'all say, for yourselves?
More...
I don't think that the question 'does Truth trumps consequences' is merely objective. After all, it depends on which truth, and which consequences. If you want, it's the Matrix all over again: "should the LW have told the truth to his wife?" is equivalent to "would you take the red pill, or the blue pill?"
So, rather than trying to justify the LW's decision with an a priori ethics, be it Kantian or Benthamist, I will play the pragmatic/experimental game and ask people how they feel about being told the truth. Here are two questions:
(a) If you were the wife in the LW's situation, would you, personally, rather know the truth and deal with whatever bad consequences would follow (including the end of an otherwise happy relationship), or would you rather not know?
(b) Regardless of your answer to (a), are there any situations in which you would rather not know the truth? Or do you always want to know the truth, no matter what consequences there are? Would you always choose either the blue pill, or the red pill, or are there situations in which you'd choose one or the other -- and why?
My answers:
(a) I would rather know the truth, even if it destroyed my happiness. I have a truth fetish.
(b) I can't think of any situation in which I would rather not know the truth. In fact, if I even suspect that what I believe to be the truth about my situation in life is not really true, I would make all efforts to find out -- the doubt would keep eating me from inside. I do have a truth fetish, I think.
What do y'all say, for yourselves?
44
An example of a non-relationship related situation for (b) in my post above is what EricaP mentioned above: if you were going to die from a terminal illness, would you want to be told that (and deal with all the grief and emotional pain), or would you rather be told that there still is hope?
We all understand that 'always telling the truth' would be bad (so there are good reasons to lie) much better when we think we're the ones lying for a good cause. But how do we feel when we are the ones being lied to for a good cause? That is what I'd find interesting to know.
We all understand that 'always telling the truth' would be bad (so there are good reasons to lie) much better when we think we're the ones lying for a good cause. But how do we feel when we are the ones being lied to for a good cause? That is what I'd find interesting to know.
45
Difficult, very difficult to go with CPOS or not here. I appreciate Dan's point, and on some level I think more middle aged women who experience libido problems should be given a break instead of feeling like bad wives (it's common enough and not just experienced by women close to menopause, those hormonal changes develop over several years, and I wouldn't be surprised if this wife's libido left and came back for those purely biological reasons). However, if it were me I would never trust my husband again, and I would have wanted to know. But, I have friends who have been cheated on and wish they didn't have to know, and I think that's fair too. What would have completely exonerated this husband for me is if he at least tried to discuss non-monogamy, and he doesn't say he did that. Perhaps his wife never would accept it, but I agree with other commenters that it's hard to believe she didn't at least wonder what was going on.
46
@41(Kyrie), you bring up an important point: 'the definition (of CPOS vs. legitimate cheating) seems to widen with every example.'
One of the main problems of any system of ethics is that reality is not simple; its granulation is too fine; and no matter what particular features of a situation you want to see as the crucial ones, the ones to base your decision of where to draw the line on, there's always some real-life situation that will make a decision based on these features feel unfair.
As a professor I respect once told me in grad school (though he was talking about linguistics), life is dangerous. There are no guarantees that any system will always get you good results. You're always taking a risk.
The CPOS-vs.-legitimate-cheating distinction makes sense, even though in practice it may not always be clear what you're dealing with, and even though it is sadly true that many a CPOS will try to claim the highest and noblest motives for his CPOS-ness, basing themselves precisely in the murky, non-obvious cases. Yes, that's true.
Life is dangerous.
One of the main problems of any system of ethics is that reality is not simple; its granulation is too fine; and no matter what particular features of a situation you want to see as the crucial ones, the ones to base your decision of where to draw the line on, there's always some real-life situation that will make a decision based on these features feel unfair.
As a professor I respect once told me in grad school (though he was talking about linguistics), life is dangerous. There are no guarantees that any system will always get you good results. You're always taking a risk.
The CPOS-vs.-legitimate-cheating distinction makes sense, even though in practice it may not always be clear what you're dealing with, and even though it is sadly true that many a CPOS will try to claim the highest and noblest motives for his CPOS-ness, basing themselves precisely in the murky, non-obvious cases. Yes, that's true.
Life is dangerous.
47
Count me among the crowd calling this guy a CPOS. Unless there's consent from the spouse, ANY sex outside the relationship is cheating - and his complete deception really does make him a piece of shit. If he'd asked and been given permission it would've been a different story.
48
In response to ankylosaur's b) question- if you are in an honestly non-monogamous situation and your partner asks if they're better in bed than your non-primary outside-relationship partners the loving thing to do is assure them that they are, regardless of the truth! =] Unless there's something you did outside the relationship that you really want to do with your partner and haven't previously discussed, in the spirit of GGG openness.
49
@17 - some women who are serially pregnant, or with babies and toddlers who have no sleep, changing body image, new responsibilities can go years with low/no libido. There is no mention of children or what stage of their marriage they are in. I wonder if that was the case. I would have appreciated, as the spouse, knowing how desperate the situation had gotten and been able to participate in the decision. Maybe the wife would have tried harder/seen a Dr/changed something drastic in their lifestyle to try and get things back on track. Or maybe she would have appreciated the chance to try an affair of her own. By not telling her, she assumed he was comfortable with their arrangement. Or she knew, and never said anything to him. It's rare that a partner doesn't sense at least something is amiss....
50
That level of discretion, keeping his mouth shut for that long, and letting go of the affair when his wife's libido came back around ... that shows a deep respect for his wife and his marriage. That's love.
51
If he'd had his wife's permission for the affair, then it would have been monogamish. Since he didn't, it's just smarter-than-usual cheating.
52
I don't know whether I'd want to know about the affair in a situation like this. But I do know that if my libido was suddenly gone, I wouldn't expect my husband to do all the work. I would do everything I could to bring it back, and if I realized it was probably gone indefinitely/forever, I would be the one to start the conversation about opening up the relationship. I would never expect or pretend that my husband now had to live without sex because I no longer wanted it. So, IMO, this woman deserved this.
53
LW makes no mention of any reason wife quit putting out other than lack of interest (such as it being excruciatingly painful) or any attempts on her part to do anything about the situation. Also, reading between the lines it sounds like wife may be someone who does not like to discuss things, so asking for permission, seeing a therapist, etc. may not have been viable options.
54
EricaP:
I respect your opinion but would you characterize the LW's wife as faithful? Your anger seems to be solely focused on the LW. Mr. V got it right: What was she thinking and doing as a loving spouse during this long dry spell?
If we demand that the LW ask for permission (don't be a coward, LW, ask her!), then shouldn't we equally demand that Mrs. LW offer permission? If he can't be excused for cheating because she has no illness etc., then equally she can't be excused for doing nothing because she has no illness etc.
I understand the merits of living honestly but is there no situation in which you make a unilateral decision in your marriage because you understand what's best while your spouse is not currently of a mind to see it? Many times I have found myself living the honest life only to wind up in "I told you so" territory.(I don't actually say that to her though)
I respect your opinion but would you characterize the LW's wife as faithful? Your anger seems to be solely focused on the LW. Mr. V got it right: What was she thinking and doing as a loving spouse during this long dry spell?
If we demand that the LW ask for permission (don't be a coward, LW, ask her!), then shouldn't we equally demand that Mrs. LW offer permission? If he can't be excused for cheating because she has no illness etc., then equally she can't be excused for doing nothing because she has no illness etc.
I understand the merits of living honestly but is there no situation in which you make a unilateral decision in your marriage because you understand what's best while your spouse is not currently of a mind to see it? Many times I have found myself living the honest life only to wind up in "I told you so" territory.(I don't actually say that to her though)
55
I'm still going with CPOS. In my opinion, after all the trying to make it work with his wife, when he finally accepted the reality that it wasn't going to work, he should have sat down with her and said that he needed to go outside the marriage that he would like her to agree to an open relationship. It sounds like he didn't even give her the chance to consent, he just went and did it anyway - CPOS.
56
This case seems to me to be on the line - in an ethical grey area between acceptable and unacceptable. These are the cases which help us define the boundaries of ethics.
So no, I don't think a glib, reflexive "he is a cpos" is warranted, and I am surprised that some of the usually thoughtful posters jumped to that conclusion as if it were obvious. I think reasonable people can disagree on this one. My personal feeling is akin to Dan's; this may have been an acceptible solution for this couple's unique circumstances. As a practical matter, it seems to have turned out that way, but of course the practical cannot inform the ethical without leading to an "end justifies the means" begging of the ethical question.
Tough call. needs more facts. But on what we have, I say barely okay.
So no, I don't think a glib, reflexive "he is a cpos" is warranted, and I am surprised that some of the usually thoughtful posters jumped to that conclusion as if it were obvious. I think reasonable people can disagree on this one. My personal feeling is akin to Dan's; this may have been an acceptible solution for this couple's unique circumstances. As a practical matter, it seems to have turned out that way, but of course the practical cannot inform the ethical without leading to an "end justifies the means" begging of the ethical question.
Tough call. needs more facts. But on what we have, I say barely okay.
57
I have been wondering a lot about different-libido problems recently. I am blessed with a reasonably well-matched partner and on top of that we have an agreement that we will try our hardest to always say yes to each other even if we're not really feeling it. But I have been in a poorly-libido-matched relationship in the past and it was terrible. Dan has been known to advise that couples talk it through and find some sort of compromise frequency and commenters usually support that idea; I started to wonder recently whether that has ever worked.
I try to imagine what it would have been like if my ex had said, "Well, we can have sex once a week but that is already more often than I want so no more than that." It would have been better than once a month for sure - but how long can that kind of relationship really last? The thought of years or decades of constant sexual frustration is just deadening. It is fine for me to go for a while with once-a-week sex, but at the end of that period I might want or actually need a whole weekend spent in bed.
I guess I want to propose this as a hypothesis: if one partner in a relationship is in a state of constant sexual frustration, that relationship is probably doomed. It doesn't matter how hard the low-libido partner is trying - either he will have to try harder, the high-libido partner will get it somewhere else, or one or both partners will just remain miserable.
Tangentially, what I truly don't understand is why people with a lower libido can't be bothered to have sex with the person they love even if they are not super turned on and no orgasm results for them. As long as it doesn't hurt, why not? I give my partner a back massage when he wants one, and I like to even though I get nothing specific out of it, because it makes him feel happy. What is so different about sex?
More...
I try to imagine what it would have been like if my ex had said, "Well, we can have sex once a week but that is already more often than I want so no more than that." It would have been better than once a month for sure - but how long can that kind of relationship really last? The thought of years or decades of constant sexual frustration is just deadening. It is fine for me to go for a while with once-a-week sex, but at the end of that period I might want or actually need a whole weekend spent in bed.
I guess I want to propose this as a hypothesis: if one partner in a relationship is in a state of constant sexual frustration, that relationship is probably doomed. It doesn't matter how hard the low-libido partner is trying - either he will have to try harder, the high-libido partner will get it somewhere else, or one or both partners will just remain miserable.
Tangentially, what I truly don't understand is why people with a lower libido can't be bothered to have sex with the person they love even if they are not super turned on and no orgasm results for them. As long as it doesn't hurt, why not? I give my partner a back massage when he wants one, and I like to even though I get nothing specific out of it, because it makes him feel happy. What is so different about sex?
58
Monogamish in this situation: someone whose partner's libido fails, and they talk about it together and agree that the best thing to do is for him to seek sex elsewhere in the meantime, with the partner's consent.
Cheating: what he actually did.
Cheating: what he actually did.
59
@9: The double-superlative is intentionally-deployed in the phrase "least worst". "Least bad" might communicate the possibility of an option that really wasn't that bad at all (though still more bad than good, hence the avoidance of "best"), so it doesn't function as a substitute for "least worst", which suggests that all options are more-or-less equally bad and situated at the extreme end of the bad side of the spectrum, but this one option is slightly less bad. Equivalent phrases like "lesser of two evils", or "least of the available evils" if we're talking about a non-binary choice, have a moralizing implication that one may wish to avoid. Also, the repeated "-st" has that nice alliterative quality. While this certainly violates the 'rules' of prescribed standardized American English, languages are dynamic, and I think it's completely appropriate to break rules when doing so increases the clarity/utility of the language (technically, any new word breaks the rules of the language, as it isn't already part of that language, though it becomes a valid part through repeated usage; same goes for non-lexical grammar features, else we'd still be using the subject-object-verb form from Proto-Indo-European). If you think about it as formal jargon (and it is gaining ground in philosophies of decision-making), it may not bother you as much.
60
The problem here is that the LW doesn't explain why he couldn't tell his wife about his extramarital affairs.
Was there a reason he couldn't tell her, or was he just assuming or taking the easier road of doing it behind her back rather than negotiating what would be acceptable to her?
Even if we accept that there are circumstances where cheating is acceptable, in this case we haven't had it established that this is one of those circumstances. We would need to have some good reason to think that she would be so hurt by his suggesting opening the relationship that it would harm her or the relationship in order to justify not telling her. But we don't have that.
What we have is a guy saying, basically, that his wife lost her libido, and so he took it upon himself to determine that cheating on her was what was best for her. If that is the case then he is, indeed, a CPOS.
I am very monogamy oriented. Monogamy is what works for me, and I found a partner who feels the same. Early in our relationship we discussed and determined that monogamy was what we wanted and that was that.
Now, many, many years later, I am still very monogamy oriented. However if my libido ever suffered drastic decrease, or I suffered some physical problem that prevented me from being able to have sex, and my partner suggested opening the relationship so he could get his needs met, I would be willing to consider the possibility. Not because I am still not monogamy oriented. But because after all these years priorities have changed, and I would rather not be monogamous than end the relationship.
But... if he just decided on his own to do it without discussing it then that very well could end the relationship. I could handle, after all this time, opening the relationship if there were a really, really good reason for it. I could not handle having my trust betrayed.
That someone would think that they could make the choice of what was best for me without my consent in such a situation would be indicative of a complete lack of respect.
So for the LW, if his wife had let it be known that any talk of opening the relationship would mean the end of it, then perhaps a case could be made for his action. But if he was just deciding on his own that she would never be open to it without ever having discussed the possibility in all their time together, then he is making an assumption and making decisions for her that he doesn't have a right to make.
I know in my case that, while I wouldn't want an open relationship and I can't say that an open relationship wouldn't hurt a bit, I would much rather know and could ultimately handle knowing that it was an open relationship for a good reason, than to be lied to and cheated on behind my back. Because if I ever found out I was lied to and cheated on that is what would end the relationship.
More...
Was there a reason he couldn't tell her, or was he just assuming or taking the easier road of doing it behind her back rather than negotiating what would be acceptable to her?
Even if we accept that there are circumstances where cheating is acceptable, in this case we haven't had it established that this is one of those circumstances. We would need to have some good reason to think that she would be so hurt by his suggesting opening the relationship that it would harm her or the relationship in order to justify not telling her. But we don't have that.
What we have is a guy saying, basically, that his wife lost her libido, and so he took it upon himself to determine that cheating on her was what was best for her. If that is the case then he is, indeed, a CPOS.
I am very monogamy oriented. Monogamy is what works for me, and I found a partner who feels the same. Early in our relationship we discussed and determined that monogamy was what we wanted and that was that.
Now, many, many years later, I am still very monogamy oriented. However if my libido ever suffered drastic decrease, or I suffered some physical problem that prevented me from being able to have sex, and my partner suggested opening the relationship so he could get his needs met, I would be willing to consider the possibility. Not because I am still not monogamy oriented. But because after all these years priorities have changed, and I would rather not be monogamous than end the relationship.
But... if he just decided on his own to do it without discussing it then that very well could end the relationship. I could handle, after all this time, opening the relationship if there were a really, really good reason for it. I could not handle having my trust betrayed.
That someone would think that they could make the choice of what was best for me without my consent in such a situation would be indicative of a complete lack of respect.
So for the LW, if his wife had let it be known that any talk of opening the relationship would mean the end of it, then perhaps a case could be made for his action. But if he was just deciding on his own that she would never be open to it without ever having discussed the possibility in all their time together, then he is making an assumption and making decisions for her that he doesn't have a right to make.
I know in my case that, while I wouldn't want an open relationship and I can't say that an open relationship wouldn't hurt a bit, I would much rather know and could ultimately handle knowing that it was an open relationship for a good reason, than to be lied to and cheated on behind my back. Because if I ever found out I was lied to and cheated on that is what would end the relationship.
61
@Ankylosaur While there are situations where I think lies are OK (e.g. if I'm asking nosy questions about stuff that's none of my business), I'd certainly want to be told the truth in this situation. And I'd prefer to be told it as early as possible. I don't think this is a case of lying for a good cause, it's lying because he wanted to control the situation and informing his spouse might have resulted in her making a decision he didn't like.
I still think that if you're in an officially monogamous relationship, and you proceed to cut the other person off for years while threatening them with breakup of the relationship if they have sex elsewhere, that's an asshole move. In that context, from a third party point of view, cheating seems like justice served. Also, it seems common sense to me that there will be negative consequences to cutting them off - an affair, a divorce, whatever, so I'd see cheating as something the controlling spouse brought upon themselves. But, if your partner is dishonestly assuring you that it's not a problem, that's a mind fuck on their part and you can hardly be expected not to be messed up. I'd consider a "dry spell" of a year+ to be justification for the other person to "cheat" without being a CPOS. That would still be true if I was the one causing the "dry spell." Having said that, I'd hope people would communicate and find mutually agreeable, or at least honest, solutions rather than cheat. And this isn't the case in this letter, as the cheater talked a lot about the problem without ever being honest about how serious it was.
@49 "I would have appreciated, as the spouse, knowing how desperate the situation had gotten and been able to participate in the decision." This. Aren't relationships supposed to be about partnership? Working together on the problem would be some relief. And for me, seeing whether my spouse took my concerns seriously or dismissed them would itself be a major consideration in what I did about it.
@52 This, too.
Either way, this seems to me to be a fair example of "monogamish". "Monogamish" implies, to me, someone who's mostly monogamous, but not quite - that appears monogamous to the outside world, but isn't. There's nothing inherent to the word that implies anything about honesty to me.
More...
I still think that if you're in an officially monogamous relationship, and you proceed to cut the other person off for years while threatening them with breakup of the relationship if they have sex elsewhere, that's an asshole move. In that context, from a third party point of view, cheating seems like justice served. Also, it seems common sense to me that there will be negative consequences to cutting them off - an affair, a divorce, whatever, so I'd see cheating as something the controlling spouse brought upon themselves. But, if your partner is dishonestly assuring you that it's not a problem, that's a mind fuck on their part and you can hardly be expected not to be messed up. I'd consider a "dry spell" of a year+ to be justification for the other person to "cheat" without being a CPOS. That would still be true if I was the one causing the "dry spell." Having said that, I'd hope people would communicate and find mutually agreeable, or at least honest, solutions rather than cheat. And this isn't the case in this letter, as the cheater talked a lot about the problem without ever being honest about how serious it was.
@49 "I would have appreciated, as the spouse, knowing how desperate the situation had gotten and been able to participate in the decision." This. Aren't relationships supposed to be about partnership? Working together on the problem would be some relief. And for me, seeing whether my spouse took my concerns seriously or dismissed them would itself be a major consideration in what I did about it.
@52 This, too.
Either way, this seems to me to be a fair example of "monogamish". "Monogamish" implies, to me, someone who's mostly monogamous, but not quite - that appears monogamous to the outside world, but isn't. There's nothing inherent to the word that implies anything about honesty to me.
62
#59: I understand the intention; it just doesn't (a) work and (b) doesn't properly describe the dilemma.
Dan wrote: "there are times when having an affair represents the least worst option. In some cases it's better for all involved if the sexually denied . . . partner cheats, stays sane, and stays married than it is . . . to "do the right thing" and divorce his low-to-no libido spouse."
In other words, having an affair in certain cases is not the worst option: the two worst options would be staying and growing ever more resentful and unhappy, or divorcing. Not only that, but it's not even a bad option. In fact, while the situation itself is not ideal, cheating is actually the best thing to do, or the best available option.
Dan wrote: "there are times when having an affair represents the least worst option. In some cases it's better for all involved if the sexually denied . . . partner cheats, stays sane, and stays married than it is . . . to "do the right thing" and divorce his low-to-no libido spouse."
In other words, having an affair in certain cases is not the worst option: the two worst options would be staying and growing ever more resentful and unhappy, or divorcing. Not only that, but it's not even a bad option. In fact, while the situation itself is not ideal, cheating is actually the best thing to do, or the best available option.
63
This illustrates the slippery slope to Gommorah that cheating is.
Danny may smear lipstick on the sow and come up with a cute name for it but eventually, and soon, it is just sleazy selfish cheating.
But, rest assured, if you ease into it you and take it in baby steps will get there just fine and not even realize you have shed your moral values.....
a poem for the occasion:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure,
then pity,
then embrace.....
Sure, it's cheating.
But call it 'monogamish' (isn't that clever! Isn't that cute!...) and justify and rationalize and soon you'll embrace the sleaze and not even notice the foul stench.
The Fundies are right.
Give Danny and Deviant Perversion, Inc an inch and soon you'll be lulled into condoning child rape in the name of Man-Boy "Love".
Danny may smear lipstick on the sow and come up with a cute name for it but eventually, and soon, it is just sleazy selfish cheating.
But, rest assured, if you ease into it you and take it in baby steps will get there just fine and not even realize you have shed your moral values.....
a poem for the occasion:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure,
then pity,
then embrace.....
Sure, it's cheating.
But call it 'monogamish' (isn't that clever! Isn't that cute!...) and justify and rationalize and soon you'll embrace the sleaze and not even notice the foul stench.
The Fundies are right.
Give Danny and Deviant Perversion, Inc an inch and soon you'll be lulled into condoning child rape in the name of Man-Boy "Love".
64
@34: So, it's the husband's responsibility to anticipate that his wife will someday sexually neglect him for long periods of time, and therefore he should be careful to marry one of the 3% of women out there who might be open to an open relationship under those circumstances? That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
I think the lesson here is that when you sexually neglect your partner, don't be surprised if they get it somewhere else, with or without your blessing.
I think the lesson here is that when you sexually neglect your partner, don't be surprised if they get it somewhere else, with or without your blessing.
65
For what it's worth, having once been a cheater, I would not classify cheating for any purposes and not getting caught as being monogomish, which to me implies an agreement between both parties.
My story is in the comments thread of the regular weekly column, so I won't bother to repeat what I've already said. But I will add a few details.
I tried to come to a different solution for years, talking with my husband about my satisfaction (more importantly, my lack of it). Years. I asked him if we could open the marriage in what I would now define as a monogamish way: by going to swingers' clubs. I was as explicit as I could be about my frustration. He shut down all options. He felt threatened even by my bringing a vibrator into our bed when we were together, though I think he didn't mind if I used it to masturbate when I was alone.
Finally I said, "then I'm going to do what I need to do for myself. I won't rub your nose in it or subject you to gossip or humiliation, or come home pregnant or with a disease, but I am going to take care of my needs without you." And he said, "you do that and the marriage is over."
So we had a bitter, howling fight, the "I'm-going-to-leave-you"-"fine!"-kind. Finally I told him how hurt I was that my sexual satisfaction apparently meant so little to him. I mean, he knew I was unhappy and he just didn't care. We cried and made up and I think he thought the topic was over and done with. But I thought 'I have told him what I'm going to do, and I will do it with a clear conscience.' And then I went on Adult Friend Finder, vetted over 60 candidates, and chose my long-term FB, who became, despite my intentions, one of the major loves of my life.
But I was living under a sort of DADT. I knew my husband didn't think I was having sex with anyone else. I was extremely careful, and never got caught, but partly I think it was because he didn't try to catch me. He's not a suspicious or jealous type, and I think he was afraid to find something because that would mean he would feel obligated to leave me, and he didn't want to do that.
So I lied. I cheated. I was an adulteress, not a practitioner of monogamishny. You can call me a CPOS if it makes you feel better. Eventually, after 4 years of the affair, my FB broke it off, because he lived in a constant state of terror of being caught and it had begun to really wear down his psyche. I decided I couldn't go back to a sexless or unsatisfyingly sexual marriage without the outlet, and I didn't want to be a liar or a cheater ever again. I wanted to live with integrity and honesty, so I had another year of talking about changes with my husband, who was wonderful and the ideal companion in every other way, and with whom I had two children.
He couldn't or wouldn't consider any changes. And so we divorced. I live honestly now; my life is an open book. And I've tried to date, but haven't met someone yet, excluding a recent six-month-long relationship that tore my heart out when it ended. My ex-husband has had a steady stream of girlfriends, FWIW.
And no, at no point, even after the affair--even to this day--did I tell him. Maybe that makes me a coward, but it just seemed that it would be pointless, after the fact, and result in more pain for him. You can think whatever you want of me.
More...
My story is in the comments thread of the regular weekly column, so I won't bother to repeat what I've already said. But I will add a few details.
I tried to come to a different solution for years, talking with my husband about my satisfaction (more importantly, my lack of it). Years. I asked him if we could open the marriage in what I would now define as a monogamish way: by going to swingers' clubs. I was as explicit as I could be about my frustration. He shut down all options. He felt threatened even by my bringing a vibrator into our bed when we were together, though I think he didn't mind if I used it to masturbate when I was alone.
Finally I said, "then I'm going to do what I need to do for myself. I won't rub your nose in it or subject you to gossip or humiliation, or come home pregnant or with a disease, but I am going to take care of my needs without you." And he said, "you do that and the marriage is over."
So we had a bitter, howling fight, the "I'm-going-to-leave-you"-"fine!"-kind. Finally I told him how hurt I was that my sexual satisfaction apparently meant so little to him. I mean, he knew I was unhappy and he just didn't care. We cried and made up and I think he thought the topic was over and done with. But I thought 'I have told him what I'm going to do, and I will do it with a clear conscience.' And then I went on Adult Friend Finder, vetted over 60 candidates, and chose my long-term FB, who became, despite my intentions, one of the major loves of my life.
But I was living under a sort of DADT. I knew my husband didn't think I was having sex with anyone else. I was extremely careful, and never got caught, but partly I think it was because he didn't try to catch me. He's not a suspicious or jealous type, and I think he was afraid to find something because that would mean he would feel obligated to leave me, and he didn't want to do that.
So I lied. I cheated. I was an adulteress, not a practitioner of monogamishny. You can call me a CPOS if it makes you feel better. Eventually, after 4 years of the affair, my FB broke it off, because he lived in a constant state of terror of being caught and it had begun to really wear down his psyche. I decided I couldn't go back to a sexless or unsatisfyingly sexual marriage without the outlet, and I didn't want to be a liar or a cheater ever again. I wanted to live with integrity and honesty, so I had another year of talking about changes with my husband, who was wonderful and the ideal companion in every other way, and with whom I had two children.
He couldn't or wouldn't consider any changes. And so we divorced. I live honestly now; my life is an open book. And I've tried to date, but haven't met someone yet, excluding a recent six-month-long relationship that tore my heart out when it ended. My ex-husband has had a steady stream of girlfriends, FWIW.
And no, at no point, even after the affair--even to this day--did I tell him. Maybe that makes me a coward, but it just seemed that it would be pointless, after the fact, and result in more pain for him. You can think whatever you want of me.
66
@65, thank you so much for sharing your story -- I took a look at your post on the regular Savage Love column, too, and I really hope you will find a good match -- you seem like a great catch.
Your description of your ex-husband sounds like so many other people I've known -- it frustrates me when some commenters here seem to assume everyone has a partner capable of honest, logical discussions of a shared sex life. We here on Savage Love discussion boards obviously enjoy discussions such as these, but there are plenty of people who don't, or are just not capable of it. My ex-husband is another example of that. He would *never* have been able to discuss opening up our sex life -- had I given any indication that I'd even thought about being with someone else, even if I'd been 100% transparent about all my desires and intentions, suspicions would have arisen that would have seriously damaged the relationship. Because not everyone has a partner with whom they can have frank and honest discussions about sex, some people must choose between cheating discreetly or ending their relationship; not everyone is lucky enough to have a third option of having an open, honest discussion. I think this is a concept that too many commenters here don't comprehend.
Your description of your ex-husband sounds like so many other people I've known -- it frustrates me when some commenters here seem to assume everyone has a partner capable of honest, logical discussions of a shared sex life. We here on Savage Love discussion boards obviously enjoy discussions such as these, but there are plenty of people who don't, or are just not capable of it. My ex-husband is another example of that. He would *never* have been able to discuss opening up our sex life -- had I given any indication that I'd even thought about being with someone else, even if I'd been 100% transparent about all my desires and intentions, suspicions would have arisen that would have seriously damaged the relationship. Because not everyone has a partner with whom they can have frank and honest discussions about sex, some people must choose between cheating discreetly or ending their relationship; not everyone is lucky enough to have a third option of having an open, honest discussion. I think this is a concept that too many commenters here don't comprehend.
67
@61 How do you know when you're going through a "dry spell" and when you're trying to farm in the Sahara? I see no bright lines anywhere...
68
I agree Azul (@66), and it is one of my frustrations in these comment threads. Many people can't talk openly or honestly about sex. Many people aren't willing to consider opening up a marriage. The tone of these comments, fed by those who are for the most part sex-positive and open to non-monogamy, often breeds a sort of contempt for (or at least ignorance of) very common prevailing conditions in our culture.
This is one of the reasons that the idea of marriage including hot, kinky, and non-monogamous sex (or even just hot, kinky sex . . . or heck, plain old hot vanilla sex!) seems like such a fantasy to me when I read erotica which has it as its theme.
This is also why I think discussions of non-monogamy--but consensual, mutually-agreed-upon, informed non-monogamy--are so important to get on the public radar screen. People who have cheated, no matter how justified that cheating may seem to some, should not be a part of that discussion, as I think it is counter-productive. In any case, when people come out and live their lives openly, they open a lot of eyes and minds. That is why the monogamish and polyamourous should go public, in the same way that gays who came out and lived openly gave made it so much easier for those who have come after them. People need to see that an old cultural construction may not be as universal as they thought, or they need to see that alternate ways of living can be healthy and productive, and not-threatening to their own way of living, too. They need to learn tolerance.
But Slog readers/commenters need some tolerance for the fact that not everyone lives the way they do, too.
This is one of the reasons that the idea of marriage including hot, kinky, and non-monogamous sex (or even just hot, kinky sex . . . or heck, plain old hot vanilla sex!) seems like such a fantasy to me when I read erotica which has it as its theme.
This is also why I think discussions of non-monogamy--but consensual, mutually-agreed-upon, informed non-monogamy--are so important to get on the public radar screen. People who have cheated, no matter how justified that cheating may seem to some, should not be a part of that discussion, as I think it is counter-productive. In any case, when people come out and live their lives openly, they open a lot of eyes and minds. That is why the monogamish and polyamourous should go public, in the same way that gays who came out and lived openly gave made it so much easier for those who have come after them. People need to see that an old cultural construction may not be as universal as they thought, or they need to see that alternate ways of living can be healthy and productive, and not-threatening to their own way of living, too. They need to learn tolerance.
But Slog readers/commenters need some tolerance for the fact that not everyone lives the way they do, too.
69
@52: I think people who have well-matched libidos cannot really think in the abstract about what they'd do if there were a sudden change. And after many years of a relationship that can happen (and does from what the LW has written and what I know in my own experience). Because the person whose libido has dropped has little interest in sex, he/she may have little interest in resolving the issue. I'd venture that their partners frequently try to engage the person in discussion about the reasons (an affair? a physical issue? a lack of attraction? work? kids?) and about potential solutions (change things up? more romance? toys (including new partners)?) but, unfortunately, nothing really works. And the resentment - even with couples who truly love each other - can build and be a nefarious presence that infects all aspects of the relationship (even toward unaware third parties) (and the low-libido spouse going through the fucking/sucking motions is a poor, poor substitute and, actually, can increase the resentment). While the LW is a cheater in this situation because he was not open with his spouse (and, actually, I would not call nocutename one in the same way because she put her ex on notice of what was going to happen), his story is hopeful for some - his wife's libido returned. Some of us who are experiencing this to some degree (not quite the same) and only are interested in deliciously fucking see that return as the pot of gold at the end of the perpetual storm cloud (I like my mixed-metaphors). I could imagine getting some on the side to simply get off in a way that masturbation just can't but could not imagine it w/o being truthful to the person I love so this is a letter of hope though not in the way in which some might imagine.
70
What about in this situation? I would consider myself relatively open to sexual experiences. My husband of 6 years and I have a pretty good sex life and yes, he thinks so too as far as I know. We have both been avid Dan Savage readers for years and all this monogamist stuff makes sense to me. I couldn't care less what other people do in their relationships and never have. For ME though, when I read comments like a previous poster who said her husband calls her to say "omg I just got laid!" I feel physically Ill. I do not want that type of relationship for myself - again, no judgement, its just not for ME. I like the fact that sex is something special between us and I like not having to worry about herpes and other diseases that condoms don't necessarily protect against. I like minimal drama (especially since we have two young kida)and while I get that a lot of open relationships can be drama free, I'm sure there are also some with unexpected drama. So I am happy leavin our relationship as is. My husband, however, is extremely interested in this monogamish lifestyle (for both of us) and would love to invite others to join us or be "allowed" to have hook ups while off on business travel. He's not obsessing over it, but it's getting to a point where he is thinking that I'm the close-minded not-progressive thinking one that I would prefer to be monogamous.
So some of us here would say that the guy whose wife wouldn't have sex with him is justified in cheating. What if your wife won't open up the relationship and that's what you really want? Is he justified in being unhappy?
So some of us here would say that the guy whose wife wouldn't have sex with him is justified in cheating. What if your wife won't open up the relationship and that's what you really want? Is he justified in being unhappy?
71
Here is an idea. If you are so incompatible with your partner sexually that you can't be happy unless you cheat, then maybe you SHOULD leave them.
I can give some leeway to not leaving the terminally ill spouse, or spouse with chronic illness or similar situation. But if your spouse is healthy and just doesn't satisfy you, then even if everything else is great, maybe you shouldn't be together anyway. Maybe you should leave, find someone who is more compatible, and free them to find someone who will be compatible without having to cheat on them.
When Dan talks about the guy who cheats rather than leave his wife with terminal cancer, then yes, I sympathies.
When it moves into the "I'm just not satisfied by my partner so I will cheat" the justification falls flat.
He used to make the argument that in some situations it is better to cheat than leave. Now it seems people are taking that to mean that if the choice is between cheating or leaving it is automatically better to cheat than leave. I call B.S. on that.
If the sex is that important to you, and it is a matter of cheating or leaving, then why is cheating automatically the best option? I don't buy that it automatically is. I think it is only under exceptional circumstances. I think 99.99999% of cheaters are just CPOS, even though I bet the majority of them can come up with some form of lame justification to ease their conscience.
I can give some leeway to not leaving the terminally ill spouse, or spouse with chronic illness or similar situation. But if your spouse is healthy and just doesn't satisfy you, then even if everything else is great, maybe you shouldn't be together anyway. Maybe you should leave, find someone who is more compatible, and free them to find someone who will be compatible without having to cheat on them.
When Dan talks about the guy who cheats rather than leave his wife with terminal cancer, then yes, I sympathies.
When it moves into the "I'm just not satisfied by my partner so I will cheat" the justification falls flat.
He used to make the argument that in some situations it is better to cheat than leave. Now it seems people are taking that to mean that if the choice is between cheating or leaving it is automatically better to cheat than leave. I call B.S. on that.
If the sex is that important to you, and it is a matter of cheating or leaving, then why is cheating automatically the best option? I don't buy that it automatically is. I think it is only under exceptional circumstances. I think 99.99999% of cheaters are just CPOS, even though I bet the majority of them can come up with some form of lame justification to ease their conscience.
72
@65 - That sounds like a tough situation. I think you sound like an okay person. Life is messy; we do the best we can, we make mistakes, and we soldier on. Lots of people on here (even EricaP, with whom I usually agree) are speaking in ethical absolutes that are all well and good, but sometimes just don't get realized in real life, and that doesn't necessarily make someone a POS.
About the letter - two incredibly important things we don't know here are
a) do they have kids? and
b) is the LW's wife DEFINITELY someone who wouldn't have accepted an open relationship? Sometimes you really do know.
If either a) or b) is the case, he may have a *barely* adequate justification. It's arguable. If BOTH a) and b) are the case, he *definitely* has adequate justification.
But we don't know. So we're shooting in the dark here.
Lance Has Spoken(TM).
About the letter - two incredibly important things we don't know here are
a) do they have kids? and
b) is the LW's wife DEFINITELY someone who wouldn't have accepted an open relationship? Sometimes you really do know.
If either a) or b) is the case, he may have a *barely* adequate justification. It's arguable. If BOTH a) and b) are the case, he *definitely* has adequate justification.
But we don't know. So we're shooting in the dark here.
Lance Has Spoken(TM).
73
@57 tau
Great comment. Here's what I think:
"...how long can that kind of relationship really last?"
A long, long time.
"The thought of years or decades of constant sexual frustration is just deadening."
Yes, it is. You picked the right word: Eventually a bit of you dies and then you are left with all the joyful things that made you want to stay. Then it's a whole lot easier.
"...if one partner in a relationship is in a state of constant sexual frustration, that relationship is probably doomed."
Probably, but not absolutely. See previous response.
"...the high-libido partner will get it somewhere else..."
Not always. And that's the most important thing, right? That I never did lie about fucking someone else?
"...I truly don't understand ... why people with a lower libido can't be bothered to have sex with the person they love"
Neither do I, and sometimes neither does the low libido person.
Great comment. Here's what I think:
"...how long can that kind of relationship really last?"
A long, long time.
"The thought of years or decades of constant sexual frustration is just deadening."
Yes, it is. You picked the right word: Eventually a bit of you dies and then you are left with all the joyful things that made you want to stay. Then it's a whole lot easier.
"...if one partner in a relationship is in a state of constant sexual frustration, that relationship is probably doomed."
Probably, but not absolutely. See previous response.
"...the high-libido partner will get it somewhere else..."
Not always. And that's the most important thing, right? That I never did lie about fucking someone else?
"...I truly don't understand ... why people with a lower libido can't be bothered to have sex with the person they love"
Neither do I, and sometimes neither does the low libido person.
75
@69 - That sounds familiar and sad. I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for a person who is in that kind of situation as the lower-libido partner (whether someone's libido increased or decreased - doesn't really matter) and who either routinely turns her partner down for sex or just goes through the motions. If someone can't find a way to learn to really enjoy satisfying her (or his) partner sexually, I kind of think that person has no business being in that relationship.
It's all very well to say, "I don't feel like it and I don't have to, so I won't." It's true - my body belongs to me. But it's not very useful, since nobody has to stay in a relationship with me either. There are a lot of things that I don't feel like doing and don't technically have to do, but you know what? I do them anyways, with my best attempt at a cheerful heart, because I am no longer a sullen and entitled teenager, and life is more pleasant if we try to be happy.
If the lower-libido partner doesn't feel much motivation to change things, that is probably because he thinks that there is nothing major on the line for him. That is probably because of this cultural perception that it's not right to dump someone for failing to put out. I suggest that it might substantially increase general relationship happiness if people were more frequently broken up with because of sexual unwillingness.
It's all very well to say, "I don't feel like it and I don't have to, so I won't." It's true - my body belongs to me. But it's not very useful, since nobody has to stay in a relationship with me either. There are a lot of things that I don't feel like doing and don't technically have to do, but you know what? I do them anyways, with my best attempt at a cheerful heart, because I am no longer a sullen and entitled teenager, and life is more pleasant if we try to be happy.
If the lower-libido partner doesn't feel much motivation to change things, that is probably because he thinks that there is nothing major on the line for him. That is probably because of this cultural perception that it's not right to dump someone for failing to put out. I suggest that it might substantially increase general relationship happiness if people were more frequently broken up with because of sexual unwillingness.
76
@65 nocutename
We experienced similar problems and made different choices. I respect yours and I'm still your biggest fan.
We experienced similar problems and made different choices. I respect yours and I'm still your biggest fan.
77
@65(nocutename), there is one important fact about your story: you told your husband what the problem was, you described your sexual frustration to him, you tried to get him to care about it -- and it didn't work.
To me, there is no ethical dilemma here. You told your husband you were sexually frustrated. He didn't want to change anything, and he didn't give a good reason for it, simply expecting that you would remain faithful and suffer. Ergo, he did not feel empathy for your problem. I agree that this is a frequent problem: people who can't have open discussions about sex, who avoid such problems like hell and hope everything will go away if they pretend there is no problem (remember McEwan's On Chesil Beach?). Still: you gave him the chance to actually show he cares, you painstakingly explained the problem to him, you told him how important that was to you and that you wanted his help... and he didn't. Maybe because of his own hang-ups, that also make him suffer, etc. etc. etc. But still he didn't.
As Dan says, we're not our partners' therapists or doctors (even if we wanted to be, how many of us have the necessary professional expertise?). As far as I'm concerned, you did everything you could. Your only option was adultery; and you took it. I see nothing to blame. By my book, you behaved ethically.
What may perhaps seem like a problem is that you didn't tell your husband about your affair as you had it -- i.e., you didn't rub his face in it. A DADT policy, you called it. Still, since you had made things clear during your fight, I'd say he is at least equally guilty of this DADT policy: he certainly could also have raised the topic at any moment (I'm betting he didn't, and I'm betting you would have been honest with him if he had).
So what is there to blame on you? Even from the perspective of the average SLOGGER? In your case, all I see is a person who was dealt a bad card in the sex department, and that did all she could to make it better, for as long as it was humanly possible.
(The lesson to me is that dialogue only works when all parties involved people want it to work. If one of them doesn't want it to work, then it doesn't; and the suffering parties have to find a solution without his/her cooperation.)
I'll agree with Azul@66: I hope you'll find a good match, nocutename. You sound like an amazing person who deserves happiness, sexually and otherwise. We all know it's hard to find, and that not all who deserve it find it. But here's hoping you will find a suitable boy (yes, I like Vikram Seth) with a matching libido.
More...
To me, there is no ethical dilemma here. You told your husband you were sexually frustrated. He didn't want to change anything, and he didn't give a good reason for it, simply expecting that you would remain faithful and suffer. Ergo, he did not feel empathy for your problem. I agree that this is a frequent problem: people who can't have open discussions about sex, who avoid such problems like hell and hope everything will go away if they pretend there is no problem (remember McEwan's On Chesil Beach?). Still: you gave him the chance to actually show he cares, you painstakingly explained the problem to him, you told him how important that was to you and that you wanted his help... and he didn't. Maybe because of his own hang-ups, that also make him suffer, etc. etc. etc. But still he didn't.
As Dan says, we're not our partners' therapists or doctors (even if we wanted to be, how many of us have the necessary professional expertise?). As far as I'm concerned, you did everything you could. Your only option was adultery; and you took it. I see nothing to blame. By my book, you behaved ethically.
What may perhaps seem like a problem is that you didn't tell your husband about your affair as you had it -- i.e., you didn't rub his face in it. A DADT policy, you called it. Still, since you had made things clear during your fight, I'd say he is at least equally guilty of this DADT policy: he certainly could also have raised the topic at any moment (I'm betting he didn't, and I'm betting you would have been honest with him if he had).
So what is there to blame on you? Even from the perspective of the average SLOGGER? In your case, all I see is a person who was dealt a bad card in the sex department, and that did all she could to make it better, for as long as it was humanly possible.
(The lesson to me is that dialogue only works when all parties involved people want it to work. If one of them doesn't want it to work, then it doesn't; and the suffering parties have to find a solution without his/her cooperation.)
I'll agree with Azul@66: I hope you'll find a good match, nocutename. You sound like an amazing person who deserves happiness, sexually and otherwise. We all know it's hard to find, and that not all who deserve it find it. But here's hoping you will find a suitable boy (yes, I like Vikram Seth) with a matching libido.
78
The folks getting their combs up about "least worst" remind me of someone I know with a masters in English Lit who is fundamentally incapable of letting any characters in her writing speak with anything but the school-marm English she uses. She sees it as a cute example of how careful she is with language rather than the artistically fatal, tone-deaf flaw it really is.
There are English constructs that some Alaska Natives use that have specific meaning, but would nevertheless cause many heads here to explode.
"He sometimes always never goes to ..." I don't know exactly what it means, but I like it.
Relax. Stop being so fucking prescriptive and let the language flow over you.
And LW is a cheater, but maybe not a complete POS.
There are English constructs that some Alaska Natives use that have specific meaning, but would nevertheless cause many heads here to explode.
"He sometimes always never goes to ..." I don't know exactly what it means, but I like it.
Relax. Stop being so fucking prescriptive and let the language flow over you.
And LW is a cheater, but maybe not a complete POS.
79
@73 - sad face.
It's strange; even I myself have gone through libidoless periods, where for months on end sex was never my idea. But the only times in my life when I have EVER under any circumstances turned a partner down for sex have been a couple of times when I had a Painful Problem, and maybe a couple of times when physically incapable of staying awake. Okay, sometimes I might take a couple of minutes of physical convincing. But it is not like it's terribly unpleasant!
I have trouble seeing persistent refusal in the absence of physical or psychological pain as anything other than a particular kind of selfishness - see my previous comment about "I don't feel like it." Our partners are people, not toys; we have to treat them with respect, and that includes meeting their various needs as best we can, graciously.
I mean, if my love were sad I wouldn't refuse to give him a hug just because I wasn't in the mood; if he had had a stressful day at work I wouldn't refuse to talk about it just because his work doesn't really interest me. Those things are unkind and disrespectful.
It's strange; even I myself have gone through libidoless periods, where for months on end sex was never my idea. But the only times in my life when I have EVER under any circumstances turned a partner down for sex have been a couple of times when I had a Painful Problem, and maybe a couple of times when physically incapable of staying awake. Okay, sometimes I might take a couple of minutes of physical convincing. But it is not like it's terribly unpleasant!
I have trouble seeing persistent refusal in the absence of physical or psychological pain as anything other than a particular kind of selfishness - see my previous comment about "I don't feel like it." Our partners are people, not toys; we have to treat them with respect, and that includes meeting their various needs as best we can, graciously.
I mean, if my love were sad I wouldn't refuse to give him a hug just because I wasn't in the mood; if he had had a stressful day at work I wouldn't refuse to talk about it just because his work doesn't really interest me. Those things are unkind and disrespectful.
80
@71 Fortunate
I didn't marry her vagina. I won't divorce her for lack of access to it. You can live honestly and ask for non-monogamy of some sort but when the answer comes back "no" you have multiple choices, not just divorce or be miserable forever.
I didn't marry her vagina. I won't divorce her for lack of access to it. You can live honestly and ask for non-monogamy of some sort but when the answer comes back "no" you have multiple choices, not just divorce or be miserable forever.
81
@71(Fortunate), ideally you would be right. Yes indeed, if your partner doesn't satisfy you, and if this bugs you to the point that you feel miserable, why not simply leave your partner?
Yes, why indeed?...
As others have pointed out, Fortunate, life is not so simple.
First, you sound as if anyone here (including Dan) claimed 'automatically' that cheating is better than leaving. (Considering the number of DTMFAs that Dan issues every week, 'automatically' is far from being the right word).
Second, you are not taking into account that sex is not everything. People often put up with things that make us miserable from those they love for many reasons: the feeling they could never find a better person (or even simply another one: who would love me?, etc); the feeling that there are other things that work wonderfully, but maybe not with the next boy/girlfriend; the feeling that there is a shared history with good and bad moments that also has strong emotional value and consequences for us, and that we can't give up simply like that; the feeling that one's spouse (as nocutename points out) is hurt by any open conversations about sex, and that one loves one's spouse enough not to want to hurt him/her like that; and so on.
Life is often about choosing the least bad (or 'least worst', if you prefer) option. You mentioned a few cases in which cheating is obviously the solution (terminally ill spouse, children, etc.). Then you drew your line, period.
I offer the possibility that, because of all the above (and other) reasons, the line you drew is too sharply drawn. It's not as simple as you've put it, emotional investments are not as easy to deal with as you're implying, and I can imagine a number of situations not involving children or terminally ill / incapacitated spouses in which cheating would be the least bad option. If you yourself can't, this may be more because of lack of experience: have you ever been in such a situation, and are you sure you know exactly what you would have done?
More...
Yes, why indeed?...
As others have pointed out, Fortunate, life is not so simple.
First, you sound as if anyone here (including Dan) claimed 'automatically' that cheating is better than leaving. (Considering the number of DTMFAs that Dan issues every week, 'automatically' is far from being the right word).
Second, you are not taking into account that sex is not everything. People often put up with things that make us miserable from those they love for many reasons: the feeling they could never find a better person (or even simply another one: who would love me?, etc); the feeling that there are other things that work wonderfully, but maybe not with the next boy/girlfriend; the feeling that there is a shared history with good and bad moments that also has strong emotional value and consequences for us, and that we can't give up simply like that; the feeling that one's spouse (as nocutename points out) is hurt by any open conversations about sex, and that one loves one's spouse enough not to want to hurt him/her like that; and so on.
Life is often about choosing the least bad (or 'least worst', if you prefer) option. You mentioned a few cases in which cheating is obviously the solution (terminally ill spouse, children, etc.). Then you drew your line, period.
I offer the possibility that, because of all the above (and other) reasons, the line you drew is too sharply drawn. It's not as simple as you've put it, emotional investments are not as easy to deal with as you're implying, and I can imagine a number of situations not involving children or terminally ill / incapacitated spouses in which cheating would be the least bad option. If you yourself can't, this may be more because of lack of experience: have you ever been in such a situation, and are you sure you know exactly what you would have done?
82
@79, I've often wondered about the same question. It seems to me that the idea women shouldn't give sex if they aren't themselves turned on comes from the traditional belief that sex is something that 'harms' women, strengthened by the modern belief that sex without enthusiastic content/interest is bordering on rape (a word which is, alas, undergoing a weakening of its meaning).
I suppose the traditional situation is that a man would force a woman against her will to have sex with him -- and that she would yield because she was afraid of the consequences. That's probably what is on the mind of those who say "never give sex unless you are yourself turned on".
It's as if they can't imagine the situation in which it is not fear, but empathy for your partner, that moves you to sex. As if sex couldn't be a gift you give to your partner, besides being something you also get pleasure from.
I've given sex to women on occasion when I myself didn't feel like it, and even without getting an orgasm myself. I never felt 'used', even in the times when it felt a little like a chore, because I was doing it for love. Why should it necessarily be any different for women?
Some women have told me (one, I think, once, in another SLOG comments thread) that penetration is actually painful for them when they're not turned on. If they don't want sex, then giving sex to their partners actually hurts. Judging by my personal experience, there must be individual variation on this (most women I slept with didn't agree with that); and anyway, this would be true only for PIV. There are other things one can do; and if the reason is empathy rather than horniness, I don't see why this has to be bad either.
Our society just still has some really stupid ideas about sex and how to handle it.
More...
I suppose the traditional situation is that a man would force a woman against her will to have sex with him -- and that she would yield because she was afraid of the consequences. That's probably what is on the mind of those who say "never give sex unless you are yourself turned on".
It's as if they can't imagine the situation in which it is not fear, but empathy for your partner, that moves you to sex. As if sex couldn't be a gift you give to your partner, besides being something you also get pleasure from.
I've given sex to women on occasion when I myself didn't feel like it, and even without getting an orgasm myself. I never felt 'used', even in the times when it felt a little like a chore, because I was doing it for love. Why should it necessarily be any different for women?
Some women have told me (one, I think, once, in another SLOG comments thread) that penetration is actually painful for them when they're not turned on. If they don't want sex, then giving sex to their partners actually hurts. Judging by my personal experience, there must be individual variation on this (most women I slept with didn't agree with that); and anyway, this would be true only for PIV. There are other things one can do; and if the reason is empathy rather than horniness, I don't see why this has to be bad either.
Our society just still has some really stupid ideas about sex and how to handle it.
83
tau:
People are quite mysterious creatures sometimes, aren't they? Even after talking something to death you can come away having not the slightest idea about their reasons for being the way they are.
I've come to see low libido as analogous to weight. You may be as motivated as anything to lose weight, you may get on that new diet and slim down, but some folks seem to keep ending up back where they started. It's an irresistible force of nature.
People are quite mysterious creatures sometimes, aren't they? Even after talking something to death you can come away having not the slightest idea about their reasons for being the way they are.
I've come to see low libido as analogous to weight. You may be as motivated as anything to lose weight, you may get on that new diet and slim down, but some folks seem to keep ending up back where they started. It's an irresistible force of nature.
84
@82 - exactly!
And what I didn't add before but should have is that my current partner has a somewhat long refractory period, which ends up meaning that there are times (for instance when I am ovulating sometimes) when he is physically incapable of having his own interest in sex often enough. But he still enjoys making me happy, because we love each other.
I know that the issue is complicated by how many women have been assaulted and forced into sex. Which is terrible, and a problem that continues to need addressing. But it is not clear in what way denying one's partner sex to make a point (even if that point is "I don't have to) makes anything better. Relatedly, I have a young friend who likes to talk about an ex-boyfriend who "kept her as a sex prisoner" and forced her to have sex all the time; on further discussion it becomes clear that so actual force of any kind was ever involved, merely a threat to break up, but she reports using this history as a continued justification for denying her current boyfriend sex whenever it is not her idea, in what I can only assume must be some sort of power game.
Anyways, sexual assault of women is obviously an ongoing bad. But it's never been as clear to me as it is to some people why it is relevant in relationships in which no assault occurs.
AND, it is not always women who are the low-libido partner, although that is the classic picture; so the historical sexual subjugation of women cannot be an important element of the more general case.
And what I didn't add before but should have is that my current partner has a somewhat long refractory period, which ends up meaning that there are times (for instance when I am ovulating sometimes) when he is physically incapable of having his own interest in sex often enough. But he still enjoys making me happy, because we love each other.
I know that the issue is complicated by how many women have been assaulted and forced into sex. Which is terrible, and a problem that continues to need addressing. But it is not clear in what way denying one's partner sex to make a point (even if that point is "I don't have to) makes anything better. Relatedly, I have a young friend who likes to talk about an ex-boyfriend who "kept her as a sex prisoner" and forced her to have sex all the time; on further discussion it becomes clear that so actual force of any kind was ever involved, merely a threat to break up, but she reports using this history as a continued justification for denying her current boyfriend sex whenever it is not her idea, in what I can only assume must be some sort of power game.
Anyways, sexual assault of women is obviously an ongoing bad. But it's never been as clear to me as it is to some people why it is relevant in relationships in which no assault occurs.
AND, it is not always women who are the low-libido partner, although that is the classic picture; so the historical sexual subjugation of women cannot be an important element of the more general case.
86
@83 - well, I'm not sure I can even agree that weight gain is an irresistible force of nature. ;) But even taking it as a given that it is, and that a person just can't lose that 20 pounds, that doesn't mean that it's healthy to give up. A person can be 20 pounds overweight and still maintain good muscle strength and cardiovascular health and eat healthful things, and that is the right way to take care of oneself.
The analogy was perhaps slightly strained even to begin with, so I am not exactly sure what my point turns out to be ther.
A better way of saying it is that even if the lack of libido is mysterious and unconquerable, that doesn't excuse a person from the obligation to do his best to meet his partner's needs with love and kindness.
The analogy was perhaps slightly strained even to begin with, so I am not exactly sure what my point turns out to be ther.
A better way of saying it is that even if the lack of libido is mysterious and unconquerable, that doesn't excuse a person from the obligation to do his best to meet his partner's needs with love and kindness.
87
Why on earth does everyone, including the LW, assume that the wife does not know about the affair?! Indeed, that's one of several reasons I can think of which might explain why her libido returned so suddenly.
Yes, he's a cheating asshole, and worse yet, he wants to make himself feel better by congratulating himself on discretion he merely assumes was successful. He has no business being called monogamish, because the basic premise of monogamish was supposed to be that it's honest. He's a liar, plain and simple. Dan, what the heck? This is not one of those morally ambiguous situations where one spouse is no longer physically (or perhaps mentally, e.g. advanced dementia) capable of having sex. Nothing in the letter even suggests they saw a doctor! When your spouse has no sexual desire and claims to regret it and not know why, the doctor's office is one of the FIRST places you should visit. I can't understand why "Annie's Mailbox" manages to offer this advice regularly, but a sex columnist like Dan can't get that message out properly. Baffling!
Anyway, #70, I feel for you. I prefer monogamy and would be sad if my husband were disappointed in that situation. I would have no solution, other than to see if there were some other ways of satisfying his desires without wrecking my own. But this is the inevitable pull in any relationship where people have differing desires. Usually the differences aren't so severe as to ruin things, but sometimes they may rise to that level. Sex is not so different from anything else valuable in the relationship, in that regard: couples may have wildly different wants in the areas of finances, affection, time spent on activities, methods of child-rearing, and so on. They either work it out because, on balance, the relationship is healthy and worth preserving, or they don't. It sucks to have a lot invested in a relationship only to end up at odds on a serious issue, one of which might be sex. However, you have to solve it like any other issue, with honest communication, and love and respect for the other person or people involved. This LW surely failed to do that.
More...
Yes, he's a cheating asshole, and worse yet, he wants to make himself feel better by congratulating himself on discretion he merely assumes was successful. He has no business being called monogamish, because the basic premise of monogamish was supposed to be that it's honest. He's a liar, plain and simple. Dan, what the heck? This is not one of those morally ambiguous situations where one spouse is no longer physically (or perhaps mentally, e.g. advanced dementia) capable of having sex. Nothing in the letter even suggests they saw a doctor! When your spouse has no sexual desire and claims to regret it and not know why, the doctor's office is one of the FIRST places you should visit. I can't understand why "Annie's Mailbox" manages to offer this advice regularly, but a sex columnist like Dan can't get that message out properly. Baffling!
Anyway, #70, I feel for you. I prefer monogamy and would be sad if my husband were disappointed in that situation. I would have no solution, other than to see if there were some other ways of satisfying his desires without wrecking my own. But this is the inevitable pull in any relationship where people have differing desires. Usually the differences aren't so severe as to ruin things, but sometimes they may rise to that level. Sex is not so different from anything else valuable in the relationship, in that regard: couples may have wildly different wants in the areas of finances, affection, time spent on activities, methods of child-rearing, and so on. They either work it out because, on balance, the relationship is healthy and worth preserving, or they don't. It sucks to have a lot invested in a relationship only to end up at odds on a serious issue, one of which might be sex. However, you have to solve it like any other issue, with honest communication, and love and respect for the other person or people involved. This LW surely failed to do that.
88
@65 nocutename,
I think you are someone in search of something better, and I hope you find it. At this point not telling your ex isn't being a coward, it isn't being cruel. FWIW I think a CPOS is someone who just doesn't care for the person(s) they are supposed to be committed to, at best, or are actively malicious at worst (yet another sliding scale of grey to agonize over).
I know a CPOS woman that left her husband for his best friend, and it ended with the husband remarrying a truly wonderful partner. Many years later it is obvious that things turned out for the best for the CPOS and her ex, but dealing with the repercussions still leaves me queasy when I meet her. And then there are the times I get to hang out with her ex and his second wife...
Peace.
I think you are someone in search of something better, and I hope you find it. At this point not telling your ex isn't being a coward, it isn't being cruel. FWIW I think a CPOS is someone who just doesn't care for the person(s) they are supposed to be committed to, at best, or are actively malicious at worst (yet another sliding scale of grey to agonize over).
I know a CPOS woman that left her husband for his best friend, and it ended with the husband remarrying a truly wonderful partner. Many years later it is obvious that things turned out for the best for the CPOS and her ex, but dealing with the repercussions still leaves me queasy when I meet her. And then there are the times I get to hang out with her ex and his second wife...
Peace.
89
@86 tau
I suppose what I was getting at is the surprising difficulty of the struggle, and the evidence that there is harm in the yo-yo-ing. Your motivation and good faith in the effort need not be judged insufficient if you fail.
Making your peace is sometimes better.
I suppose what I was getting at is the surprising difficulty of the struggle, and the evidence that there is harm in the yo-yo-ing. Your motivation and good faith in the effort need not be judged insufficient if you fail.
Making your peace is sometimes better.
90
@78:
"Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?" said the March Hare.
"Exactly so," said Alice.
"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "You might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"
"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"
`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'
"It is the same thing with you," said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much.
"Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?" said the March Hare.
"Exactly so," said Alice.
"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "You might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"
"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"
`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'
"It is the same thing with you," said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much.
91
#16, please tell us more about the many consequentialist philosophers who would think that this letter writer's actions are ethical. I can't think of too many who would, because consequentialism is not simply about "did you get caught?" but about the whole basket of actual results, on into the future. One of those results, which you have chosen to de-value, is that someone is being lied to about something very important. That's not "nothing" in the calculation of consequences of the action. In addition, we don't yet know all of the consequences that could flow from this action. Is the husband now more likely to cheat again? Will he someday have to deal with the results of disclosure? Is there an STI showing up somewhere? Moreover, if you're a "rule" consequentialist in ethics, what rule could be derived from this man's actions, that wouldn't be likely to cause less happiness in other circumstances less lucky than (potentially) his own?
92
@82: for some, a disinterested partner who is willing to have sex is almost (stress "almost") no different than a partner who is disinterested and unwilling. I have been married long enough to appreciate the quickie, the longie, the dirty and the "oh, MY FUCKING GOD THAT WAS AWESOME!" (some overlap, of course). I love my wife so totally (we have been married a long time and we are different in so many ways in our mid-40s compared to our early 20s and if I could be going down on her NOW I'd drop everything and run to wherever she is) that I am, right now, not interested in anyone on the side or leaving her. And as mis-matched as we presently are (labidinously speaking), it is not a complete dry-spell and there are times when it is AMAZING (giving the hope - false as it has turned out - that we are BACK!). But when she is willing but not interested, it just makes me feel WORSE - I want to fuck a participant, not a doll.
Bottom line, I emphathize a great deal with the LW and with nocutename and can see how both could end up where they did. I have a great deal of respect for Cute and, assuming the LW did not do the same, I am sorry for him and for his wife for his dishonest infedility - I get it BUT I think he owed to their relationship to be clear about what he was contemplating and ultimately chose to do. Could I get to the same point? I think so (in an honest moment) and I hope I would handle it more like Cute and less like the LW. Sex is one very important part of a relationship. When it is out of balance - just like any other part (say, religious compatibility (I could never marry a zealot as I am agnostic), child-rearing philosophies, etc.) - and infects everything else, big changes become necessary (consider the atheist couple; one suffers a bump on his head and becomes a born-again christian - big changes in the relationship become necessary).
I have learned a ton on SLOG and really believe that 2012 can be a great year for me, my spouse and my family (eternal optimist because I WANT it to be).
More...
Bottom line, I emphathize a great deal with the LW and with nocutename and can see how both could end up where they did. I have a great deal of respect for Cute and, assuming the LW did not do the same, I am sorry for him and for his wife for his dishonest infedility - I get it BUT I think he owed to their relationship to be clear about what he was contemplating and ultimately chose to do. Could I get to the same point? I think so (in an honest moment) and I hope I would handle it more like Cute and less like the LW. Sex is one very important part of a relationship. When it is out of balance - just like any other part (say, religious compatibility (I could never marry a zealot as I am agnostic), child-rearing philosophies, etc.) - and infects everything else, big changes become necessary (consider the atheist couple; one suffers a bump on his head and becomes a born-again christian - big changes in the relationship become necessary).
I have learned a ton on SLOG and really believe that 2012 can be a great year for me, my spouse and my family (eternal optimist because I WANT it to be).
93
@87 - would you want to know if your husband wasn't satisfied with monogamy? Or is that a truth too far?
Your perspective on monogamy is far more common than would appear on this board. Let's assume the LW knew his wife held similar values to yours. If he were to approach her about opening up the marriage, he would be virtually assuring the end of the relationship, no? Or at least fundamentally changing how you viewed your relationship with him?
Your perspective on monogamy is far more common than would appear on this board. Let's assume the LW knew his wife held similar values to yours. If he were to approach her about opening up the marriage, he would be virtually assuring the end of the relationship, no? Or at least fundamentally changing how you viewed your relationship with him?
95
@90, I'm not sure if your Alice quote is meant to agree or disagree with @78 (it could go either way, I think), but since I can't resist giving my opinion on matters of language... there's always some sort of 'prestige' usage standard that people use to chastise others with ('don't split infinitives!' 'don't use too many contractions!' '"fun" is a noun, not an adjective!' 'a double negative is an affirmative!' etc.) But the truth at the end of the day is that languages don't (primarily) obey logical considerations, but pragmatic-communicative ones. The logics of double negatives didn't prevent double negation from becoming the rule in French, n'est-ce pas? The historical process towards analytic comparatives ('more handsome') rather than synthetic ones ('handsomer') is ongoing in English, and one of its consequence (as the rules break down in actual usage) is repetition ('least worst') or new semantic distinctions (compare 'worst' with 'baddest'), initially for comic effect, later on because of actual restructuring in the system. There isn't much one can do other than document the ongoing tendencies and speculating about where they might lead.
96
@81 (ankylosaur)
I never said leaving a partner was simple. I said that it can often be the right thing to do in these kinds of situations.
I didn't say Dan said it was automatically the right thing. I said he make a case for certain situations and others take that to mean it is.
"Second, you are not taking into account that sex is not everything."
Interesting, but why direct that at my comments and not at those of the people justifying cheating. If sex isn't everything then why risk your relationship, your health, and possibly the health of your partner by cheating? Because while sex isn't everything, it is pretty important to most people. If people truly believed that sex wasn't everything, or at least a big thing, they wouldn't feel the need to cheat in the first place.
Clearly sex is a big thing, even if it isn't everything, and how our sex lives are conducted, when they involve others, is more than just our own personal decision.
"People often put up with things that make us miserable from those they love for many reasons"
I don't doubt that. I don't contest the idea that people do this. I challenge the notion that it is the right or best thing to do.
"the feeling they could never find a better person" - Well, "I'm insecure, so I cheat" isn't a justification.
"the feeling that there are other things that work wonderfully, but maybe not with the next boy/girlfriend" - And "life is uncertain, so I cheat" is also not a justification.
"the feeling that there is a shared history with good and bad moments that also has strong emotional value and consequences for us, and that we can't give up simply like that" - That makes sense if both people feel that way. If they honestly did then they should be able to discuss options. One person making the decision for the other on this account is not justified.
"the feeling that one's spouse (as nocutename points out) is hurt by any open conversations about sex, and that one loves one's spouse enough not to want to hurt him/her like that" - If you love them so much then don't cheat in the first place. Sorry, but the idea that it is better to cheat on them and risk not only hurting them but their health is better than risk hurting their feelings by simply discussing an issue is just crazy to me. If you can't discuss sex with your sex partner then why are you with them in the first place?
"Then you drew your line, period."
No, I gave a few examples that I thought you could make a case for. I didn't say it was an exhaustive list. But I find a lot of the comments being made, that being unsatisfied with a partner who won't indulge you justifies cheating, to be wrong. I'm sure we could put our heads together and come up with some other specific cases where we could both find some justification. But not being satisfied with your sex life with your partner and not wanting to hurt their feelings by discussing it with them isn't justifiable, it's chicken shit.
"I can imagine a number of situations not involving children or terminally ill / incapacitated spouses in which cheating would be the least bad option."
The problem is, does your spouse? That is the crux. Like I said, I don't want an open relationship, but I would rather deal with that option than being cheated on. Being cheated on would end my relationship. Don't cheat unless you are willing to have your relationship ended for you if you get caught. But if you are willing to risk losing your relationship by cheating why not just end it? If it really meant enough to you, and you know your partner would end it if you had sex outside of the relationship, then you wouldn't have sex outside of the relationship.
The problem is that people are making it out like they are doing this for their partners. But unless that partner is in a needy situation where they would feel compelled to end it, but ending it would have a direct, detrimental effect on them, then there is no justification I can see for that. It is a selfish act being put into selfless terms, "I am willing to have an affair to save our marriage, even though my partner would rather end it than let me have an affair".
" If you yourself can't, this may be more because of lack of experience: have you ever been in such a situation, and are you sure you know exactly what you would have done? "
Yes, actually. I had a partner for 4 years who, apparently, wasn't happy with our sex life. Instead of talking about it with me he made assumptions and instead cheated. I found out and dumped his ass. Now, several decades later, I am happily married with someone I could never imagine would cheat. Now if my old partner had tried to actually work with me we may have stayed together, but since he decided that he would make his own decisions I can say that, in retrospect, dumping his ass was the best thing I did. It allowed me to find someone I was more compatible with.
If he had gotten away with his cheating then he would have cheated me out of something even more important. The opportunity to be with someone who is genuinely happy with me.
So my attitudes aren't the result of lack of experience. On the contrary, they are the results of my experience with a cheater. Having to break up with him did hurt. A lot. But pain is part of life, as is change. And sometimes we need pain and change to find what we need. Slapping a bandaid on a problem and pretending it doesn't matter isn't the way to deal with these kinds of things.
More...
I never said leaving a partner was simple. I said that it can often be the right thing to do in these kinds of situations.
I didn't say Dan said it was automatically the right thing. I said he make a case for certain situations and others take that to mean it is.
"Second, you are not taking into account that sex is not everything."
Interesting, but why direct that at my comments and not at those of the people justifying cheating. If sex isn't everything then why risk your relationship, your health, and possibly the health of your partner by cheating? Because while sex isn't everything, it is pretty important to most people. If people truly believed that sex wasn't everything, or at least a big thing, they wouldn't feel the need to cheat in the first place.
Clearly sex is a big thing, even if it isn't everything, and how our sex lives are conducted, when they involve others, is more than just our own personal decision.
"People often put up with things that make us miserable from those they love for many reasons"
I don't doubt that. I don't contest the idea that people do this. I challenge the notion that it is the right or best thing to do.
"the feeling they could never find a better person" - Well, "I'm insecure, so I cheat" isn't a justification.
"the feeling that there are other things that work wonderfully, but maybe not with the next boy/girlfriend" - And "life is uncertain, so I cheat" is also not a justification.
"the feeling that there is a shared history with good and bad moments that also has strong emotional value and consequences for us, and that we can't give up simply like that" - That makes sense if both people feel that way. If they honestly did then they should be able to discuss options. One person making the decision for the other on this account is not justified.
"the feeling that one's spouse (as nocutename points out) is hurt by any open conversations about sex, and that one loves one's spouse enough not to want to hurt him/her like that" - If you love them so much then don't cheat in the first place. Sorry, but the idea that it is better to cheat on them and risk not only hurting them but their health is better than risk hurting their feelings by simply discussing an issue is just crazy to me. If you can't discuss sex with your sex partner then why are you with them in the first place?
"Then you drew your line, period."
No, I gave a few examples that I thought you could make a case for. I didn't say it was an exhaustive list. But I find a lot of the comments being made, that being unsatisfied with a partner who won't indulge you justifies cheating, to be wrong. I'm sure we could put our heads together and come up with some other specific cases where we could both find some justification. But not being satisfied with your sex life with your partner and not wanting to hurt their feelings by discussing it with them isn't justifiable, it's chicken shit.
"I can imagine a number of situations not involving children or terminally ill / incapacitated spouses in which cheating would be the least bad option."
The problem is, does your spouse? That is the crux. Like I said, I don't want an open relationship, but I would rather deal with that option than being cheated on. Being cheated on would end my relationship. Don't cheat unless you are willing to have your relationship ended for you if you get caught. But if you are willing to risk losing your relationship by cheating why not just end it? If it really meant enough to you, and you know your partner would end it if you had sex outside of the relationship, then you wouldn't have sex outside of the relationship.
The problem is that people are making it out like they are doing this for their partners. But unless that partner is in a needy situation where they would feel compelled to end it, but ending it would have a direct, detrimental effect on them, then there is no justification I can see for that. It is a selfish act being put into selfless terms, "I am willing to have an affair to save our marriage, even though my partner would rather end it than let me have an affair".
" If you yourself can't, this may be more because of lack of experience: have you ever been in such a situation, and are you sure you know exactly what you would have done? "
Yes, actually. I had a partner for 4 years who, apparently, wasn't happy with our sex life. Instead of talking about it with me he made assumptions and instead cheated. I found out and dumped his ass. Now, several decades later, I am happily married with someone I could never imagine would cheat. Now if my old partner had tried to actually work with me we may have stayed together, but since he decided that he would make his own decisions I can say that, in retrospect, dumping his ass was the best thing I did. It allowed me to find someone I was more compatible with.
If he had gotten away with his cheating then he would have cheated me out of something even more important. The opportunity to be with someone who is genuinely happy with me.
So my attitudes aren't the result of lack of experience. On the contrary, they are the results of my experience with a cheater. Having to break up with him did hurt. A lot. But pain is part of life, as is change. And sometimes we need pain and change to find what we need. Slapping a bandaid on a problem and pretending it doesn't matter isn't the way to deal with these kinds of things.
97
@82 - Well, you know more about what you like than I do. :) FWIW, my experience is that just because it wasn't my idea and I wasn't that excited about it to begin with doesn't mean that I have to be disinterested, let alone a boring fuckdoll. I consider it my responsibility to get myself interested and make it fun for myself. Doesn't necessarily mean orgasm - there are lots of things to enjoy about sex.
That said, I am aware of the phenomenon of men (and women?) who have an absolute requirement for a partner who is not only having fun but is having a particular kind of fun and performing fun in a particular way. Seems like a harder problem to solve there. But also one in which I don't feel so grouchy at the less-libidinous partner, who in that case could be doing her loving and kind darnedest but still things aren't perfect.
@89
Still not clear about the relationship to libido and a general responsibility to be kind and thoughtful and loving to one's chosen partner, but that is okay. I am probably being a little dense. Sorry.
In case it's not obvious, my beef here is basically entirely with the partners consistently denying sex to their other person for no good reason - not with the ones dealing with that in whatever way works for them. (Not to say that whatever they do is necessarily "right", just that I am not addressing that right now.)
I kind of don't think that it's acceptable to act like an active disinclination - a real unwillingness - for sex with one's supposed beloved life partner is normal and healthy and just something the other partner has to get over.
That said, I am aware of the phenomenon of men (and women?) who have an absolute requirement for a partner who is not only having fun but is having a particular kind of fun and performing fun in a particular way. Seems like a harder problem to solve there. But also one in which I don't feel so grouchy at the less-libidinous partner, who in that case could be doing her loving and kind darnedest but still things aren't perfect.
@89
Still not clear about the relationship to libido and a general responsibility to be kind and thoughtful and loving to one's chosen partner, but that is okay. I am probably being a little dense. Sorry.
In case it's not obvious, my beef here is basically entirely with the partners consistently denying sex to their other person for no good reason - not with the ones dealing with that in whatever way works for them. (Not to say that whatever they do is necessarily "right", just that I am not addressing that right now.)
I kind of don't think that it's acceptable to act like an active disinclination - a real unwillingness - for sex with one's supposed beloved life partner is normal and healthy and just something the other partner has to get over.
98
@96 (Fortunate), thanks for the detailed answer! It makes it easier to point out the differences and compare our viewpoints. Let me respond now to your comments.
Agreed. And in some cases, so can cheating.
I stand corrected. You were indeed not talking about Dan. Still, I have difficulty finding people here who really defend the idea that cheating is "automatically" right. Can you think of anyone here who you think is misinterpreting Dan in this way?
Because the argument cuts both ways. Sex not being a good deal is used as an argument both against and for cheating, which is the point I wanted to make: trying to base an argument on how important sex is or isn't is ambiguous.
It's possible to build the argument that it's OK to cheat if one isn't getting enough sex both on the idea that sex isn't really important ('if it isn't a big deal, what is the problem if I get it elsewhere?') and on the idea that it is a big deal ('I'm not getting my needs met here, and this is a big deal, so I need to get it elsewhere'). It's also possible to build the argument that it's bad to cheat if one isn't getting enough sex both on the idea that sex isn't really important ('if it isn't important, surely s/he can go without it, no big harm done! there are more important things'), and on the idea that sex is really important ('if sex is really important, then s/he shouldn't get it outside of our relationship under any circumstances!').
Note that in both cases the real difference is not how important sex is, but whose feelings are more important. Who suffers more. And my claim is: you can't know a priori. Depending on the situation and on the people involved, it could be one way, and it could be the other way.
The basic point really is: does someone whose sexual needs aren't being met have the right to do something other than discussing this need with his/her low-libido partner (including terminating the relationship as a possibility), or not? Are there no circumstances (other than children or debilitating illnesses) that would make any other options acceptable? I maintain there are such circumstances. You apparently think there aren't.
And I challenge the (implicit) claim that you can make this challenge in absolute terms, not dependent on the circumstances. I propose that yes, there are situations in which this is the right or best thing to do, because life is not simple.
This may not be insecurity, but actual fact. Not all people escape solitude. You're jumping to conclusions here: and condescedingly reducing every person's calculations for his/her happiness to 'insecurity'.
Life is not simply uncertain: it's dangerous. If you leave the partner with whom you lived in sexual frustration, you may still live to regret that, e.g., because the next one, or even all future ones, may turn out even worse. You may think that's not a good enough motive, but why should other people?
The health risk can be managed and reduced to near-zero levels. Now, you're really defending the idea that it is always better to tell the truth, no matter how much this may hurt others. While I'm in principle sympathetic to this idea (I have a truth fetish myself), I don't see why hurting others with the truth is always better than not hurting them. I've myself been in situations in which the other person told me squarely 'I wished you had never told me that.'
Life is always case-by-case, Fortunate. You belittle the bad consequences by calling them 'hurt their feelings', but given the hang-ups and life histories of many people in a still quite sex-unfriendly society, this is in many cases hardly the right expression. 'Devastating their sense of self and morals' might come closer in some cases. To say nothing of a plethora of intermediate cases.
The fact of discussing it might destroy the possibility of a good outcome in some cases. You think it is always wrong for one person to make a decision for two people. I am also in principle strongly against that. But one thing life tends to teach us sooner or later, Fortunate, is that not all of us are so fortunate as to never have to face a situation in which one has to do exactly that -- make a decision for two people -- or then destroy something beautiful and valuable.
You basically think life is simpler than I think it is. That probably subsumes the difference between our worldviews.
Indeed we could find such cases, and that is the reason why your conclusion -- "... it's chicken shit" -- is ultimately untenable. All you're saying here is that there indeed are cases -- and many -- in which the cheating partner could have solved the problem in some other way; s/he simply chose a more convenient solution, so as not to have to deal with 'hurt feelings'. I'm saying this is not the only case covered by the kind of situation the LW is describing. It simply does not always boil down to 'some hurt feelings'. The stakes can be way higher than that, depending on each specific situation. Which is why that argument is ultimately not automatically chicken shit.
But see, you're doing the same thing here -- you're suggesting that the cheating partner's claim to be doing it 'for his/her partner' is necessarily either cowardly or self-delusion (let's exclude ill intent for the sake of the argument). Whereas I'm claiming that there may be situations (some of the ones you mentioned above we could come up with) in which this decision would be neither, but actually a good solution to a problem for which all other possibilities would have worse consequences -- including also for the cheated-on partner. It's not simply that "the cheated-on partner would prefer to end the relationship" -- that is only one of the consequences for the cheated-on; there might be others, and worse ones.
No -- the question is really 'what would the consequence be for my spouse'? You say you would end your relationship if cheated on, and I am sure you really believe it. But if it so happened that you once saw yourself in the situation of having been cheated on, and still remaining in the relationship (because the situation will be more complicated than simply saying 'I was chated on'), you will not be the first. Many people who claimed they could not put up with cheating did indeed put up with it when the actual situation they found themselves in turned out not to be so simple -- morally/ethically, or because of the consequences they saw themselves facing were worse than accepting the cheating.
As Dan put it once, cheating doesn't have to automatically mean the end of a relationship.
This is the crux of the oversimplification, right there. I claim that these are not the only options: it's not simply 'either the relationship means enough to me that I won't cheat, or then it doesn't, and then I can end it'. There are more situations than that. It is possible to very much value a relationship that keeps one sexually frustrated, so that one cheats precisely in order not to have to give up this relationship that one values so much (back to the 'sex isn't everything' discussion). Not everything that isn't optimal should be thrown away.
If it was as easy for you to dump his ass as you imply here, then you haven't been in the kind of situation I had meant. This may still happen in the future, though. One never knows.
Which doesn't mean he won't. Many a case of infidelity has come as a complete surprise to the cheated-on partner.
This means you may not be the kind of person for whom it would be better not to know about any cheating. You sound like someone who could hold an honest discussion, and actually come to a rational conclusion, with your partner, about sex. Sadly, not everybody is like that, on the topic of sex. Far from that.
I note, by the way, that the fact you did find a more compatible person means that, ultimately, your first partner's decision to cheat resulted in an improvement of your life quality. You are now happier than you were with him, thanks to his cheating. (Consequences are indeed a curious thing, as philosophy tells us.)
Indeed, which reinforces what I said in the paragraph above. Note that, by the way, I am not arguing against the need to be honest and open to each other. This is necessary. I don't know why your previous partner cheated, and for all I know it may be simply because he was an asshole who didn't realize how good a person you were. But that may not be the case for all people who cheat (in the absence of children or debilitating illnesses).
Again, that's the crux of our disagreement, I think. We disagree on how simple or complicated life actually is. You defend an absolute (it is always better to leave a partner who is sexually frustrating you than to cheat on him/her, regardless of any other circumstances [except, you say, with debilitating illnesses or children]). I think life is case-by-case, and that believing in absolutes is tempting fate to eventually offer us a case we won't be able to fit in this absolute. As James Bond fans might say, never say never.
Experience with one kind of cheater. My claim is that not all cheaters are like your former partner, and therefore not with other kinds of cheaters and cheating situations. (Besides, the crucial point is not so much what kind of cheater you were dealing with, but whether there are any circumstances other than children or debilitating illnesses that would make it better for you not to know about your partner's infidelity. You maintain there couldn't be any, I suggest reality is so complicated that there actually could be. Out of curiosity: if you were ever to find out that your current partner -- the one who is so much better for you -- was cheating, or had cheated, on you, and had hidden that from you, would you also dump him?)
It's quite possible that you are right, about this specific situation: in restrospect, the pain you felt was better than ignorance have been. But you deduce from this that all cases in which a partner cheated on you would lead to the same conclusion. I don't make this assumption. There might be other cases -- other partners, other kinds of emotional relationships, other situations, etc. -- in which you would feel not better, but worse, if you had dumped him. And, furthermore, not everybody is like you; there may be people for whom the pain of dumping your cheating partner (+ other consequences) would have been worse than ignorance, in retrospect. Other people who would rather never be told.
I'm sincerely sad that you had to go through what you had to go through. I wished life had not made you suffer. But don't overgeneralize from your situation to all situations. Life isn't simple. Life is dangerous. Life is case-by-case.
More...
I never said leaving a partner was simple. I said that it can often be the right thing to do in these kinds of situations.
Agreed. And in some cases, so can cheating.
I didn't say Dan said it was automatically the right thing. I said he make a case for certain situations and others take that to mean it is.
I stand corrected. You were indeed not talking about Dan. Still, I have difficulty finding people here who really defend the idea that cheating is "automatically" right. Can you think of anyone here who you think is misinterpreting Dan in this way?
Interesting, but why direct that at my comments and not at those of the people justifying cheating. If sex isn't everything then why risk your relationship, your health, and possibly the health of your partner by cheating? Because while sex isn't everything, it is pretty important to most people. If people truly believed that sex wasn't everything, or at least a big thing, they wouldn't feel the need to cheat in the first place.
Because the argument cuts both ways. Sex not being a good deal is used as an argument both against and for cheating, which is the point I wanted to make: trying to base an argument on how important sex is or isn't is ambiguous.
It's possible to build the argument that it's OK to cheat if one isn't getting enough sex both on the idea that sex isn't really important ('if it isn't a big deal, what is the problem if I get it elsewhere?') and on the idea that it is a big deal ('I'm not getting my needs met here, and this is a big deal, so I need to get it elsewhere'). It's also possible to build the argument that it's bad to cheat if one isn't getting enough sex both on the idea that sex isn't really important ('if it isn't important, surely s/he can go without it, no big harm done! there are more important things'), and on the idea that sex is really important ('if sex is really important, then s/he shouldn't get it outside of our relationship under any circumstances!').
Note that in both cases the real difference is not how important sex is, but whose feelings are more important. Who suffers more. And my claim is: you can't know a priori. Depending on the situation and on the people involved, it could be one way, and it could be the other way.
The basic point really is: does someone whose sexual needs aren't being met have the right to do something other than discussing this need with his/her low-libido partner (including terminating the relationship as a possibility), or not? Are there no circumstances (other than children or debilitating illnesses) that would make any other options acceptable? I maintain there are such circumstances. You apparently think there aren't.
I don't doubt that. I don't contest the idea that people do this [= put up with things that make us miserable -- Ank.]. I challenge the notion that it is the right or best thing to do.
And I challenge the (implicit) claim that you can make this challenge in absolute terms, not dependent on the circumstances. I propose that yes, there are situations in which this is the right or best thing to do, because life is not simple.
"the feeling they could never find a better person" - Well, "I'm insecure, so I cheat" isn't a justification.[...] the feeling that there are other things that work wonderfully, but maybe not with the next boy/girlfriend" - And "life is uncertain, so I cheat" is also not a justification.
This may not be insecurity, but actual fact. Not all people escape solitude. You're jumping to conclusions here: and condescedingly reducing every person's calculations for his/her happiness to 'insecurity'.
Life is not simply uncertain: it's dangerous. If you leave the partner with whom you lived in sexual frustration, you may still live to regret that, e.g., because the next one, or even all future ones, may turn out even worse. You may think that's not a good enough motive, but why should other people?
Sorry, but the idea that it is better to cheat on them and risk not only hurting them but their health is better than risk hurting their feelings by simply discussing an issue is just crazy to me.
The health risk can be managed and reduced to near-zero levels. Now, you're really defending the idea that it is always better to tell the truth, no matter how much this may hurt others. While I'm in principle sympathetic to this idea (I have a truth fetish myself), I don't see why hurting others with the truth is always better than not hurting them. I've myself been in situations in which the other person told me squarely 'I wished you had never told me that.'
Life is always case-by-case, Fortunate. You belittle the bad consequences by calling them 'hurt their feelings', but given the hang-ups and life histories of many people in a still quite sex-unfriendly society, this is in many cases hardly the right expression. 'Devastating their sense of self and morals' might come closer in some cases. To say nothing of a plethora of intermediate cases.
"the feeling that there is a shared history with good and bad moments that also has strong emotional value and consequences for us, and that we can't give up simply like that" - That makes sense if both people feel that way. If they honestly did then they should be able to discuss options. One person making the decision for the other on this account is not justified.
The fact of discussing it might destroy the possibility of a good outcome in some cases. You think it is always wrong for one person to make a decision for two people. I am also in principle strongly against that. But one thing life tends to teach us sooner or later, Fortunate, is that not all of us are so fortunate as to never have to face a situation in which one has to do exactly that -- make a decision for two people -- or then destroy something beautiful and valuable.
You basically think life is simpler than I think it is. That probably subsumes the difference between our worldviews.
But I find a lot of the comments being made, that being unsatisfied with a partner who won't indulge you justifies cheating, to be wrong. I'm sure we could put our heads together and come up with some other specific cases where we could both find some justification. But not being satisfied with your sex life with your partner and not wanting to hurt their feelings by discussing it with them isn't justifiable, it's chicken shit.
Indeed we could find such cases, and that is the reason why your conclusion -- "... it's chicken shit" -- is ultimately untenable. All you're saying here is that there indeed are cases -- and many -- in which the cheating partner could have solved the problem in some other way; s/he simply chose a more convenient solution, so as not to have to deal with 'hurt feelings'. I'm saying this is not the only case covered by the kind of situation the LW is describing. It simply does not always boil down to 'some hurt feelings'. The stakes can be way higher than that, depending on each specific situation. Which is why that argument is ultimately not automatically chicken shit.
The problem is that people are making it out like they are doing this for their partners. But unless that partner is in a needy situation where they would feel compelled to end it, but ending it would have a direct, detrimental effect on them, then there is no justification I can see for that. It is a selfish act being put into selfless terms, "I am willing to have an affair to save our marriage, even though my partner would rather end it than let me have an affair".
But see, you're doing the same thing here -- you're suggesting that the cheating partner's claim to be doing it 'for his/her partner' is necessarily either cowardly or self-delusion (let's exclude ill intent for the sake of the argument). Whereas I'm claiming that there may be situations (some of the ones you mentioned above we could come up with) in which this decision would be neither, but actually a good solution to a problem for which all other possibilities would have worse consequences -- including also for the cheated-on partner. It's not simply that "the cheated-on partner would prefer to end the relationship" -- that is only one of the consequences for the cheated-on; there might be others, and worse ones.
The problem is, does your spouse? That is the crux. Like I said, I don't want an open relationship, but I would rather deal with that option than being cheated on. Being cheated on would end my relationship.
No -- the question is really 'what would the consequence be for my spouse'? You say you would end your relationship if cheated on, and I am sure you really believe it. But if it so happened that you once saw yourself in the situation of having been cheated on, and still remaining in the relationship (because the situation will be more complicated than simply saying 'I was chated on'), you will not be the first. Many people who claimed they could not put up with cheating did indeed put up with it when the actual situation they found themselves in turned out not to be so simple -- morally/ethically, or because of the consequences they saw themselves facing were worse than accepting the cheating.
As Dan put it once, cheating doesn't have to automatically mean the end of a relationship.
But if you are willing to risk losing your relationship by cheating why not just end it? If it really meant enough to you, and you know your partner would end it if you had sex outside of the relationship, then you wouldn't have sex outside of the relationship.
This is the crux of the oversimplification, right there. I claim that these are not the only options: it's not simply 'either the relationship means enough to me that I won't cheat, or then it doesn't, and then I can end it'. There are more situations than that. It is possible to very much value a relationship that keeps one sexually frustrated, so that one cheats precisely in order not to have to give up this relationship that one values so much (back to the 'sex isn't everything' discussion). Not everything that isn't optimal should be thrown away.
Yes, actually. I had a partner for 4 years who, apparently, wasn't happy with our sex life. Instead of talking about it with me he made assumptions and instead cheated. I found out and dumped his ass.
If it was as easy for you to dump his ass as you imply here, then you haven't been in the kind of situation I had meant. This may still happen in the future, though. One never knows.
Now, several decades later, I am happily married with someone I could never imagine would cheat.
Which doesn't mean he won't. Many a case of infidelity has come as a complete surprise to the cheated-on partner.
Now if my old partner had tried to actually work with me we may have stayed together, but since he decided that he would make his own decisions I can say that, in retrospect, dumping his ass was the best thing I did. It allowed me to find someone I was more compatible with.
This means you may not be the kind of person for whom it would be better not to know about any cheating. You sound like someone who could hold an honest discussion, and actually come to a rational conclusion, with your partner, about sex. Sadly, not everybody is like that, on the topic of sex. Far from that.
I note, by the way, that the fact you did find a more compatible person means that, ultimately, your first partner's decision to cheat resulted in an improvement of your life quality. You are now happier than you were with him, thanks to his cheating. (Consequences are indeed a curious thing, as philosophy tells us.)
If he had gotten away with his cheating then he would have cheated me out of something even more important. The opportunity to be with someone who is genuinely happy with me.
Indeed, which reinforces what I said in the paragraph above. Note that, by the way, I am not arguing against the need to be honest and open to each other. This is necessary. I don't know why your previous partner cheated, and for all I know it may be simply because he was an asshole who didn't realize how good a person you were. But that may not be the case for all people who cheat (in the absence of children or debilitating illnesses).
Again, that's the crux of our disagreement, I think. We disagree on how simple or complicated life actually is. You defend an absolute (it is always better to leave a partner who is sexually frustrating you than to cheat on him/her, regardless of any other circumstances [except, you say, with debilitating illnesses or children]). I think life is case-by-case, and that believing in absolutes is tempting fate to eventually offer us a case we won't be able to fit in this absolute. As James Bond fans might say, never say never.
So my attitudes aren't the result of lack of experience. On the contrary, they are the results of my experience with a cheater.
Experience with one kind of cheater. My claim is that not all cheaters are like your former partner, and therefore not with other kinds of cheaters and cheating situations. (Besides, the crucial point is not so much what kind of cheater you were dealing with, but whether there are any circumstances other than children or debilitating illnesses that would make it better for you not to know about your partner's infidelity. You maintain there couldn't be any, I suggest reality is so complicated that there actually could be. Out of curiosity: if you were ever to find out that your current partner -- the one who is so much better for you -- was cheating, or had cheated, on you, and had hidden that from you, would you also dump him?)
Having to break up with him did hurt. A lot. But pain is part of life, as is change. And sometimes we need pain and change to find what we need. Slapping a bandaid on a problem and pretending it doesn't matter isn't the way to deal with these kinds of things.
It's quite possible that you are right, about this specific situation: in restrospect, the pain you felt was better than ignorance have been. But you deduce from this that all cases in which a partner cheated on you would lead to the same conclusion. I don't make this assumption. There might be other cases -- other partners, other kinds of emotional relationships, other situations, etc. -- in which you would feel not better, but worse, if you had dumped him. And, furthermore, not everybody is like you; there may be people for whom the pain of dumping your cheating partner (+ other consequences) would have been worse than ignorance, in retrospect. Other people who would rather never be told.
I'm sincerely sad that you had to go through what you had to go through. I wished life had not made you suffer. But don't overgeneralize from your situation to all situations. Life isn't simple. Life is dangerous. Life is case-by-case.
99
@91(Suzy), who wrote:
Indeed, and, not being a strict consequentionalist, I would even go further and say that such a calculation is not the only factor (some of the factors involved, like memories of previous happiness, are very difficult to measure). But what you write suggests that you think lying to someone (at least when the lie is about a topic more important than a certain threshhold) is always one step too far. You haven't stated that clearly, so I have to ask you: is that so? Do you agree with Fortunate's apparent position (in e.g. @98 above) that, barring certain extraordinary circumstances (debilitating illness of the cheated-on partner whose libido decreased or disappeared, or the presence of children), it is always better to end a relationship with a partner who won't make the effort of satisfying you sexually and won't give you permission to look for it elsewhere, than to cheat on him/her? If so, wouldn't this be an absolute?
One of those results, which you have chosen to de-value, is that someone is being lied to about something very important. That's not "nothing" in the calculation of consequences of the action.
Indeed, and, not being a strict consequentionalist, I would even go further and say that such a calculation is not the only factor (some of the factors involved, like memories of previous happiness, are very difficult to measure). But what you write suggests that you think lying to someone (at least when the lie is about a topic more important than a certain threshhold) is always one step too far. You haven't stated that clearly, so I have to ask you: is that so? Do you agree with Fortunate's apparent position (in e.g. @98 above) that, barring certain extraordinary circumstances (debilitating illness of the cheated-on partner whose libido decreased or disappeared, or the presence of children), it is always better to end a relationship with a partner who won't make the effort of satisfying you sexually and won't give you permission to look for it elsewhere, than to cheat on him/her? If so, wouldn't this be an absolute?
100
I come away from these discussions feeling so utterly depressed. I generally have a high libido, but sometimes my sex drive has veered off the rails for no discernible reason... Without a reason, it's kind of hard to fix it. When I've been in relationships, I've tried to force myself through the motions, but there's something..... soul-sucking about it. I can't fully explain why. Maybe because my lack of sex drive really IS some sort of deep psychological scar, and having sex without passion is like poking at it, never letting it heal.
But what makes me the most depressed is the idea that my future husband could one day decide that I'm not giving him enough sex for a long enough period of time (what's my grace period? One month? A year? 2-4 years?) and without even discussing it with me, go and cheat. It makes sex seem less like a wonderful intimate act and more like a controlling chore, something to be suspicious of and anxious about.
But what makes me the most depressed is the idea that my future husband could one day decide that I'm not giving him enough sex for a long enough period of time (what's my grace period? One month? A year? 2-4 years?) and without even discussing it with me, go and cheat. It makes sex seem less like a wonderful intimate act and more like a controlling chore, something to be suspicious of and anxious about.
101
@82(tau), who wrote:
It doesn't make much instinctive sense to me, either -- it's like saying that denying food to your partner is somehow going to improve the situation of starving children in Africa. But I've heard justifications, so I think the rationale is like this: if I give sex to my partner when I don't want it just because he does, I'm encouraging him/her to take me for granted, to think of me as just a source of sex, a 'thing' that he can go to whenever he needs sex, regardless of how I feel. If said partner happens to be a man, this will also strengthen social stereotypes about men taking women whenever they want, etc.
Of course this is bogus, since it conflates as one situations that are really different. It's not the case that every person I ever did something for out of empathy for his/her feelings simply came to see me as a source s/he could take for granted; no, there are many people who are actually happy and grateful to see that we care about them and their needs enough to try to satisfy their needs just out of empathy. In fact, for many such people the result was a strengthening of our friendship/love/relationship ties, plus gratitude and a willingness to do for me what I had done for them. Sometimes good will pays off.
I think the above rationale ultimately comes from the (somewhat misandric but actually traditional in our culture, not really a consequence of feminism as some MRA's seem to think) that, in the topic of sex, men are always 'a little bit evil,' at best like mischievous children who will take an arm if you offer a finger. With sex, if you're not reeeaaalllly careful with men, they'll always end up manipulating you.
Yes, that's an example of what I mentioned above. There's the possibility that it's all a power game (power games are so frequent in human relations!...) with your friend playing the 'evil manipulator' role; but she may be also simply agreeing with the stereotype that 'with sex, men are always a little bit evil and have to be kept under control, or else they'll do bad things to you,' which is what she may think happened with her first boyfriend. She may think she needs to deny her new boyfriend sex so that he'll respect her, which, she thinks, her first boyfriend didn't... which of course doesn't have to be true, it may simply be that they had mismatched libidos; and even if the first boyfriend really didn't respect her, it doesn't follow that the second one does, too.
More...
Anyways, sexual assault of women is obviously an ongoing bad. But it's never been as clear to me as it is to some people why it is relevant in relationships in which no assault occurs.
It doesn't make much instinctive sense to me, either -- it's like saying that denying food to your partner is somehow going to improve the situation of starving children in Africa. But I've heard justifications, so I think the rationale is like this: if I give sex to my partner when I don't want it just because he does, I'm encouraging him/her to take me for granted, to think of me as just a source of sex, a 'thing' that he can go to whenever he needs sex, regardless of how I feel. If said partner happens to be a man, this will also strengthen social stereotypes about men taking women whenever they want, etc.
Of course this is bogus, since it conflates as one situations that are really different. It's not the case that every person I ever did something for out of empathy for his/her feelings simply came to see me as a source s/he could take for granted; no, there are many people who are actually happy and grateful to see that we care about them and their needs enough to try to satisfy their needs just out of empathy. In fact, for many such people the result was a strengthening of our friendship/love/relationship ties, plus gratitude and a willingness to do for me what I had done for them. Sometimes good will pays off.
I think the above rationale ultimately comes from the (somewhat misandric but actually traditional in our culture, not really a consequence of feminism as some MRA's seem to think) that, in the topic of sex, men are always 'a little bit evil,' at best like mischievous children who will take an arm if you offer a finger. With sex, if you're not reeeaaalllly careful with men, they'll always end up manipulating you.
But it is not clear in what way denying one's partner sex to make a point (even if that point is "I don't have to") makes anything better. Relatedly, I have a young friend who likes to talk about an ex-boyfriend who "kept her as a sex prisoner" and forced her to have sex all the time; on further discussion it becomes clear that so actual force of any kind was ever involved, merely a threat to break up, but she reports using this history as a continued justification for denying her current boyfriend sex whenever it is not her idea, in what I can only assume must be some sort of power game.
Yes, that's an example of what I mentioned above. There's the possibility that it's all a power game (power games are so frequent in human relations!...) with your friend playing the 'evil manipulator' role; but she may be also simply agreeing with the stereotype that 'with sex, men are always a little bit evil and have to be kept under control, or else they'll do bad things to you,' which is what she may think happened with her first boyfriend. She may think she needs to deny her new boyfriend sex so that he'll respect her, which, she thinks, her first boyfriend didn't... which of course doesn't have to be true, it may simply be that they had mismatched libidos; and even if the first boyfriend really didn't respect her, it doesn't follow that the second one does, too.
102
Mr J - I could easily cast you as Evgeny Platov.
Mr Ank @82 - You've reminded me of Hilde Wangel.
Mr South - I should define it a bit differently. A doll would be compliant rather than willing. Willing seems to suit a participant; a beneficiary would be enthusiastic. I have a feeling there's room to squeeze a third idea into your philosophy if you can do it, and that perhaps you might find it beneficial. I suspect Ms Erica would entirely agree with you, though, so that either way, you have something beneficial. Good luck to ye.
Mr Ank @82 - You've reminded me of Hilde Wangel.
Mr South - I should define it a bit differently. A doll would be compliant rather than willing. Willing seems to suit a participant; a beneficiary would be enthusiastic. I have a feeling there's room to squeeze a third idea into your philosophy if you can do it, and that perhaps you might find it beneficial. I suspect Ms Erica would entirely agree with you, though, so that either way, you have something beneficial. Good luck to ye.
103
@100, there is no need to feel so depressed, unless you really think that the sex your boyfriend does or doesn't get from, or give to, you is the only basis of your relationship.
Maybe the real reason for your depression is that, when you imagine your future partner deciding to cheat, you think he'll do it lightly. You wonder, for instance, what a "long enough" period would be, without considering how much suffering your partner might be going to with a sexless life. (How much one can go without sex is, after all, a personal thing; men can sincerely differ a lot in that respect.) As if cheating by any future partner of yours were always an easy decision to make for any men, something done lightly just because one is a little upset about not having been serviced this month.
It may be a little more than that.
Sex is a wonderful intimate act, but it's also a need. It's a wonderful thing to share with others, but it's also something that makes us miserable when we aren't getting it -- depending, of course, on how strong your libido is. To see it only from one perspective, but forget the other, is a frequent but still quite sad mistake.
To make a comparison a friend once told me, if you acquired a dog, then you have to take care of his needs. You need to walk him every day, for instance, and not only when you yourself feel like walking. If you didn't want to do that, then maybe you should not acquire a dog, or at least you should have other people walk him. Whatever reason you have for not walking the dog (I'm not assuming that you're selfish -- maybe you just can't walk so much, and having to do this every day actually hurts you or is bad for your health), the dog's need to walk doesn't disappear, and not satisfying it is not going to make the dog (and ultimately you) happy.
Likewise, if you start a relationship in which a certain need is very important for your partner (say, sex), and then you see yourself sometimes in a situation in which you cannot satisfy this need for long periods of time -- even if it is not your fault --, your partner's needs don't disappear. Not because he is evil or doesn't really love you, but because needs are needs. Something should be done about it, something should be planned for this contingency. The two of you should at least talk about it. I'm not saying "sacrifice yourself!" I'm saying, discuss the problem. Think about solutions you can offer him.
More...
Maybe the real reason for your depression is that, when you imagine your future partner deciding to cheat, you think he'll do it lightly. You wonder, for instance, what a "long enough" period would be, without considering how much suffering your partner might be going to with a sexless life. (How much one can go without sex is, after all, a personal thing; men can sincerely differ a lot in that respect.) As if cheating by any future partner of yours were always an easy decision to make for any men, something done lightly just because one is a little upset about not having been serviced this month.
It may be a little more than that.
Sex is a wonderful intimate act, but it's also a need. It's a wonderful thing to share with others, but it's also something that makes us miserable when we aren't getting it -- depending, of course, on how strong your libido is. To see it only from one perspective, but forget the other, is a frequent but still quite sad mistake.
To make a comparison a friend once told me, if you acquired a dog, then you have to take care of his needs. You need to walk him every day, for instance, and not only when you yourself feel like walking. If you didn't want to do that, then maybe you should not acquire a dog, or at least you should have other people walk him. Whatever reason you have for not walking the dog (I'm not assuming that you're selfish -- maybe you just can't walk so much, and having to do this every day actually hurts you or is bad for your health), the dog's need to walk doesn't disappear, and not satisfying it is not going to make the dog (and ultimately you) happy.
Likewise, if you start a relationship in which a certain need is very important for your partner (say, sex), and then you see yourself sometimes in a situation in which you cannot satisfy this need for long periods of time -- even if it is not your fault --, your partner's needs don't disappear. Not because he is evil or doesn't really love you, but because needs are needs. Something should be done about it, something should be planned for this contingency. The two of you should at least talk about it. I'm not saying "sacrifice yourself!" I'm saying, discuss the problem. Think about solutions you can offer him.
104
@102 (Mr.V) -- and you've reminded me of Miss Jane Marple. (I think you're also an Agatha Christie fan, since you once mentioned the Orient Express? I quite like Miss Marple, and Hercule Poirot, who, with his frequent French -- sorry, Belgian -- bons mots was the trigger of what would become my love of languages.)
105
@103 - the dog analogy is close to my heart! I have an elderly and emotionally needy dog sharing my seat as I write. I won't lie, sometimes I get tired of always having to take my pets' welfare into account when making plans. On the other hand, I have healthy and extremely well-behaved pets. Sometimes people whose dogs are really unruly and disobedient act like I am just so lucky to have such great pets, but that is not what is going on at all. If you want your dog to behave, you have to put in time and effort to make sure the dog's needs are being met.
And if you want a great loving trusting partnership, maybe you (um, for some value of "you") need to consider whether you really dislike having sex more than your partner dislikes NOT having it.
Obviously these conditions are, even if necessary, not sufficient. Sadly.
...I just get so tired of people saying they want an intense interpersonal partnership and all the benefits that obtain, but being basically unwilling to make the interpersonal sacrifices that are an absolute requirement for developing that kind of relationship.
And if you want a great loving trusting partnership, maybe you (um, for some value of "you") need to consider whether you really dislike having sex more than your partner dislikes NOT having it.
Obviously these conditions are, even if necessary, not sufficient. Sadly.
...I just get so tired of people saying they want an intense interpersonal partnership and all the benefits that obtain, but being basically unwilling to make the interpersonal sacrifices that are an absolute requirement for developing that kind of relationship.
106
My partner is exactly the type that makes the decision to cheat or not to cheat so difficult. I have lived with her long enough to know that were I to cheat and she were to find out, she would be devastated. Talking about our anemic sex life leaves her plenty depressed as it is (literally, as in needing meds and therapy). Like many people with low to no libido report, she wants to want to have sex with me, but that wanting to want isn't enough. And so I get by with quarterly sex (and trust me, I know I have it better than some).
The thing is, I had no business making a monogamous commitment some fifteen years ago. It wasn't that I knew then that I would be unhappy with just one person, it's that I didn't know. Back when I was asked to make that decision the question I thought I was facing was, "could I be satisfied having sex with only this one person for the rest of my life?"
When that commitment was made, the situation on the ground was much different than it is now. In the twilight of youth I didn't recognize the signs of the impending darkness. First to go was all oral. I knew she didn't enjoy giving, so I never asked, but going down on her was a big turn on for me. Then it became "look ma, no hands." Frequency declined from twice a week, to a "compromise" of twice a month. Even that we couldn't stick to.
While she was on a decline in interest, the messages I heard were all about "enthusiastic consent." "WTF is that?" I wondered. And it leaves me in a bind. The sex we have now is by no means enthusiastic, and I get the feeling that if I held out for it I'd probably have sex during leap years only.
Everything else works; money, chores, and raising the kids are all fine. So I see three basic choices ahead for me:
1) Do I cause her a great deal of pain by cheating?
2) Do I cause her a great deal of pain by leaving?
3) Do I suck it up and accept that my sex life may very well be solo from here on out?
Perhaps there are choices I haven't considered? We've discussed DADT arrangements, FB arrangements, the 500 mile rule. All are unacceptable and off the table. We agreed to see a sex therapist together, and then she didn't follow through. She agrees with many of the commenters here that I probably should leave her, but that doesn't make it hurt any less.
When I put myself in her shoes, I like to think I would allow my partner to have his needs met elsewhere. And so I unilaterally gave her a free pass, with the explicit agreement that she doesn't have to reciprocate. She has no interest in using it or in granting me even a one-time pass. Right now we're in a sort of detente: I've stopped asking, and she's stopped rejecting me.
What is the moral thing to do here? Suck it up another ten years until the kids are out the door? I could probably do it, but could I stave off the bitterness long enough that I might find someone on the other side?
More...
The thing is, I had no business making a monogamous commitment some fifteen years ago. It wasn't that I knew then that I would be unhappy with just one person, it's that I didn't know. Back when I was asked to make that decision the question I thought I was facing was, "could I be satisfied having sex with only this one person for the rest of my life?"
When that commitment was made, the situation on the ground was much different than it is now. In the twilight of youth I didn't recognize the signs of the impending darkness. First to go was all oral. I knew she didn't enjoy giving, so I never asked, but going down on her was a big turn on for me. Then it became "look ma, no hands." Frequency declined from twice a week, to a "compromise" of twice a month. Even that we couldn't stick to.
While she was on a decline in interest, the messages I heard were all about "enthusiastic consent." "WTF is that?" I wondered. And it leaves me in a bind. The sex we have now is by no means enthusiastic, and I get the feeling that if I held out for it I'd probably have sex during leap years only.
Everything else works; money, chores, and raising the kids are all fine. So I see three basic choices ahead for me:
1) Do I cause her a great deal of pain by cheating?
2) Do I cause her a great deal of pain by leaving?
3) Do I suck it up and accept that my sex life may very well be solo from here on out?
Perhaps there are choices I haven't considered? We've discussed DADT arrangements, FB arrangements, the 500 mile rule. All are unacceptable and off the table. We agreed to see a sex therapist together, and then she didn't follow through. She agrees with many of the commenters here that I probably should leave her, but that doesn't make it hurt any less.
When I put myself in her shoes, I like to think I would allow my partner to have his needs met elsewhere. And so I unilaterally gave her a free pass, with the explicit agreement that she doesn't have to reciprocate. She has no interest in using it or in granting me even a one-time pass. Right now we're in a sort of detente: I've stopped asking, and she's stopped rejecting me.
What is the moral thing to do here? Suck it up another ten years until the kids are out the door? I could probably do it, but could I stave off the bitterness long enough that I might find someone on the other side?
107
The "my partner has low libido" crowd fail to take into account that perhaps their partner is massively uninterested in THEM sexually but feels 'trapped' in the relationship for other reasons (kids, etc) and it is easier for them to say 'oh, it's me honey- I just don't have any desire....' than to say 'you dry me up like the desert- please don't touch me'.
it is of course easier to pretend you are a sex horse who is just too much for your partner but the reality may be that on a better mount they would ride the night away.
it is of course easier to pretend you are a sex horse who is just too much for your partner but the reality may be that on a better mount they would ride the night away.
108
Mr Ank - I meant specifically post 82 and your question therein. As I had to go shopping just then, I couldn't elaborate, but I refer you to Act II of The Master Builder and how Aline Solness irritates Hilde, not by doing her kindnesses, but by declining thanks and claiming that it's no more than her duty, which Hilde considers an ugly, hateful word. She'd much rather that Mrs S claim to be kind out of personal affection.
Your question made me think of when sexual relations were regarded as one of the primary marital duties of a woman, and then either Ms W or Frederic from The Pirates of Penzance was the logical association with duty.
Your question made me think of when sexual relations were regarded as one of the primary marital duties of a woman, and then either Ms W or Frederic from The Pirates of Penzance was the logical association with duty.
109
@106 (delwalk):
You have my sympathy. The choices you face are all hard and none of them ideal. You phrase all your actions in terms of the pain it would cause your wife, but I suspect that you would feel pain at the idea of leaving, as well.
I really wish all those, such as fortunate and tau and the others who claim to be well-suited, permanent happiness, but the situation they're in seems to lead to a total inability to understand the nuances of mis-match. Someone suggested that the fault was in the choice of the spouse. Well, none of us can predict when we're young how our older selves or the older versions of our spouses will be--nor how we will react to changes we can't even foresee. Who knows at 25 whether your wife will end up with MS or your husband with ALS? Who knows who will get cancer at age 50 and how the relationship dynamic will change. We can understand intellectually the idea that young children affect libido and opportunity, but one doesn't think, young and in love at age 22, that someday, the as-yet-unconceived child will be an angry teen with a drug and truancy problem.
Stop blaming people for choosing their mates poorly.
And we all seem to understand mortal illness as an "excuse" for a lack of interest in sex, or an undiagnosed medical condition, but sometimes the reasons are complex or undefinable. Sometimes there is no reason. Sometimes the one who has less interest in sex regains interest--just not with the spouse.
There are plenty of reasons that people can and do stay married, beyond obligation or children. The choice isn't always cheat or leave.
For those who advocate nothing but total and complete honesty ("why can't they just talk about the problem?" "If couples can't talk about it they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place"), your smugness makes me almost, but not quite, wish a little marital unhappiness on you. It is another variation of "you should have chosen better," coupled with "I am so superior to you and my marriage so superior to yours, and you should just be like me."
Lastly, many people are being kind to me and exonerating me from the CPOS label (honestly, I don't care what people I don't know think of me, but it's nice to read the non-condemnatory feedback), but I want to be clear that although I told my ex-husband what I was going to do, I also knew that he didn't believe me, that he thought it was some sort of empty "threat," that after the fight that followed that statement was resolved, it was as if I had never said it--and certainly wasn't acting on it. So although I was honest and made my intentions known, I was also dishonest and kept him in the dark. I don't try to justify my cheating or to excuse it. As several people have pointed out (delwalk, in his option 3, and Mr. J, are struggling with or living out other ways of dealing), I had choices beyond cheating. I could have left (which was the choice I eventually made), or tried to do without sexual fulfillment. I could have resigned myself to a lifetime of only having solo sex (as delwalk is considering) or waited for that part of me to die off (as Mr. J is trying to do). I remember trying to figure out how many years I had to go until it was likely that menopause would hit, trusting that I wouldn't care as much anymore then, and then thinking that that was the saddest way to live I could imagine. Because as someone on this thread said, life is long and life is short--and you only get one go round. But I chose to be selfish and have my cake and eat it too, or as Dan would say, "stay sane" and be able to be content in my sexually unfulfilling marriage to a wonderful companion, friend, and co-parent and to keep my children's lives unaltered (and yes, to not be poverty-sricken, as I am now, my ex making approximately 5 times what I make). Ankylosaur did me the compliment of suggesting that if my ex had asked, I would have told, but I have to say that I probably would have flat-out lied or denied if confronted. Because he had made it clear ("you do that"--meet my needs outside the marriage--"and this marriage is over") he could not stay married to me if he knew I was having sex with someone else. And at the time, I wasn't ready to capsize our the lives of everyone in the family, else I would have simply divorced then and there.
I have often thought that my inability to find the kind of relationship I sacrificed our family to be able to have is a karmic payback for my affair. I don't like it, but I'll accept it as my punishment. But it is ironic that I once weighed my options, like delwalk is currently doing, and the idea of a sex life being consigned only to a solo sex life was unacceptable to me. Yet here I am, 14 years after wrestling with the choices, 9 years after making the decision to cheat, 4 years after leaving my marriage, alone, and with only my vibrator. And no companion to see me though the death of parents, or to investigate that weird sound in the night, or to share a laugh or a story, or rub my tired feet at the end of a long day, or for me to buy a silly card for or cook a favorite meal for. And to be trying as hard as I can not to be thrown out on the street while my ex takes our kids on extravagant vacations or buys the latest new gadgets. I gambled and I lost. And I'm still hopeful about the future. But reading smug lectures from those of you who don't face incompatibilities implying that I should have chosen a partner differently is more than a bit galling.
More...
You have my sympathy. The choices you face are all hard and none of them ideal. You phrase all your actions in terms of the pain it would cause your wife, but I suspect that you would feel pain at the idea of leaving, as well.
I really wish all those, such as fortunate and tau and the others who claim to be well-suited, permanent happiness, but the situation they're in seems to lead to a total inability to understand the nuances of mis-match. Someone suggested that the fault was in the choice of the spouse. Well, none of us can predict when we're young how our older selves or the older versions of our spouses will be--nor how we will react to changes we can't even foresee. Who knows at 25 whether your wife will end up with MS or your husband with ALS? Who knows who will get cancer at age 50 and how the relationship dynamic will change. We can understand intellectually the idea that young children affect libido and opportunity, but one doesn't think, young and in love at age 22, that someday, the as-yet-unconceived child will be an angry teen with a drug and truancy problem.
Stop blaming people for choosing their mates poorly.
And we all seem to understand mortal illness as an "excuse" for a lack of interest in sex, or an undiagnosed medical condition, but sometimes the reasons are complex or undefinable. Sometimes there is no reason. Sometimes the one who has less interest in sex regains interest--just not with the spouse.
There are plenty of reasons that people can and do stay married, beyond obligation or children. The choice isn't always cheat or leave.
For those who advocate nothing but total and complete honesty ("why can't they just talk about the problem?" "If couples can't talk about it they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place"), your smugness makes me almost, but not quite, wish a little marital unhappiness on you. It is another variation of "you should have chosen better," coupled with "I am so superior to you and my marriage so superior to yours, and you should just be like me."
Lastly, many people are being kind to me and exonerating me from the CPOS label (honestly, I don't care what people I don't know think of me, but it's nice to read the non-condemnatory feedback), but I want to be clear that although I told my ex-husband what I was going to do, I also knew that he didn't believe me, that he thought it was some sort of empty "threat," that after the fight that followed that statement was resolved, it was as if I had never said it--and certainly wasn't acting on it. So although I was honest and made my intentions known, I was also dishonest and kept him in the dark. I don't try to justify my cheating or to excuse it. As several people have pointed out (delwalk, in his option 3, and Mr. J, are struggling with or living out other ways of dealing), I had choices beyond cheating. I could have left (which was the choice I eventually made), or tried to do without sexual fulfillment. I could have resigned myself to a lifetime of only having solo sex (as delwalk is considering) or waited for that part of me to die off (as Mr. J is trying to do). I remember trying to figure out how many years I had to go until it was likely that menopause would hit, trusting that I wouldn't care as much anymore then, and then thinking that that was the saddest way to live I could imagine. Because as someone on this thread said, life is long and life is short--and you only get one go round. But I chose to be selfish and have my cake and eat it too, or as Dan would say, "stay sane" and be able to be content in my sexually unfulfilling marriage to a wonderful companion, friend, and co-parent and to keep my children's lives unaltered (and yes, to not be poverty-sricken, as I am now, my ex making approximately 5 times what I make). Ankylosaur did me the compliment of suggesting that if my ex had asked, I would have told, but I have to say that I probably would have flat-out lied or denied if confronted. Because he had made it clear ("you do that"--meet my needs outside the marriage--"and this marriage is over") he could not stay married to me if he knew I was having sex with someone else. And at the time, I wasn't ready to capsize our the lives of everyone in the family, else I would have simply divorced then and there.
I have often thought that my inability to find the kind of relationship I sacrificed our family to be able to have is a karmic payback for my affair. I don't like it, but I'll accept it as my punishment. But it is ironic that I once weighed my options, like delwalk is currently doing, and the idea of a sex life being consigned only to a solo sex life was unacceptable to me. Yet here I am, 14 years after wrestling with the choices, 9 years after making the decision to cheat, 4 years after leaving my marriage, alone, and with only my vibrator. And no companion to see me though the death of parents, or to investigate that weird sound in the night, or to share a laugh or a story, or rub my tired feet at the end of a long day, or for me to buy a silly card for or cook a favorite meal for. And to be trying as hard as I can not to be thrown out on the street while my ex takes our kids on extravagant vacations or buys the latest new gadgets. I gambled and I lost. And I'm still hopeful about the future. But reading smug lectures from those of you who don't face incompatibilities implying that I should have chosen a partner differently is more than a bit galling.
110
@delwalk, yours is (one of) the kind of situation I was thinking about when I reacted to Fortunate's post. I am really sorry to read what you're going through, and for whatever it's worth you sincerely have my sympathy.
I hope you won't mind my curiosity if I dare to take (just for argumentation's sake) Fortunate's position and ask you: would it really be so bad for you to leave your wife, and try to start a new sexual life? Are you afraid of ending up in the kind of heartbreaking situation that nocutename above so sadly describes? (I think I know what your answer would probably be, but it would be interesting to see it spelled out in detail -- for those who claim "if the sex is horrible it's always better to be honest and leave" as an absolute.)
I hope you won't mind my curiosity if I dare to take (just for argumentation's sake) Fortunate's position and ask you: would it really be so bad for you to leave your wife, and try to start a new sexual life? Are you afraid of ending up in the kind of heartbreaking situation that nocutename above so sadly describes? (I think I know what your answer would probably be, but it would be interesting to see it spelled out in detail -- for those who claim "if the sex is horrible it's always better to be honest and leave" as an absolute.)
111
@109 There's no such thing as karma, and you're not being punished.
I didn't mean to write a sob-story, only to illustrate the type of ambiguities that exist. It's easy to draw bright lines, but reality is often uncertain and messy. Before we had kids, things had cooled off a bit but you figure that's just the ebb and flow of things. The move from twice a week to once a week, and then occasionally skipping a week, and then maybe twice a month is a gradual one. At what point do you stop and say, "okay, any less than this and its DTMFA?" Then the babies are made, because you both wanted children, and the sex just doesn't come back. You chalk it up to the hormones, to the sleep deprivation, to the parasites that have invaded your bed. Do you cut and run then? What kind of monster does that? The kids grow, and the "prime years" you've both been waiting for come and go with no improvement. Do you leave then?
It all seems like a waiting game to me. Which will happen first: my wife's libido will appear, mine will disappear, the bitterness will take hold, the resentment will boil over, the kids will graduate making the stakes for leaving lower?
I don't look back and see any clear decision points that I can point to and say, "I should have left then." I've had a couple of opportunities to cheat, and I chose not to. Does that necessarily make me a better person? I don't think so. Jimmy Carter put it best:
I don't need to believe in gods or sin to see the essential truth in what he wrote. Who am I to judge someone else for the choices they've made, simply because I've made different choice relative to them? How do I even know I've made the right choice? Maybe I would be happier and more emotionally available to my family if I had taken on a fwb. I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
More...
I didn't mean to write a sob-story, only to illustrate the type of ambiguities that exist. It's easy to draw bright lines, but reality is often uncertain and messy. Before we had kids, things had cooled off a bit but you figure that's just the ebb and flow of things. The move from twice a week to once a week, and then occasionally skipping a week, and then maybe twice a month is a gradual one. At what point do you stop and say, "okay, any less than this and its DTMFA?" Then the babies are made, because you both wanted children, and the sex just doesn't come back. You chalk it up to the hormones, to the sleep deprivation, to the parasites that have invaded your bed. Do you cut and run then? What kind of monster does that? The kids grow, and the "prime years" you've both been waiting for come and go with no improvement. Do you leave then?
It all seems like a waiting game to me. Which will happen first: my wife's libido will appear, mine will disappear, the bitterness will take hold, the resentment will boil over, the kids will graduate making the stakes for leaving lower?
I don't look back and see any clear decision points that I can point to and say, "I should have left then." I've had a couple of opportunities to cheat, and I chose not to. Does that necessarily make me a better person? I don't think so. Jimmy Carter put it best:
Because I'm just human and I'm tempted and Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times.... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who's loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness.
I don't need to believe in gods or sin to see the essential truth in what he wrote. Who am I to judge someone else for the choices they've made, simply because I've made different choice relative to them? How do I even know I've made the right choice? Maybe I would be happier and more emotionally available to my family if I had taken on a fwb. I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
112
@109(nocutename), I think what really moves me in your narrative is that you blame yourself so strongly for your decisions -- you feel guilty, it seems, for having made the decision to cheat, and then to leave your husband -- that you're even willing to take unhappiness as your due punishment, as karmic payback. Reading your last paragraph quite literally broke my heart.
And yet what can I tell you about the need to keep trying, to believe in yourself, to think that you may still find happiness (and that in any case you do deserve it), that blaming yourself because 'you probably would have flat-out lied' if your husband had asked you is prioritizing counterfactuals over reality, and that gambling and losing is simply bad luck, not poetic justice -- what can I tell you about any of these things that you haven't told yourself already, or that you couldn't read in some self-help book, or hear in some motivational tape?
What indeed?
Can I suggest that a husband who said "if you get your needs met elsewhere, this relationship is over" without offering other alternatives at the very least shares the blame with you -- without again saying something you've probably told yourself many times? (What a pity that your ex-husband, unlike me, didn't have a cuckold fetish; I personally would be delighted if my wife wanted to have a real affair. :-)
The greatest unfairness was probably to the children, since they certainly didn't do anything to deserve having their lives changed. I'm sorry for them, as I am sure you are, too. Hopefully things are working out well for them?
But you know all that already; you know all you need to know, I'm sure. I'd be the last one to want to preach or give advice. I'll just repeat what I said before: from what I've seen, you're a very good and ethical person; the very fact that you're still tormented by the ethical issues involved in your difficult situation and the solutions you found for it (while so many other people would be piling up rationalizations to explain how their choices demonstrate they are the best people in the world) highlights that.
I'm glad you still have hope for the future. Let me add mine. I know that good people don't necessarily reap the reward of their efforts, but here's hoping that you'll eventually be able to. To my mind, you would certainly deserve it.
More...
And yet what can I tell you about the need to keep trying, to believe in yourself, to think that you may still find happiness (and that in any case you do deserve it), that blaming yourself because 'you probably would have flat-out lied' if your husband had asked you is prioritizing counterfactuals over reality, and that gambling and losing is simply bad luck, not poetic justice -- what can I tell you about any of these things that you haven't told yourself already, or that you couldn't read in some self-help book, or hear in some motivational tape?
What indeed?
Can I suggest that a husband who said "if you get your needs met elsewhere, this relationship is over" without offering other alternatives at the very least shares the blame with you -- without again saying something you've probably told yourself many times? (What a pity that your ex-husband, unlike me, didn't have a cuckold fetish; I personally would be delighted if my wife wanted to have a real affair. :-)
The greatest unfairness was probably to the children, since they certainly didn't do anything to deserve having their lives changed. I'm sorry for them, as I am sure you are, too. Hopefully things are working out well for them?
But you know all that already; you know all you need to know, I'm sure. I'd be the last one to want to preach or give advice. I'll just repeat what I said before: from what I've seen, you're a very good and ethical person; the very fact that you're still tormented by the ethical issues involved in your difficult situation and the solutions you found for it (while so many other people would be piling up rationalizations to explain how their choices demonstrate they are the best people in the world) highlights that.
I'm glad you still have hope for the future. Let me add mine. I know that good people don't necessarily reap the reward of their efforts, but here's hoping that you'll eventually be able to. To my mind, you would certainly deserve it.
113
@111: I think you do an excellent job of illustrating the ambiguities. I think you've pointed out how blurry the line is, in contrast to those who would like a nice clear one drawn in magic marker. I don't agree with the idea of lusting in one's heart being a sin (I don't believe in the concept of sin in the first place, nor divine punishment or reward), but I think Carter said it well, too. We're all just human, and some pretty high standards have been set, if not by Christ, than definitely by culture.
( I love the way Jesus handled the hypocrisy and sanctimony of those who sat in judgement: "yeah--that's a great idea! We should absolutely stone her to death; she totally deserves it! Okay, who gets to start? Oh, I know: whoever has never had a single wrong impulse or done anything he shouldn't, *he* should get the ceremonial first toss. Ready? Okay, c'mon!" )
The thing that age and life and experience have taught me is that you never know what you will do under the right set of circumstances. So everything and anything is possible. And if anything is possible, how can you sit in smug judgement of another?
The other thing is that it is impossible to know what the "right" decision ever was, until, perhaps, you are on your deathbed. Tau (I think) gave the example that if her first husband had tried to talk and then work things though with her honestly, she might still be married to him, rather than her second husband, who is a better match for her. Who ever knows if the decisions we make are correct or not? We do the best we can with the tools and information we have AT THE TIME, and we adjust as we go. That's all we can ever do.
I wish you peace and happiness. And I didn't mean to sound like a cautionary tale.
More...
( I love the way Jesus handled the hypocrisy and sanctimony of those who sat in judgement: "yeah--that's a great idea! We should absolutely stone her to death; she totally deserves it! Okay, who gets to start? Oh, I know: whoever has never had a single wrong impulse or done anything he shouldn't, *he* should get the ceremonial first toss. Ready? Okay, c'mon!" )
The thing that age and life and experience have taught me is that you never know what you will do under the right set of circumstances. So everything and anything is possible. And if anything is possible, how can you sit in smug judgement of another?
The other thing is that it is impossible to know what the "right" decision ever was, until, perhaps, you are on your deathbed. Tau (I think) gave the example that if her first husband had tried to talk and then work things though with her honestly, she might still be married to him, rather than her second husband, who is a better match for her. Who ever knows if the decisions we make are correct or not? We do the best we can with the tools and information we have AT THE TIME, and we adjust as we go. That's all we can ever do.
I wish you peace and happiness. And I didn't mean to sound like a cautionary tale.
114
@111 (delwalk), very well said, and very wise. The only thing I can say is I agree entirely.
I think that, in your position, I probably would eventually cheat. It would take quite a while for me to see no other option, and I would have wrestled with this decision for a while; but I probably eventually would cheat. This of course doesn't have to imply anything for you or your choices, past, present, or future. But for all it's worth, I think in your situation I would cheat.
I think that, in your position, I probably would eventually cheat. It would take quite a while for me to see no other option, and I would have wrestled with this decision for a while; but I probably eventually would cheat. This of course doesn't have to imply anything for you or your choices, past, present, or future. But for all it's worth, I think in your situation I would cheat.
115
@110, I don't think Fortunate's position is tenable, it presumes a level of omniscience none of us has. There are many possibilities if I were to leave my wife. I could find someone else, someone with whom I was more sexually compatible. What are the chances we are also intellectually and temperamentally compatible?
I could find someone who compounds the complication that would be my life as a divorced parent. I could not find someone, exchanging a partner and friend for the hope of something better. I could run through a string of relationships, none with the promise of becoming so durable as the one I've left.
And what of my wife? I think it fair to say a single mom in her 40s not into sex isn't going to have the easiest time in the dating pool.
I will have left my wife and partner of the past two decades so I could play the odds game that I'd find someone else. And for what, so I can feel the satisfaction of holding to a promise made twenty years ago in manifest ignorance of how things might change in the future? That's the more laudable course of action?
I could find someone who compounds the complication that would be my life as a divorced parent. I could not find someone, exchanging a partner and friend for the hope of something better. I could run through a string of relationships, none with the promise of becoming so durable as the one I've left.
And what of my wife? I think it fair to say a single mom in her 40s not into sex isn't going to have the easiest time in the dating pool.
I will have left my wife and partner of the past two decades so I could play the odds game that I'd find someone else. And for what, so I can feel the satisfaction of holding to a promise made twenty years ago in manifest ignorance of how things might change in the future? That's the more laudable course of action?
116
@115, that's indeed a good point, and one worth mentioning more often: when one leaves one's partner, one is gambling with the possibility of finding a better one.
Dan often recommends that people start over if there are big sexual problems that one's partner doesn't want to compromise on. This is per se good, especially for relationships that haven't lasted all that long yet and in which the emotional and personal investment aren't all that high. But as time goes by, as you point out, it often happens that relationships grow in other ways, and that so many other, non-sexual problems are happily and successfully solved, for the likelihood that one is indeed going to find a better partner if one leaves this one to seem sufficiently high.
Fortunate above gambled and won: she found a better partner (or so she thinks, thus far). Nocutename gambled and lost: she didn't find a better partner (yet).
Fortunate would probably claim that living a life of honesty is still preferable, even in the absence of a better partner. But she did find one. Would she have said the same if she had tried for years and years, but ended up without one, or only with temporary partners that were less good that the one she had left? Only if the abstract idea of 'living honestly' did really compensate any sadness that came from a solitary life. It's up to her to know, of course. Maybe it would be enough for her. But maybe it wouldn't for others, others whose decisions could in principle as as legitimate as hers.
Dan often recommends that people start over if there are big sexual problems that one's partner doesn't want to compromise on. This is per se good, especially for relationships that haven't lasted all that long yet and in which the emotional and personal investment aren't all that high. But as time goes by, as you point out, it often happens that relationships grow in other ways, and that so many other, non-sexual problems are happily and successfully solved, for the likelihood that one is indeed going to find a better partner if one leaves this one to seem sufficiently high.
Fortunate above gambled and won: she found a better partner (or so she thinks, thus far). Nocutename gambled and lost: she didn't find a better partner (yet).
Fortunate would probably claim that living a life of honesty is still preferable, even in the absence of a better partner. But she did find one. Would she have said the same if she had tried for years and years, but ended up without one, or only with temporary partners that were less good that the one she had left? Only if the abstract idea of 'living honestly' did really compensate any sadness that came from a solitary life. It's up to her to know, of course. Maybe it would be enough for her. But maybe it wouldn't for others, others whose decisions could in principle as as legitimate as hers.
117
I see from the last several comments that I'm mixing up Fortunate and tau. So please substitute Fortunate for tau in my last comment. And yes, she is indeed Fortunate.
118
@115: we all make that promise in ignorance. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I am a believer that we are wired to be in serial committments as a general rule (w/plenty of exceptions) and that most relationships have a natural life and death. The challenge for those who hope to be with the same person forever - like many of use hopeful romantics might - is to keep falling in love with the new person our partner becomes while she/he falls in love with the new person we become (after all, who at 40 is the same as he/she was at 25?) - essentially establish a NEW relationship. For those who have made it through many stages, you (or, rather, I) have much invested that leaving or cheating or going withouut can cause pain to both (and, as I stated earlier, because of the infectious nature of the resentment, can cause pain on others (eg, children) who have nothing to do with this but end up being impacted by the tension and undesirable behaviors that can become everpresent). That's why communication - constant communication even when THAT can be painful - is so important. People in a committed relationship SHOULD be able to find a compromise. Perhaps in that case would be my wife's OK for me to go for some on the side. But, you know what? While that might be satisfying in some (or many) ways, it really is NOT what I want. I want that affair to be with my wife. And judging by how the sex is when we simply get away (not that frequent as we have kids and careers), I get the sense that that's what SHE wants (with me).
What I take away from all these discussions - like Carter says - is that we are all human. And we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors (like commenter who found out his or her parents were swingers). I always wondered how my parents could have existed in what was apparently a loveless marriage but what do I know? They could have had an entirely OTHER life with each other. Fora like these put these topics in the open and while our situations differ on specifics, it is really helpful to read everyone's stories and share.
More...
What I take away from all these discussions - like Carter says - is that we are all human. And we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors (like commenter who found out his or her parents were swingers). I always wondered how my parents could have existed in what was apparently a loveless marriage but what do I know? They could have had an entirely OTHER life with each other. Fora like these put these topics in the open and while our situations differ on specifics, it is really helpful to read everyone's stories and share.
119
@ 16: You're delusional, or extremely ignorant of ethics. While the LW's behavior might be excusable on utilitarian grounds, it's pretty blatantly at odds with Kant's Categorical Imperative, so there's no chance he would have approved.
120
Ankylosaur, I don't feel guilty. I'm not kicking myself. I just accept responsibility. I try to see clearly and think critically and that includes assessing my own behavior. Leaving my husband hurt him and it hurt me; having my affair didn't directly hurt him, because he never found out about it, but it would have hurt if he had.
It's not the outcome I was hoping for, my life as it has been these last 4 years, but there is indeed a lot to be said for being able to know that the world sees the same person I see when I look in the mirror. During my affair, I knew that I would be judged pretty harshly and deemed a bad person, a cheating piece of shit, if you will, when everything else about me was the same as it had always been: loyal friend, community volunteer, dedicated mother, devoted educator, loving daughter, sister, niece, and wife .
No doubt Fortunate would say I am justifying my being a despicable liar by saying that I didn't want to hurt my husband. Then she'd say that if I was unhappy enough to want to cheat I should have just walked away to start with.
Hers is the majority opinion, and I'm not ummoved by it, I suppose.
It's not the outcome I was hoping for, my life as it has been these last 4 years, but there is indeed a lot to be said for being able to know that the world sees the same person I see when I look in the mirror. During my affair, I knew that I would be judged pretty harshly and deemed a bad person, a cheating piece of shit, if you will, when everything else about me was the same as it had always been: loyal friend, community volunteer, dedicated mother, devoted educator, loving daughter, sister, niece, and wife .
No doubt Fortunate would say I am justifying my being a despicable liar by saying that I didn't want to hurt my husband. Then she'd say that if I was unhappy enough to want to cheat I should have just walked away to start with.
Hers is the majority opinion, and I'm not ummoved by it, I suppose.
121
It's not excusable on utilitarian grounds, either.
Anyway, I'm mystified by the general assumption running through this discussion that cheating is primarily a matter of "have insufficient sex at home, so have to get it elsewhere", and that sex is somehow the one area of life where this need matters most. I mean, what if I were to tell my husband, I need a lot more money than you'll ever be able to provide, so I'm going to go turn tricks on the side. Now, you're the best sexual partner I could have and we're compatible in this area, but we're just not doing enough for me in the bank account. Therefore, I'll hold my nose and screw some rich sugar daddy on the side. If you don't like it, well, I'm sorry, but I really need money, and I couldn't have predicted 15 years ago that your job would suddenly be lost, and the kids would suck up all of our savings.
In addition, most of the people I know who have cheated (including myself, back in the days before marriage) did not do it simply because they needed to get a little extra sex on the side, but because they were lacking more complicated things in the relationship. People cheat to get an emotional satisfaction, too. The other lover makes them feel really great about themselves, and that's not just a matter of getting them off. So the idea that we can compartmentalize sex and set some limit on how little is too little (varying according to individual urges, of course) seems kind of wacky to me.
Yes, I believe in honest communication and I cannot imagine many situations where that's a bad idea. If my husband isn't happy being monogamous, damn straight I want to know about it, even if we never agree to change the terms of our current relationship. Would it bother me? Of course! But NOT knowing would bother me so much more. People sometimes speak as if not knowing about a thing makes it non-existent for that person, but that's completely false. The fact that I don't know there's a giant snake behind me doesn't make the snake disappear. It's just tragic.
More...
Anyway, I'm mystified by the general assumption running through this discussion that cheating is primarily a matter of "have insufficient sex at home, so have to get it elsewhere", and that sex is somehow the one area of life where this need matters most. I mean, what if I were to tell my husband, I need a lot more money than you'll ever be able to provide, so I'm going to go turn tricks on the side. Now, you're the best sexual partner I could have and we're compatible in this area, but we're just not doing enough for me in the bank account. Therefore, I'll hold my nose and screw some rich sugar daddy on the side. If you don't like it, well, I'm sorry, but I really need money, and I couldn't have predicted 15 years ago that your job would suddenly be lost, and the kids would suck up all of our savings.
In addition, most of the people I know who have cheated (including myself, back in the days before marriage) did not do it simply because they needed to get a little extra sex on the side, but because they were lacking more complicated things in the relationship. People cheat to get an emotional satisfaction, too. The other lover makes them feel really great about themselves, and that's not just a matter of getting them off. So the idea that we can compartmentalize sex and set some limit on how little is too little (varying according to individual urges, of course) seems kind of wacky to me.
Yes, I believe in honest communication and I cannot imagine many situations where that's a bad idea. If my husband isn't happy being monogamous, damn straight I want to know about it, even if we never agree to change the terms of our current relationship. Would it bother me? Of course! But NOT knowing would bother me so much more. People sometimes speak as if not knowing about a thing makes it non-existent for that person, but that's completely false. The fact that I don't know there's a giant snake behind me doesn't make the snake disappear. It's just tragic.
122
@Nocutename: as a single, middle-aged guy, you sound like an awesome catch! It's not karma (and I'm someone who does believe in karma), but relationships take time to arrive at the best of times, and when you have to focus on survival isn't the best of times. I don't think you gambled and lost: I think the dice are still rolling.
@106 Delwalk: Based on your post 106, I'd say DTMFA. That post doesn't make it sound ambiguous at all. Do you have any idea how unflattering a picture you painted of her? I can't know whether that's a fair portrait or not, but whether you painted her that way because that's an accurate depiction, or simply because you're acutely miserable now (not in the future), your relationship sounds like Hell on Earth.
Did you notice that you've trained her to be "depressed" or "devastated" every time she doesn't get her way? Because whenever she threatens to be "devastated", you don't do the thing she didn't want you to do. Incredibly positive feedback.
It's no wonder that all "arrangements" for you to get your needs met elsewhere are off the table. You've trained her that you'll always back down, so she has no reason to compromise, ever.
There's nothing immoral about breaking up with someone (and it doesn't make you a "monster" even if you do it when the kids are young). People do it all the time. It's painful, but adults can deal with it. Your well-being is as important as hers, no more, but no less, either. The kids will survive, too. I've never been in the position of being a parent, but I've talked with a fair number of children of divorce, and they've almost all had good things to say about living in households with happy divorced parents and bad things to say about households where miserable parents were staying together "for the kids' sake". They are not stupid; they know.
No, you shouldn't cheat on her. The problems are at the relationship level.
More...
@106 Delwalk: Based on your post 106, I'd say DTMFA. That post doesn't make it sound ambiguous at all. Do you have any idea how unflattering a picture you painted of her? I can't know whether that's a fair portrait or not, but whether you painted her that way because that's an accurate depiction, or simply because you're acutely miserable now (not in the future), your relationship sounds like Hell on Earth.
Did you notice that you've trained her to be "depressed" or "devastated" every time she doesn't get her way? Because whenever she threatens to be "devastated", you don't do the thing she didn't want you to do. Incredibly positive feedback.
It's no wonder that all "arrangements" for you to get your needs met elsewhere are off the table. You've trained her that you'll always back down, so she has no reason to compromise, ever.
There's nothing immoral about breaking up with someone (and it doesn't make you a "monster" even if you do it when the kids are young). People do it all the time. It's painful, but adults can deal with it. Your well-being is as important as hers, no more, but no less, either. The kids will survive, too. I've never been in the position of being a parent, but I've talked with a fair number of children of divorce, and they've almost all had good things to say about living in households with happy divorced parents and bad things to say about households where miserable parents were staying together "for the kids' sake". They are not stupid; they know.
No, you shouldn't cheat on her. The problems are at the relationship level.
124
@123, don't, Portia. We all know (and knew already) that relationships can have problems. It doesn't follow that they always do, and that people can't find good compromises. Hell, the LW who gave rise to this comment thread did find a good situation for herself and her husband, one from which I'm sure having kids would work.
(I say this because I have a daughter I love very much. I love kids. They help me stay sane...)
(I say this because I have a daughter I love very much. I love kids. They help me stay sane...)
125
@120, I'm glad you don't feel guilty. Your previous post seemed so sad, I really felt for you.
The question of responsibility is always a difficult one, because one is always responsible for one's decision, and there is no a priori perfect way of knowing which choice is better. Had you not left your husband, had you not had an affair, you would also have been responsible for these decisions; one of the consequences is that people like Fortunate would not be able to condemn you, but there would also be other consequences: your unhappiness, and whatever said unhappiness might eventually mean for yourself, your husband, and your children.
I also do understand where the majority opinion comes from, and like you I can see its appeal. But ultimately I see in it the same problem I see in any closed system of ethics: the granularity of life is too fine for this sieve. I'm glad Fortunate was indeed fortunate and that the consequences of her decision were good for her. It doesn't follow that they would always be, for her or others. I'm sad the consequences of your decision were less good for you. But again it doesn't follow that they would have to be. You were less lucky than her.
It's not simply that her system -- sexual honesty in all circumstances, or else no relationship -- is not inherently perfect, or even not necessarily better than all others. It may very well be that it isn't inherently perfect or worse than some other system (despite the attraction that it simplicity has on others: like you I am myself also not unmoved by it), though I offer no proof of it. But, more importantly, all systems are based on rules that need to generalize reality beyond its fine granularity, beyond its case-by-caseness. My experience with reality tells me that such generalizations are never perfect, that there always are cases which make any person ultimately decide against the rules of the system.
Again, in your case, I won't cast the first (or even the last) stone. It is good that you accept your responsibility and that you try to be fair to yourself, to your husband and your family. I'm sure you would do that also if your decisions had been different. I'll only maintain that, if you had made different decisions, you would also have ended up with some bad consequences to regret; and they might have been even worse than the ones you're dealing with. We'll never know that for sure now, since it's not possible to go back in time and make different decisions to compare the outcome; but the possibility does exist.
And I'll also maintain that the fact you do this -- that you consciously try to be fair, accept responsibility and judge the situation on its own merits -- is evidence of you being a good person. Good people are not those who never do bad things, or things with bad consequences for themselves and/or others; good people are those who did not set out to do bad things, and who worry about whether or not they did something bad because this matters for them.
More...
The question of responsibility is always a difficult one, because one is always responsible for one's decision, and there is no a priori perfect way of knowing which choice is better. Had you not left your husband, had you not had an affair, you would also have been responsible for these decisions; one of the consequences is that people like Fortunate would not be able to condemn you, but there would also be other consequences: your unhappiness, and whatever said unhappiness might eventually mean for yourself, your husband, and your children.
I also do understand where the majority opinion comes from, and like you I can see its appeal. But ultimately I see in it the same problem I see in any closed system of ethics: the granularity of life is too fine for this sieve. I'm glad Fortunate was indeed fortunate and that the consequences of her decision were good for her. It doesn't follow that they would always be, for her or others. I'm sad the consequences of your decision were less good for you. But again it doesn't follow that they would have to be. You were less lucky than her.
It's not simply that her system -- sexual honesty in all circumstances, or else no relationship -- is not inherently perfect, or even not necessarily better than all others. It may very well be that it isn't inherently perfect or worse than some other system (despite the attraction that it simplicity has on others: like you I am myself also not unmoved by it), though I offer no proof of it. But, more importantly, all systems are based on rules that need to generalize reality beyond its fine granularity, beyond its case-by-caseness. My experience with reality tells me that such generalizations are never perfect, that there always are cases which make any person ultimately decide against the rules of the system.
Again, in your case, I won't cast the first (or even the last) stone. It is good that you accept your responsibility and that you try to be fair to yourself, to your husband and your family. I'm sure you would do that also if your decisions had been different. I'll only maintain that, if you had made different decisions, you would also have ended up with some bad consequences to regret; and they might have been even worse than the ones you're dealing with. We'll never know that for sure now, since it's not possible to go back in time and make different decisions to compare the outcome; but the possibility does exist.
And I'll also maintain that the fact you do this -- that you consciously try to be fair, accept responsibility and judge the situation on its own merits -- is evidence of you being a good person. Good people are not those who never do bad things, or things with bad consequences for themselves and/or others; good people are those who did not set out to do bad things, and who worry about whether or not they did something bad because this matters for them.
126
@nocutename, re-reading the last paragraph of my previous post to you (@125 above), I feel I may have sounded a little paternalistic or patronizing, as if I thought you were naive. If so, I'm sorry about that. That was not my intention at all.
127
@nocutename,
In all of my previous responses to your posts I was responding to your "can't believe in storybook sex in a monogamous relationship" meme. All I want to get across is that it does happen, if you are lucky, and you are willing to work at making it an important emphasis in your life. #118 From_the_south makes the case for a lot of how my marriage works, but first and foremost I want to emphasize "I am so lucky", not in an "in your face, look how great I am" way, but in a "I am blessed, I don't know why, but I am" way. Is that karma? Perhaps. Does your previous experience mean that you won't get the kind of experience you hope for? NO!
No one can read your story and conclude you haven't been a person of great commitment. You can take your knowledge and go forward confident that you have the tools to make you and your partner a good life together, when luck provides you with a candidate suitable for your needs. And luck is the residue of design; you can make your own.
Peace.
In all of my previous responses to your posts I was responding to your "can't believe in storybook sex in a monogamous relationship" meme. All I want to get across is that it does happen, if you are lucky, and you are willing to work at making it an important emphasis in your life. #118 From_the_south makes the case for a lot of how my marriage works, but first and foremost I want to emphasize "I am so lucky", not in an "in your face, look how great I am" way, but in a "I am blessed, I don't know why, but I am" way. Is that karma? Perhaps. Does your previous experience mean that you won't get the kind of experience you hope for? NO!
No one can read your story and conclude you haven't been a person of great commitment. You can take your knowledge and go forward confident that you have the tools to make you and your partner a good life together, when luck provides you with a candidate suitable for your needs. And luck is the residue of design; you can make your own.
Peace.
128
@109 - I just want to reassure you that I am not coming from a place where I don't understand libido mismatch. I was in a relationship with someone who didn't have much (or any. still unclear) desire for sex with me, for quite a long time. In those years, I spent a lot of time wishing that I wanted to cheat; but sadly, as far as I can tell, I am a high-libido lady in an entirely monogamous package, and I just wasn't interested. Maybe if we hadn't broken up I would have eventually - hard to know.
That was wretched, and not a situation that I will ever accept again. And that fact is 100% on the table in my current relationship.
That was wretched, and not a situation that I will ever accept again. And that fact is 100% on the table in my current relationship.
129
@nocutename: I've no judgment on how you handled your situation: no smug lecture here. It sounds like it was awful. Hang in there. I broke up w/ a guy who jerked me around & then was single for quite awhile after. As mentioned above, you sound like quality people. You mention wondering somehow if not finding a good companion is punishment for the affair. Sounds like you are beating yourself up. I don't want to sound all Hallmark card on you, but it is harder for us to connect with anyone when we feel unworthy of it.
Your scenario also does not sound like it was monogamish, but more like almost-unavoidable cheating. You did lay it all out there. & that kinda repeated rejection eats at the ego. I wish you luck & patience in finding a mate who fulfills you.
@delwalk: argh. I hope against hope that you can reconnect with your wife.
Everyone else: Good job, in terms of thoughtful discussion. Thanks for sharing your respective stories.
& I'm kind of relieved that most ppl seem to agree w/ me, in terms of what "monogamish" means. Dan's inclusion of the letter above left me wondering if I hadn't grokked it properly.
Your scenario also does not sound like it was monogamish, but more like almost-unavoidable cheating. You did lay it all out there. & that kinda repeated rejection eats at the ego. I wish you luck & patience in finding a mate who fulfills you.
@delwalk: argh. I hope against hope that you can reconnect with your wife.
Everyone else: Good job, in terms of thoughtful discussion. Thanks for sharing your respective stories.
& I'm kind of relieved that most ppl seem to agree w/ me, in terms of what "monogamish" means. Dan's inclusion of the letter above left me wondering if I hadn't grokked it properly.
130
Suzy @121, you make a point that I have been wanting to make for a while, but I've already been writing such boring long screeds that I was afraid to bring another topic in.
Yes, people cheat not just because the sex they're getting at home is insufficient in quantity, but because they miss the whole package of attraction, excitement, feeling desired and desirable ("did you remember to pay the phone bill?" is not a phrase that makes someone feel sexy)--everything that goes with an exciting sexual relationship. I can't speak for every person, and I'm sure I'll hear from a lot of people who just wanted the mechanics of 'insert-part-A-into-part-B-on a relatively fit package,' but when I was talking to the men I was 'interviewing' to be my partner in immorality, I was struck by how many of them wanted *romance* in their lives again. They wanted passion.
The man I had my affair with wooed me constantly with little gifts and poems and phone calls--even though he didn't *need* to. I loved it; it had been a long time since I had been treated as someone so beautiful and desirable. Go on Craigslist and look at the ads of men seeking women: you'll find that the crudest, grossest of them come from men who appear to be single, and the most articulate, smooth, well-written come from married men who say they're trying to recapture romance and passion. It could well be that they're saying what they think will work to land the alternate vagina they're seeking, but I think a lot of them mean it sincerely.
But again, most people don't like to think of nuance--they prefer black-or-white (look at all the "cheating is okay under these specific circumstances, and you'd better provide proof" or "I only believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest"). This is perhaps one reason the conversation has been couched in purely sexual terms here and in terms of not getting enough sex, as opposed to something more nebulous.
In my case, I thought I just wanted a different kind of sex, but found that sex without affection does little for me, which is probably why I ended up falling in love with the man I had my affair with.
More...
Yes, people cheat not just because the sex they're getting at home is insufficient in quantity, but because they miss the whole package of attraction, excitement, feeling desired and desirable ("did you remember to pay the phone bill?" is not a phrase that makes someone feel sexy)--everything that goes with an exciting sexual relationship. I can't speak for every person, and I'm sure I'll hear from a lot of people who just wanted the mechanics of 'insert-part-A-into-part-B-on a relatively fit package,' but when I was talking to the men I was 'interviewing' to be my partner in immorality, I was struck by how many of them wanted *romance* in their lives again. They wanted passion.
The man I had my affair with wooed me constantly with little gifts and poems and phone calls--even though he didn't *need* to. I loved it; it had been a long time since I had been treated as someone so beautiful and desirable. Go on Craigslist and look at the ads of men seeking women: you'll find that the crudest, grossest of them come from men who appear to be single, and the most articulate, smooth, well-written come from married men who say they're trying to recapture romance and passion. It could well be that they're saying what they think will work to land the alternate vagina they're seeking, but I think a lot of them mean it sincerely.
But again, most people don't like to think of nuance--they prefer black-or-white (look at all the "cheating is okay under these specific circumstances, and you'd better provide proof" or "I only believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest"). This is perhaps one reason the conversation has been couched in purely sexual terms here and in terms of not getting enough sex, as opposed to something more nebulous.
In my case, I thought I just wanted a different kind of sex, but found that sex without affection does little for me, which is probably why I ended up falling in love with the man I had my affair with.
131
"... sex without affection does little for me, which is probably why I ended up falling in love with the man I had my affair with."
which is a perfectly normal reaction for an emotionally healthy woman.
sexual intimacy is tied to emotional intimacy is tied to "love", especially in women.
sure, women who buy into Danny's world view may train themselves to see sex as purely an animal physical release divorced from emotion or intimacy.
but in so doing they will suppress or kill the parts of them that make them most alive.
humans are not bonobos or penguins.
we are capable of much fuller joy and satisfaction.
monogamous caring emotionally intimate sex is a powerful means to that end.
which is a perfectly normal reaction for an emotionally healthy woman.
sexual intimacy is tied to emotional intimacy is tied to "love", especially in women.
sure, women who buy into Danny's world view may train themselves to see sex as purely an animal physical release divorced from emotion or intimacy.
but in so doing they will suppress or kill the parts of them that make them most alive.
humans are not bonobos or penguins.
we are capable of much fuller joy and satisfaction.
monogamous caring emotionally intimate sex is a powerful means to that end.
132
Delwalk, you should leave. The world out there is scary, but better than the hell you're in. She is a rotten personand incapable of being an effective partner. She refused any compromise. She passively aggressively refused treatment and counseling. Now she reacts to any discussion with self-victimization. Let her go. Let yourself be happy.
Or, if you wanted to, you could give her the ultimatum:
"I am going to get those needs met elsewhere, safely, and without your permission and without you knowing about it. If you can't live with that, you go get a divorce attorney."
One problem with this scenario is that she might well tell everyone she knows, including your family and children, in her desperation to punish and hurt you for forcing the issue.
Or, if you wanted to, you could give her the ultimatum:
"I am going to get those needs met elsewhere, safely, and without your permission and without you knowing about it. If you can't live with that, you go get a divorce attorney."
One problem with this scenario is that she might well tell everyone she knows, including your family and children, in her desperation to punish and hurt you for forcing the issue.
133
Suzy, come on. If your husband provided you with no money for four years - 4 years!!!!!!!!!!!! - and an integral understanding of your marriage when it was entered into was that he would work and financially contribute, you would be justified in leaving him, and he would have no reason to complain. If you took a second job, he would have no basis to complain.
No offense, but your posts reveal a significant lack of an ability to empathize with others not in your situation. Not everything is about you, you are not the LW's wife, and not every marriage is like your marriage.
No offense, but your posts reveal a significant lack of an ability to empathize with others not in your situation. Not everything is about you, you are not the LW's wife, and not every marriage is like your marriage.
134
Ankylosaur,
I am not going to reply to every point because this is getting too long. But some points I think I want to expand on:
I agree that we seem to have a fundamental different view on this. However I think that your insistence that I see life as being simple is, in effect, not correct, and in actuality an over simplification of what I am saying.
I know life isn't simple. What I am saying is that I hold some things to be important Despite the difficulty they bring. Honesty being one of them. I never said there is never a reason to lie. What I said is that I find far fewer justification to lie about cheating than some others.
You keep focusing on the few acceptable examples I gave as if that is all that I would accept as justification although I have said that those were just the most obvious examples to me. Yes, there may be more. But I just hold those justifications up to a finer degree of scrutiny than it appears some others do.
Keep in mind, regarding the original poster, I said that I don't know if this guy was justified or not because he left out a lot of important detail. And honestly, what someone else does is their business. But I am not going to condone based on the excuse I have been seeing presented as justification.
You said: "I claim that these are not the only options: it's not simply 'either the relationship means enough to me that I won't cheat, or then it doesn't, and then I can end it'."
I never said that. You are attempting to turn my position into a false dichotomy. I see many other options, but they all involve honest communication between the individuals involved. My point was that claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it doesn't make sense.
Everything is great if you never get found out. But while many people don't get found out many do. If the other person's well being and emotional state is so important to you then you have to ask why you are willing to play dice with their wellbeing like that. Because that is, ultimately, what you are doing when you cheat on them for their own good.
"If it was as easy for you to dump his ass as you imply here, then you haven't been in the kind of situation I had meant"
That is very presumptuous. First, I never said it was easy. I said I did it and I know it was the right thing to do. Second, you are now doing what you basically accused me of doing. Judging my relationship based on how YOU would have reacted. If I didn't react the way you would have then I clearly wasn't in that kind of relationship. You don't know that. You fail to see the possibility that it WAS the kind of relationship that you are talking about, but that I simply don't react or think the way you do despite that.
"Which doesn't mean he won't. Many a case of infidelity has come as a complete surprise to the cheated-on partner."
Anything could happen. And yes, you are right, that if he cheated I don't know what I would do unless I find myself in that situation. But here is what I do know.
I wouldn't be happy if I found out, and I am pretty certain that I would find out. He isn't good at clandestine things. If he cheated and I never found out, sure, I would be none the wiser and I would die in ignorant bliss. But chances are I would find out. And if I felt I couldn't leave him at that time perhaps I would stay with him. But that doesn't mean our relationship would survive. It would be irrevocably changed, and I can't imagine I would ever be truly happy with him again because I would never trust him again. The best I could do is get to a point where I just didn't care, which would kill off the things about our relationship that really mattered to me.
Because here it the thing. Yes, some people cheat and don't get caught. And some people cheat, get caught, and the relationship survives. And sometimes the relationship survives just as well and strong as before. But sometimes it just continues to exist, and now the other person is left unhappy. I have seen it so many times. Couples who end up staying together more out of habit, who simply exist together without ever really caring anymore.
And perhaps that is the difference between us. I could easily see myself ending up like that if I were cheated on and didn't leave. And honestly, I would rather have a relationship end then have it become that. If I couldn't end it and had to live with a cheating partner I would not be happy. That I know.
"And, furthermore, not everybody is like you; there may be people for whom the pain of dumping your cheating partner (+ other consequences) would have been worse than ignorance, in retrospect. Other people who would rather never be told."
True. And not everyone is like you. Some people would rather their partner cheat and not be told about it. And if they ever made that clear at some point then great, I have no problem with the cheater who is cheating knowing that. But some people would die inside to find out, and the person who cheats on that person is playing games with their wellbeing. So what do you do if you don't know? My stance is that if you don't know then don't risk their well being.
You can call that simplistic if you want, but I have never suggested that doing that is simple. Relationships aren't simple, and if you think that I don't know that then you are making an assumption with not enough data. I'm old enough to have seen enough to know. I have had enough relationships, some that have worked and some that didn't, to know. Don't dismiss me as someone who simply thinks things are simple because I don't draw the same conclusions as you do. In fact my "simple" view is often the harder stance to take. I just think that often the harder choice is the correct one.
No, no one knows for sure, and people are all different. But I can tell you this much. Anyone who thinks that they can make such a choice for me is sadly mistaken. So people can do what they want. If they aren't posting about it to blogs and forums then it isn't my business. But on the occasions that they do get caught and the other person gets hurt if they try to justify it by claiming they did it for the other person I am not going to buy it.
In the subsequent posts where people are bringing me up I find two things I want to clarify.
You and nocutename seem to think that I am condemning nocutename in my head. You both are assuming you know what I think and feel. I find that odd since I don't know what I think or feel about nocutename. Not that I can't have an opinion, but as with the original LW I would want a whole lot more detail before I did so. I can say that I can't condemn her eventual decision, but I have not, and don't know if I would, condemn her earlier one to cheat on her husband without knowing a lot more detail about the conversations they had and their situation. That I have my opinions, and that they are strong, doesn't mean I am quick to condemn other people.
The other thing, not that it should make any difference, is that I am not a 'she'.
More...
I am not going to reply to every point because this is getting too long. But some points I think I want to expand on:
I agree that we seem to have a fundamental different view on this. However I think that your insistence that I see life as being simple is, in effect, not correct, and in actuality an over simplification of what I am saying.
I know life isn't simple. What I am saying is that I hold some things to be important Despite the difficulty they bring. Honesty being one of them. I never said there is never a reason to lie. What I said is that I find far fewer justification to lie about cheating than some others.
You keep focusing on the few acceptable examples I gave as if that is all that I would accept as justification although I have said that those were just the most obvious examples to me. Yes, there may be more. But I just hold those justifications up to a finer degree of scrutiny than it appears some others do.
Keep in mind, regarding the original poster, I said that I don't know if this guy was justified or not because he left out a lot of important detail. And honestly, what someone else does is their business. But I am not going to condone based on the excuse I have been seeing presented as justification.
You said: "I claim that these are not the only options: it's not simply 'either the relationship means enough to me that I won't cheat, or then it doesn't, and then I can end it'."
I never said that. You are attempting to turn my position into a false dichotomy. I see many other options, but they all involve honest communication between the individuals involved. My point was that claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it doesn't make sense.
Everything is great if you never get found out. But while many people don't get found out many do. If the other person's well being and emotional state is so important to you then you have to ask why you are willing to play dice with their wellbeing like that. Because that is, ultimately, what you are doing when you cheat on them for their own good.
"If it was as easy for you to dump his ass as you imply here, then you haven't been in the kind of situation I had meant"
That is very presumptuous. First, I never said it was easy. I said I did it and I know it was the right thing to do. Second, you are now doing what you basically accused me of doing. Judging my relationship based on how YOU would have reacted. If I didn't react the way you would have then I clearly wasn't in that kind of relationship. You don't know that. You fail to see the possibility that it WAS the kind of relationship that you are talking about, but that I simply don't react or think the way you do despite that.
"Which doesn't mean he won't. Many a case of infidelity has come as a complete surprise to the cheated-on partner."
Anything could happen. And yes, you are right, that if he cheated I don't know what I would do unless I find myself in that situation. But here is what I do know.
I wouldn't be happy if I found out, and I am pretty certain that I would find out. He isn't good at clandestine things. If he cheated and I never found out, sure, I would be none the wiser and I would die in ignorant bliss. But chances are I would find out. And if I felt I couldn't leave him at that time perhaps I would stay with him. But that doesn't mean our relationship would survive. It would be irrevocably changed, and I can't imagine I would ever be truly happy with him again because I would never trust him again. The best I could do is get to a point where I just didn't care, which would kill off the things about our relationship that really mattered to me.
Because here it the thing. Yes, some people cheat and don't get caught. And some people cheat, get caught, and the relationship survives. And sometimes the relationship survives just as well and strong as before. But sometimes it just continues to exist, and now the other person is left unhappy. I have seen it so many times. Couples who end up staying together more out of habit, who simply exist together without ever really caring anymore.
And perhaps that is the difference between us. I could easily see myself ending up like that if I were cheated on and didn't leave. And honestly, I would rather have a relationship end then have it become that. If I couldn't end it and had to live with a cheating partner I would not be happy. That I know.
"And, furthermore, not everybody is like you; there may be people for whom the pain of dumping your cheating partner (+ other consequences) would have been worse than ignorance, in retrospect. Other people who would rather never be told."
True. And not everyone is like you. Some people would rather their partner cheat and not be told about it. And if they ever made that clear at some point then great, I have no problem with the cheater who is cheating knowing that. But some people would die inside to find out, and the person who cheats on that person is playing games with their wellbeing. So what do you do if you don't know? My stance is that if you don't know then don't risk their well being.
You can call that simplistic if you want, but I have never suggested that doing that is simple. Relationships aren't simple, and if you think that I don't know that then you are making an assumption with not enough data. I'm old enough to have seen enough to know. I have had enough relationships, some that have worked and some that didn't, to know. Don't dismiss me as someone who simply thinks things are simple because I don't draw the same conclusions as you do. In fact my "simple" view is often the harder stance to take. I just think that often the harder choice is the correct one.
No, no one knows for sure, and people are all different. But I can tell you this much. Anyone who thinks that they can make such a choice for me is sadly mistaken. So people can do what they want. If they aren't posting about it to blogs and forums then it isn't my business. But on the occasions that they do get caught and the other person gets hurt if they try to justify it by claiming they did it for the other person I am not going to buy it.
In the subsequent posts where people are bringing me up I find two things I want to clarify.
You and nocutename seem to think that I am condemning nocutename in my head. You both are assuming you know what I think and feel. I find that odd since I don't know what I think or feel about nocutename. Not that I can't have an opinion, but as with the original LW I would want a whole lot more detail before I did so. I can say that I can't condemn her eventual decision, but I have not, and don't know if I would, condemn her earlier one to cheat on her husband without knowing a lot more detail about the conversations they had and their situation. That I have my opinions, and that they are strong, doesn't mean I am quick to condemn other people.
The other thing, not that it should make any difference, is that I am not a 'she'.
135
Fortunate: I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that you were a "she." I see that you are a gay, left-wing musician who lives in my neck of the woods.
I wonder if the reason I made the mistake is that you take such a strong stance on monogamy--and that makes me want to reexamine a whole lot of cultural assumptions I have.
You and ankylosaur are each trying to enlighten the other, and with every post, you both explain your positions more fully. I think it's often the tendency to over-simplify so as not to take all day trying to write what will be a long comment or because one's own thinking doesn't seem to need elaboration or explanation that results in misunderstandings. Perhaps you and Ank are not nearly as far apart as you both seemed initially to be. Or maybe you still are but when both of you try to carefully articulate your positions to each other, you end up clarifying a lot more to the rest of us, too.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions about monogamy, reasons that excuse cheating, honesty, reactions to cheating. Some of those reactions may come from your own direct experiences, some from observations of others, and some may be by-products of world-views. For what it's worth, I don't care what you think of me, and I agree that you are fortunate and hope you stay that way. I also agree with you that one of the consequences of a couple's staying together after discovered or confessed infidelity is often the way you describe it--a seriously diminished relationship in which trust is gone.
But there is a tendency toward intolerance and judgment in some of your earlier comments, coupled with what Mr. Venommenon would call LMB a sense of self-congratulation that undermines your later tone. It's in this: "I am very monogamy oriented. Monogamy is what works for me, and I found a partner who feels the same. Early in our relationship we discussed and determined that monogamy was what we wanted and that was that." The "that was that" is what seems to be an over-simplification, as though by having a conversation early in a relationship, one can definitively put a stamp on it and spray shellac on it and it will never change. Because that was that.
I can't speak for everyone, and probably a lot of eventual cheaters never had the conversation, or didn't have it honestly, but many of us don't intend to become cheaters when we first meet, fall in love with, co-habitate with, or marry our partners. We also didn't plan to lose hair or gain weight, or get a chronic condition, or have a dip in libido, or a whole lot of other things that can happen to people when they log a lot of time together.
It just seems simplistic and dismissive of real life to say something like "we had that talk and that was that." The implication is that "you should have had that talk, too." Or "you betrayed the bottom line outlined in the talk."
More...
I wonder if the reason I made the mistake is that you take such a strong stance on monogamy--and that makes me want to reexamine a whole lot of cultural assumptions I have.
You and ankylosaur are each trying to enlighten the other, and with every post, you both explain your positions more fully. I think it's often the tendency to over-simplify so as not to take all day trying to write what will be a long comment or because one's own thinking doesn't seem to need elaboration or explanation that results in misunderstandings. Perhaps you and Ank are not nearly as far apart as you both seemed initially to be. Or maybe you still are but when both of you try to carefully articulate your positions to each other, you end up clarifying a lot more to the rest of us, too.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions about monogamy, reasons that excuse cheating, honesty, reactions to cheating. Some of those reactions may come from your own direct experiences, some from observations of others, and some may be by-products of world-views. For what it's worth, I don't care what you think of me, and I agree that you are fortunate and hope you stay that way. I also agree with you that one of the consequences of a couple's staying together after discovered or confessed infidelity is often the way you describe it--a seriously diminished relationship in which trust is gone.
But there is a tendency toward intolerance and judgment in some of your earlier comments, coupled with what Mr. Venommenon would call LMB a sense of self-congratulation that undermines your later tone. It's in this: "I am very monogamy oriented. Monogamy is what works for me, and I found a partner who feels the same. Early in our relationship we discussed and determined that monogamy was what we wanted and that was that." The "that was that" is what seems to be an over-simplification, as though by having a conversation early in a relationship, one can definitively put a stamp on it and spray shellac on it and it will never change. Because that was that.
I can't speak for everyone, and probably a lot of eventual cheaters never had the conversation, or didn't have it honestly, but many of us don't intend to become cheaters when we first meet, fall in love with, co-habitate with, or marry our partners. We also didn't plan to lose hair or gain weight, or get a chronic condition, or have a dip in libido, or a whole lot of other things that can happen to people when they log a lot of time together.
It just seems simplistic and dismissive of real life to say something like "we had that talk and that was that." The implication is that "you should have had that talk, too." Or "you betrayed the bottom line outlined in the talk."
136
@135: really well-stated. We are all a product of our experiences - sometimes our changes are gradual (I know that I am proud to call myself a feminist chiefly because I had the fortune of meeting some really powerful, amazing women in college and beyond but before I was about 20, I did not hold quite the same views - though I am not willing to accept my 3 daughters growing to become sexual beings (that's a joke, BTW), I am ecstatic that they are three ass-kicking, strong-willed confident girls who have more opportunities than my sisters, my mom and their mother (one of the awesome women in my life and the one who has been there the longest)). Sometimes the changes come out of no where (such as how we change in the face of tragedy). The "rules" at the start of a relationship - even as they apply to ourselves and not just our partners - are not necessarily the rules 10 years into that relationship. I would have never imagined involving a third person into my sex life (M, W, whatever) but because I so want my relationship to grow and feel that it has stagnated, I am open to CONSIDER all possibilities if that seemed to help get things going (whether I'd act on it (eg, telling my wife it's OK for her to take a lover), I am not so sure). Even one's view cheating (my definition: screwing around w/o the knowledge of the other) can change. I think I would have been much more likely to end my marriage if I found out my wife had an affair in, say, Year 5, than now (in Year 21) - not to say I wouldn't but I'd have to think it all the way through in a much deeper way. However, I do think that, generally, honesty regarding The Big Questions is preferably to dishonesty/silence so if I were to experiment with a third person as a way to keep my frustration from exploding, I think it would be the right thing to be honest with my wife. It would not come out of the blue - at least to me - because I have been having the Sex Talk with her for a while. That's why I am sympathic and respectful of nocutename - she made her thoughts clear and was met by indifference at best and hostility to her feelings at worst - and not as gracious to the LW though I understand where he's coming from (caveat: if he discussed this with his wife then my view is completely recast).
People who think they mate-for-life can make it work sometimes. My main point is that we should be open to changes in our views about ALL things - including sex and relationship philosophies - because that is how we grow as people. Who wants to meet a 50-year-old who has the same myopic word-view as most 20-year-olds? We evolve. Every stage should be looked at fresh to figure out what works. A staunch monogamist may remain so throughout his/her life/marriage but I do hope that he/she reevaluates that at each stage - if nothing else, it will reconfirm that THAT philosophy is what works for him/her. Having hard and fast rules may work for a brief period of time but I think it is unhealthy to think that those views at one point WILL be the same as they are at another point in time.
More...
People who think they mate-for-life can make it work sometimes. My main point is that we should be open to changes in our views about ALL things - including sex and relationship philosophies - because that is how we grow as people. Who wants to meet a 50-year-old who has the same myopic word-view as most 20-year-olds? We evolve. Every stage should be looked at fresh to figure out what works. A staunch monogamist may remain so throughout his/her life/marriage but I do hope that he/she reevaluates that at each stage - if nothing else, it will reconfirm that THAT philosophy is what works for him/her. Having hard and fast rules may work for a brief period of time but I think it is unhealthy to think that those views at one point WILL be the same as they are at another point in time.
137
Nocutename,
First, my stance on monogamy itself applies only to me. I don't have a firm stance on monogamy in a general sense. That is to say, I have no problem at all with people who choose not to be monogamous. I don't, for a second, hold that monogamy is superior, better, or the only good way to live. I was saying that, based on my life experience, that I found that monogamy is what 'I' need and what works for 'me'. And that before I considered settling down I made sure I found a partner who felt the same.
As for the "that was that", I didn't mean to imply that we talked once and it was perfect ever after. Nor was it meant to be a matter of self congratulations. What I meant was that we made a commitment, and we stuck to that commitment. That doesn't mean that we have never discussed it, had issues, or renegotiated our sex life. It means that we promised that what ever we were going to do, we wouldn't cheat. 16 years later I can say I have never cheated. As for my partner I can say that I am as positive as anyone can possibly be that he has never cheated. It didn't just happen that way. It is because we not only talked about it, but we made an agreement and stuck to it. That agreement included that we would talk about it if either of us felt the need for a change in things (and we have made some changes over the years, but monogamy hasn't been an issue for us so that part hasn't needed revisiting).
It's not that I don't think that people who end up cheating never have any kind of discussion to begin with. But I do think that many don't necessarily cover all the bases and make a lot of assumptions. I never assumed that we would always be monogamous, which is why we actually discussed the possibility that it might change one day, and what we both considered acceptable and unacceptable ways of making that change, if it ever came up. I honestly don't think that many people do that. Maybe I'm wrong, but from people I have mentioned this to it seems that they often assume that monogamy is the way it will always be.
I want to stay monogamous. But I would rather entertain the notion of opening the relationship up rather than ending it or being cheated on. I have made that clear to my partner which is part of the reason why I don't believe he has ever cheated. The only reason he would have to cheat is if the thrill of getting caught was what he was looking for, and I know him well enough to know that isn't likely.
So the "that was that" isn't "that was the parameter we set, and that is how it will stay for ever, unchanging". It was, "and that was when we made a commitment to be honest about these things, and that is a commitment we have kept".
But honestly, if you did have that "talk" too, but then broke the agreed upon tenets of that talk, then ultimately you did betray the bottom line. So the question is, did your partner betray the bottom line as well (and honestly, that is rhetorical, I don't want to know and am not looking for justifications to judge you). Since I don't know what the actual bottom line you and your ex may have drawn to begin with I have no idea if that is the case. So I can't form an judgment about your actions, and have no particular interest in doing so. For all I know he may have violated some part of your agreement by not working harder to appease your needs, or some other thing. I don't know. I don't really care to be honest. When I read your account I didn't even really care to wonder. It wasn't until you brought me up yourself that even thought about it.
Ultimately my point is that people are going to do what they are going to do, but if you (and I mean that in the general "you" and not you specifically) think I am unique in my views you are wrong. Anyone can do what they want in their relationships. I don't really care. But I know how I would react to finding out that my partner cheated on my to save our relationship. And I don't believe for a moment that my reaction would be particularly atypical.
People will do what they want, but if someone cheats on their spouse, gets caught, and it destroys their relationship my sympathies aren't very likely to go to the cheater, but with the cheated on. There may be exceptions based on specific circumstances, but that is generally how my sympathies will fall, and I don't particularly care if the cheaters out there don't like that.
More...
First, my stance on monogamy itself applies only to me. I don't have a firm stance on monogamy in a general sense. That is to say, I have no problem at all with people who choose not to be monogamous. I don't, for a second, hold that monogamy is superior, better, or the only good way to live. I was saying that, based on my life experience, that I found that monogamy is what 'I' need and what works for 'me'. And that before I considered settling down I made sure I found a partner who felt the same.
As for the "that was that", I didn't mean to imply that we talked once and it was perfect ever after. Nor was it meant to be a matter of self congratulations. What I meant was that we made a commitment, and we stuck to that commitment. That doesn't mean that we have never discussed it, had issues, or renegotiated our sex life. It means that we promised that what ever we were going to do, we wouldn't cheat. 16 years later I can say I have never cheated. As for my partner I can say that I am as positive as anyone can possibly be that he has never cheated. It didn't just happen that way. It is because we not only talked about it, but we made an agreement and stuck to it. That agreement included that we would talk about it if either of us felt the need for a change in things (and we have made some changes over the years, but monogamy hasn't been an issue for us so that part hasn't needed revisiting).
It's not that I don't think that people who end up cheating never have any kind of discussion to begin with. But I do think that many don't necessarily cover all the bases and make a lot of assumptions. I never assumed that we would always be monogamous, which is why we actually discussed the possibility that it might change one day, and what we both considered acceptable and unacceptable ways of making that change, if it ever came up. I honestly don't think that many people do that. Maybe I'm wrong, but from people I have mentioned this to it seems that they often assume that monogamy is the way it will always be.
I want to stay monogamous. But I would rather entertain the notion of opening the relationship up rather than ending it or being cheated on. I have made that clear to my partner which is part of the reason why I don't believe he has ever cheated. The only reason he would have to cheat is if the thrill of getting caught was what he was looking for, and I know him well enough to know that isn't likely.
So the "that was that" isn't "that was the parameter we set, and that is how it will stay for ever, unchanging". It was, "and that was when we made a commitment to be honest about these things, and that is a commitment we have kept".
But honestly, if you did have that "talk" too, but then broke the agreed upon tenets of that talk, then ultimately you did betray the bottom line. So the question is, did your partner betray the bottom line as well (and honestly, that is rhetorical, I don't want to know and am not looking for justifications to judge you). Since I don't know what the actual bottom line you and your ex may have drawn to begin with I have no idea if that is the case. So I can't form an judgment about your actions, and have no particular interest in doing so. For all I know he may have violated some part of your agreement by not working harder to appease your needs, or some other thing. I don't know. I don't really care to be honest. When I read your account I didn't even really care to wonder. It wasn't until you brought me up yourself that even thought about it.
Ultimately my point is that people are going to do what they are going to do, but if you (and I mean that in the general "you" and not you specifically) think I am unique in my views you are wrong. Anyone can do what they want in their relationships. I don't really care. But I know how I would react to finding out that my partner cheated on my to save our relationship. And I don't believe for a moment that my reaction would be particularly atypical.
People will do what they want, but if someone cheats on their spouse, gets caught, and it destroys their relationship my sympathies aren't very likely to go to the cheater, but with the cheated on. There may be exceptions based on specific circumstances, but that is generally how my sympathies will fall, and I don't particularly care if the cheaters out there don't like that.
138
Wow - wonderful, thoughtful thread to come back (I'm traveling this week). I still feel that people should feel obligated to tell their partners before going outside the marriage (barring rare circumstances) and I feel that if thoughtful people like ankylosaur say "you never know the situation from outside so you can never judge," well, I've met a ton of guys in the past couple of years who all had 'good reason' to lie to their wives. And I don't want to provide them with more excuses for not having the Conversation. I think times are changing, and the spouse who wants to open up can provide a lot more support for that position (like here on Slog) than previous generations could. If we want to be able to talk about extramarital sex, that only happens if we change the culture (the way porn use is much more accepted than it used to be). So when you say I'm not allowed to judge people as CPOS, I don't buy it. It's not a crime, but it's (in my opinion) the wrong choice, for their self-respect, for their marriage, for the culture at large, for everyone. Doesn't mean I'd throw them in jail, but I won't date them.
And, no, Mr. J., I don't think it's right for a woman to ignore the problems in their sex life just because it's not bothering her. Absolutely, she should be working on it too. But she's not the LW, he is. I guess it depends what the "hundreds of other things" consists of, that he tried. If that includes talks with her doctor, her priest, a counselor for her, one for him, and one for both of them -- and if he knows what thrills her (in and out of bed) and does lots of that... I'd be more willing to put them in the "rare circumstances" category.
And, no, Mr. J., I don't think it's right for a woman to ignore the problems in their sex life just because it's not bothering her. Absolutely, she should be working on it too. But she's not the LW, he is. I guess it depends what the "hundreds of other things" consists of, that he tried. If that includes talks with her doctor, her priest, a counselor for her, one for him, and one for both of them -- and if he knows what thrills her (in and out of bed) and does lots of that... I'd be more willing to put them in the "rare circumstances" category.
139
seandr @64 - no. Marry someone who is open-minded about lots of things. Keep the lines of communication open, and talk about a decline in sex as soon as you notice it, not after years go by. Also your stats are flawed. If "3% of women out there might be open to an open relationship" in 2012, that's surely more than would have been open to it 40 years ago. And in the younger generation, more women will be open to the idea. Our culture is changing, and part of making that go towards openness and not lies is about telling people to be brave enough to have the Conversation and face the consequences.
By the way, where did you get your 3% from? Seems like it would be hard to get true numbers, since not only would many people lie about this, but many people who turn out to be willing to open their marriages after the Conversation, would say that they weren't ahead of time.
By the way, where did you get your 3% from? Seems like it would be hard to get true numbers, since not only would many people lie about this, but many people who turn out to be willing to open their marriages after the Conversation, would say that they weren't ahead of time.
140
@Fortunate,
Again, thank you for your detailed description of your viewpoint. The more I read what you write (including also your answer to nocutename), the more I think we fundamentally agree on most important variables: we both think that 'what works for me' has to work for others, we both think that monogamy is not a sine qua non of all relationships, we both understand that life isn't simple and that honesty is a crucial element in relationships. We both agree that not everybody is like us, we are both OK with solutions we wouldn't have chosen but others would.
So, reflecting a little on what you wrote, it seems to me that our difference boils down to considerations about the need for honesty, the need not to lie about important things. How high on the hierarchy of desiderata should complete honesty be? When is it OK -- if ever -- to lie about things like cheating?
You put a prize on autonomy and respect for the autonomy of others. You wrote: "Anyone who thinks that they can make such a choice for me is sadly mistaken." You extend the same right to your partner, concluding that there are decisions you simply do not have the right to make for your partner.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken: I don't want to force your worldview into false dichotomies. But after reading and re-reading what you wrote, it seems that you would have to unconditionally agree with this statement: there are decisions (like cheating and lying about it) which I simply do not have the right to make for my partner, no matter what the (reasonable) circumstances are. (I.e., you'd make exceptions if children are involved, or if one's partner has a debilitating illness, but not for much else) If the only way I can see to keep the relationship going is to cheat and lie about it, then my only ethical option is to terminate the relationship (or tell my partner everything and give him/her the chance of terminating the relationship).
And this is basically the statement that I disagree with. I maintain that there are circumstances under which cheating, and lying about cheating, are indeed the best course of action. Honesty is not the highest priority: causing serious harm is. I maintain that, if the harm that would result from telling the truth clearly, and by much, outweighs the harm that results from (successfully) lying, then lying is the best course of action.
I came to this conclusion after also a lifetime of experiences that affected and changed my own original beliefs and predispositions, which were initially essentially the same as yours. I also thought honesty in all situations was the best policy, especially when cheating is one of the alternatives. But in time, I've had sufficiently many cases in which doing the 'right' thing (and you are right in saying that doing the right thing -- being honest -- was often not at all the easiest solution) had catastrophic consequences, with later evidence showing that not having been honest would have led to a better outcome. I have indeed even been told on occasion by people who were complaining about situations like cheating that they would rather never have been told: it would have been better for them. And I have no reason thus far to doubt that they may be right.
I cannot deny such experiences. They were real. And they led me to my current position, which is basically: avoiding horrible suffering trumps honesty.
Now of course this position has its own problems, which fall well in line with some of the observations you made. I will therefore quote from your post, in order to further elaborate on the details.
It does, if not doing it would also lead to the relationship being terminated ('I couldn't stay sane'). My options are then between doing something that will very probably lead to the end of the relationship (not cheating) or doing something that will lead to to the end of the relationship only if I get caught. Since the former is more likely than the latter, it is not difficult to choose the latter.
The main question is of course why I should want to keep a relationship in which 'I couldn't stay sane' without cheating. I maintain that there are reasons why I should want that. Nocutename wrote some very deeply felt lines about why that could be the case for her. I concur. I may appreciate all the other aspects of my relationship so much that I'm ready to run the risk of doing something like cheating, which would cause the relationship to be terminated if my partner found out about it, in order to keep sane and not lose the ability of keeping the relationship going.
Indeed you didn't say that. I'd still claim your formulation (you 'dumped his ass') suggested that it had been. Course suggesting is not claiming, so I stand correct.
But I still maintain that, if you did come to the conclusion that dumping him was the right thing to do, then you were not in the kind of situation I'm talking about. There is a little logical trick here: I'm defining the situation as being one in which dumping him would have felt worse, or less right, than not dumping him, which begs the question. So I will undo the logical tangle and rephrase the point as follows:
I claim -- I'm claiming this even without knowing you, but not because I want to be presumptous: because think it's a generally true statement about humans -- that there are circumstances under which you would also think that the right thing to do would be not to dump your cheating-and-lying partner. Or even that there are circumstances under which you would think that the right thing to do was to cheat on your partner and lie about it. In other words, that there are circumstances under which, even for you, some other factor (say, avoiding suffering) would trump honesty and honest dialogue.
You may legitimately deny that there could be any such circumstances, and indeed I have no way of demonstrating to you that there could be. I could propose scenarios to you and ask how you would react (such thought experiments are frequent in philosophical ethics), and perhaps we could find one such scenario; but then again, perhaps we wouldn't. It could become a never-ending exercise.
So I'll leave my claim as such, for you to comment on, agree or disagree as you see fit.
Interestingly, this is a point in which I entirely agree with you. The above quote is one I can entirely agree with: I, too, would rather end a relationship than become part of a "couple who end up staying together out of habit, who exist together without ever really caring anymore." (There probably are people who would prefer this to being alone, and I don't blame them: it's their worldview, not mine. But in this particular respect I actually feel like you.)
I think the difference between us here is how our own life experiences have colored our worldviews, as they inevitably always do. Both of us agree that "yes, some people cheat and don't et caught; some people cheat, get caught, and the relationship survives, sometimes as well or stronger than before"; but you are more afraid of the final-state "deadened" relationship, like a universe that ends in heat death, whereas I am more afraid of the terrible harm that full honesty can sometimes cause. This probably means that you have seen more cases of deadened/heat-death relationships than you have cases of honesty-with-unbearable-consequences, whereas I have seen a couple of heartbreaking cases of the latter. I suppose we are both more afraid of the kinds of catastrophes the wreckage of which we have seen more impressive examples of. Perhaps we should exchange and analyze horror stories?
Indeed, we do agree that people differ; but I don't think this is the basic problem. You pose a dilemma: what does one do when one doesn't know if one's partner would 'die inside' if s/he were to ever find out about one's cheating? In this case, you say, one should not run the risk. One should be honest and tell everything to one's partner.
But the problem with this is that you are not looking at all possibilities when you propose this problem. True, we don't know if cheating and lying about it, and then getting caught, would make one's partner 'die inside'; but we also don't know if being honest and telling our partner (who is not meeting our sexual needs) that we either need to open the relationship or terminate it would make one's partner 'die inside' and also lead to exactly the result you wanted to avoid: a 'heat-death' relationship, or then a terminated relationship in which one's partner is now (and maybe forever?) a damaged shadow of his/her former self -- a partner whom, ex hypothesi, we indeed care about, whom we love.
In other words: you can't say "you don't know if cheating and getting caught wouldn't result in a horrible fate for your partner and/or relationship" without also saying "you don't know if being totally honest about past cheating or about your needs and options to your partner wouldn't result in a horrible fate for your parnter and/or relationship" either. You're assuming the former is a problem but not the latter, but in reality both are. Your reasoning is equally applicable to the second dilemma: if you know that being honest about past cheating, or about your needs (either open the relationship or terminate it), will crush your partner so that s/he becomes 'dead inside', then you should not be honest to him/her. Wouldn't the very reasoning you propose suggest that, here, cheating and lying about it would be the best course of action?
Here is where I think the crux of the problem is. We both agree that life isn't simple, but this is not everything: life is also dangerous. One of the ways in which it is dangerous is that we are, by virtue of the way reality is, forced to make decisions without having perfect, full knowledge of the situation and of the consequences of our decision. We have to make some assumptions; we have to guess about certain things; and this means there is always some chance, no matter how well-intentioned we are, that we'll be wrong, that we'll end up guilty of the very result we had designed our actions to avoid.
We try to devise ethical systems to assist us in making these choices. You propose a system whereby one should, if one doesn't know for sure what one's partner's reaction is going to be, risk on the side of being honest, because there is the danger that, if you aren't honest and later get caught, then you'll cause irreparable damage to your partner and/or relationship. But then, this system does nothing about the risk that being honest to your parnter might cause the very same kind of irreparable damage to your partner and/or relationship that this system is designed to avoid. It would only work if we could assume that everybody is such that they would be less damaged by being told the truth than by being deceived and later finding out. And we both know not everybody is like that, so we can't make this assumption either.
The sad truth is that, ultimately, there is nothing we can do -- no system we can devise -- to completely eliminate the risk of doing irreparable damage. We can argue about which system would be more efficient (based, say, on statistics about how often being told the truth hurts more than being lied to and finding out later on, or being lied to and never finding out, weighted by how likely each situation is), but we can't completely eliminate the risk.
Life is dangerous.
Here you are assuming that the risk of permanent damage from honesty is indeed lower than the risk of permanent damage from non-honesty (or that the first kind of damage is less important than the second). Since we don't know that for a fact, the person who makes this claim may indeed be objectively right -- even if you don't buy it. All that is necessary is that the damage from honesty be, in this case, objectively larger than the damage from non-honesty.
I agree with that. But then again, it seems now that you are allowing for the possibility that cheating and lying about it (what nocutename did [the lying part is iffy, since she did tell her husband she would cheat, but she says he didn't believe her, and she also says she would have lied if later on he had asked]) might be preferable to actually being fully honest about the options, even though there were no debilitating diseases (there were children involved, though; nocutename and her husband had children). Is that so?
Finally, let me once again thank you for this interesting in-depth discussion, and let me assure you that I do not mean to oversimplify you or your opinions; I apologize if I ever gave you this impression. I also apologize for assuming you were a 'she'.
More...
Again, thank you for your detailed description of your viewpoint. The more I read what you write (including also your answer to nocutename), the more I think we fundamentally agree on most important variables: we both think that 'what works for me' has to work for others, we both think that monogamy is not a sine qua non of all relationships, we both understand that life isn't simple and that honesty is a crucial element in relationships. We both agree that not everybody is like us, we are both OK with solutions we wouldn't have chosen but others would.
So, reflecting a little on what you wrote, it seems to me that our difference boils down to considerations about the need for honesty, the need not to lie about important things. How high on the hierarchy of desiderata should complete honesty be? When is it OK -- if ever -- to lie about things like cheating?
You put a prize on autonomy and respect for the autonomy of others. You wrote: "Anyone who thinks that they can make such a choice for me is sadly mistaken." You extend the same right to your partner, concluding that there are decisions you simply do not have the right to make for your partner.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken: I don't want to force your worldview into false dichotomies. But after reading and re-reading what you wrote, it seems that you would have to unconditionally agree with this statement: there are decisions (like cheating and lying about it) which I simply do not have the right to make for my partner, no matter what the (reasonable) circumstances are. (I.e., you'd make exceptions if children are involved, or if one's partner has a debilitating illness, but not for much else) If the only way I can see to keep the relationship going is to cheat and lie about it, then my only ethical option is to terminate the relationship (or tell my partner everything and give him/her the chance of terminating the relationship).
And this is basically the statement that I disagree with. I maintain that there are circumstances under which cheating, and lying about cheating, are indeed the best course of action. Honesty is not the highest priority: causing serious harm is. I maintain that, if the harm that would result from telling the truth clearly, and by much, outweighs the harm that results from (successfully) lying, then lying is the best course of action.
I came to this conclusion after also a lifetime of experiences that affected and changed my own original beliefs and predispositions, which were initially essentially the same as yours. I also thought honesty in all situations was the best policy, especially when cheating is one of the alternatives. But in time, I've had sufficiently many cases in which doing the 'right' thing (and you are right in saying that doing the right thing -- being honest -- was often not at all the easiest solution) had catastrophic consequences, with later evidence showing that not having been honest would have led to a better outcome. I have indeed even been told on occasion by people who were complaining about situations like cheating that they would rather never have been told: it would have been better for them. And I have no reason thus far to doubt that they may be right.
I cannot deny such experiences. They were real. And they led me to my current position, which is basically: avoiding horrible suffering trumps honesty.
Now of course this position has its own problems, which fall well in line with some of the observations you made. I will therefore quote from your post, in order to further elaborate on the details.
My point was that claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it doesn't make sense.
It does, if not doing it would also lead to the relationship being terminated ('I couldn't stay sane'). My options are then between doing something that will very probably lead to the end of the relationship (not cheating) or doing something that will lead to to the end of the relationship only if I get caught. Since the former is more likely than the latter, it is not difficult to choose the latter.
The main question is of course why I should want to keep a relationship in which 'I couldn't stay sane' without cheating. I maintain that there are reasons why I should want that. Nocutename wrote some very deeply felt lines about why that could be the case for her. I concur. I may appreciate all the other aspects of my relationship so much that I'm ready to run the risk of doing something like cheating, which would cause the relationship to be terminated if my partner found out about it, in order to keep sane and not lose the ability of keeping the relationship going.
First, I never said it was easy. I said I did it and I know it was the right thing to do. Second, you are now doing what you basically accused me of doing. Judging my relationship based on how YOU would have reacted.
Indeed you didn't say that. I'd still claim your formulation (you 'dumped his ass') suggested that it had been. Course suggesting is not claiming, so I stand correct.
But I still maintain that, if you did come to the conclusion that dumping him was the right thing to do, then you were not in the kind of situation I'm talking about. There is a little logical trick here: I'm defining the situation as being one in which dumping him would have felt worse, or less right, than not dumping him, which begs the question. So I will undo the logical tangle and rephrase the point as follows:
I claim -- I'm claiming this even without knowing you, but not because I want to be presumptous: because think it's a generally true statement about humans -- that there are circumstances under which you would also think that the right thing to do would be not to dump your cheating-and-lying partner. Or even that there are circumstances under which you would think that the right thing to do was to cheat on your partner and lie about it. In other words, that there are circumstances under which, even for you, some other factor (say, avoiding suffering) would trump honesty and honest dialogue.
You may legitimately deny that there could be any such circumstances, and indeed I have no way of demonstrating to you that there could be. I could propose scenarios to you and ask how you would react (such thought experiments are frequent in philosophical ethics), and perhaps we could find one such scenario; but then again, perhaps we wouldn't. It could become a never-ending exercise.
So I'll leave my claim as such, for you to comment on, agree or disagree as you see fit.
Because here it the thing. Yes, some people cheat and don't get caught. And some people cheat, get caught, and the relationship survives. And sometimes the relationship survives just as well and strong as before. But sometimes it just continues to exist, and now the other person is left unhappy. I have seen it so many times. [...] And perhaps that is the difference between us. I could easily see myself ending up like that if I were cheated on and didn't leave. And honestly, I would rather have a relationship end then have it become that. If I couldn't end it and had to live with a cheating partner I would not be happy. That I know.
Interestingly, this is a point in which I entirely agree with you. The above quote is one I can entirely agree with: I, too, would rather end a relationship than become part of a "couple who end up staying together out of habit, who exist together without ever really caring anymore." (There probably are people who would prefer this to being alone, and I don't blame them: it's their worldview, not mine. But in this particular respect I actually feel like you.)
I think the difference between us here is how our own life experiences have colored our worldviews, as they inevitably always do. Both of us agree that "yes, some people cheat and don't et caught; some people cheat, get caught, and the relationship survives, sometimes as well or stronger than before"; but you are more afraid of the final-state "deadened" relationship, like a universe that ends in heat death, whereas I am more afraid of the terrible harm that full honesty can sometimes cause. This probably means that you have seen more cases of deadened/heat-death relationships than you have cases of honesty-with-unbearable-consequences, whereas I have seen a couple of heartbreaking cases of the latter. I suppose we are both more afraid of the kinds of catastrophes the wreckage of which we have seen more impressive examples of. Perhaps we should exchange and analyze horror stories?
True. And not everyone is like you. Some people would rather their partner cheat and not be told about it. And if they ever made that clear at some point then great, I have no problem with the cheater who is cheating knowing that. But some people would die inside to find out, and the person who cheats on that person is playing games with their wellbeing. So what do you do if you don't know? My stance is that if you don't know then don't risk their well being.
Indeed, we do agree that people differ; but I don't think this is the basic problem. You pose a dilemma: what does one do when one doesn't know if one's partner would 'die inside' if s/he were to ever find out about one's cheating? In this case, you say, one should not run the risk. One should be honest and tell everything to one's partner.
But the problem with this is that you are not looking at all possibilities when you propose this problem. True, we don't know if cheating and lying about it, and then getting caught, would make one's partner 'die inside'; but we also don't know if being honest and telling our partner (who is not meeting our sexual needs) that we either need to open the relationship or terminate it would make one's partner 'die inside' and also lead to exactly the result you wanted to avoid: a 'heat-death' relationship, or then a terminated relationship in which one's partner is now (and maybe forever?) a damaged shadow of his/her former self -- a partner whom, ex hypothesi, we indeed care about, whom we love.
In other words: you can't say "you don't know if cheating and getting caught wouldn't result in a horrible fate for your partner and/or relationship" without also saying "you don't know if being totally honest about past cheating or about your needs and options to your partner wouldn't result in a horrible fate for your parnter and/or relationship" either. You're assuming the former is a problem but not the latter, but in reality both are. Your reasoning is equally applicable to the second dilemma: if you know that being honest about past cheating, or about your needs (either open the relationship or terminate it), will crush your partner so that s/he becomes 'dead inside', then you should not be honest to him/her. Wouldn't the very reasoning you propose suggest that, here, cheating and lying about it would be the best course of action?
Here is where I think the crux of the problem is. We both agree that life isn't simple, but this is not everything: life is also dangerous. One of the ways in which it is dangerous is that we are, by virtue of the way reality is, forced to make decisions without having perfect, full knowledge of the situation and of the consequences of our decision. We have to make some assumptions; we have to guess about certain things; and this means there is always some chance, no matter how well-intentioned we are, that we'll be wrong, that we'll end up guilty of the very result we had designed our actions to avoid.
We try to devise ethical systems to assist us in making these choices. You propose a system whereby one should, if one doesn't know for sure what one's partner's reaction is going to be, risk on the side of being honest, because there is the danger that, if you aren't honest and later get caught, then you'll cause irreparable damage to your partner and/or relationship. But then, this system does nothing about the risk that being honest to your parnter might cause the very same kind of irreparable damage to your partner and/or relationship that this system is designed to avoid. It would only work if we could assume that everybody is such that they would be less damaged by being told the truth than by being deceived and later finding out. And we both know not everybody is like that, so we can't make this assumption either.
The sad truth is that, ultimately, there is nothing we can do -- no system we can devise -- to completely eliminate the risk of doing irreparable damage. We can argue about which system would be more efficient (based, say, on statistics about how often being told the truth hurts more than being lied to and finding out later on, or being lied to and never finding out, weighted by how likely each situation is), but we can't completely eliminate the risk.
Life is dangerous.
Anyone who thinks that they can make such a choice for me is sadly mistaken. So people can do what they want. If they aren't posting about it to blogs and forums then it isn't my business. But on the occasions that they do get caught and the other person gets hurt if they try to justify it by claiming they did it for the other person I am not going to buy it.
Here you are assuming that the risk of permanent damage from honesty is indeed lower than the risk of permanent damage from non-honesty (or that the first kind of damage is less important than the second). Since we don't know that for a fact, the person who makes this claim may indeed be objectively right -- even if you don't buy it. All that is necessary is that the damage from honesty be, in this case, objectively larger than the damage from non-honesty.
You and nocutename seem to think that I am condemning nocutename in my head. You both are assuming you know what I think and feel. I find that odd since I don't know what I think or feel about nocutename. Not that I can't have an opinion, but as with the original LW I would want a whole lot more detail before I did so. I can say that I can't condemn her eventual decision, but I have not, and don't know if I would, condemn her earlier one to cheat on her husband without knowing a lot more detail about the conversations they had and their situation.
I agree with that. But then again, it seems now that you are allowing for the possibility that cheating and lying about it (what nocutename did [the lying part is iffy, since she did tell her husband she would cheat, but she says he didn't believe her, and she also says she would have lied if later on he had asked]) might be preferable to actually being fully honest about the options, even though there were no debilitating diseases (there were children involved, though; nocutename and her husband had children). Is that so?
Finally, let me once again thank you for this interesting in-depth discussion, and let me assure you that I do not mean to oversimplify you or your opinions; I apologize if I ever gave you this impression. I also apologize for assuming you were a 'she'.
141
"I didn't tell her because I was afraid she'd say no" is not grounds for cheating without being slapped by the CPOS label. And sans any additional information from the letter, it sure looks like that's what this letter is. I don't see anything that qualifies as particularly extenuating circumstances -- many people writing Dan have partners with decreased libidos and usually are told to negotiate that with their partner or leave them. Not sure why this guy gets a pass.
142
Why are people SO damned judgmental? I'm an ethical slut. As such, I'm honest, open and disclosing to my wife. For years, I was a CPOS. I don't want anything to do with someone who's cheating today, but NOT because I disapprove, or think them in any way "less than" me, but simply because I want to be a source of proud joy for the people I fuck, not of secret shame. But that's about ME - not about them. Some of the hottest sex I've had was as a CPOS, and the people I had it with were certainly doing nothing wrong.
143
@142 N,
Some of us are judgmental because we are afraid. In my case I am afraid of being betrayed (again) and abandoned (again) by those I trust most. Not surprisingly I can feel a cascade of empathy for those hurt by cheating (on both sides sometimes). Think of it as a conditioned response.
Peace.
Some of us are judgmental because we are afraid. In my case I am afraid of being betrayed (again) and abandoned (again) by those I trust most. Not surprisingly I can feel a cascade of empathy for those hurt by cheating (on both sides sometimes). Think of it as a conditioned response.
Peace.
144
Someone probably already said this but, the wife totally knew! You don't have sex with your previously horny husband once in half a decade and never have it occur to you that something may be up. She didn't just suddenly muse to herself after 3 years that perhaps his genitalia had shriveled up and fallen off at some point. She was relieved he didn't want sex from her any more but was still coming home for dinner every night and she didn't want to know anything else about it.
145
@144: while I agree that you are likely correct, I can imagine a scenario where that might not be correct. If the decline happened relatively slowly and at first he initiated frequently, then less frequently, then played the game of waiting for her (everyone wants sex sometimes, right?) and then started over (reduce, reuse, recycle) but at a slower rate. And then, nothing - with the occasional salvo to see if she might be game. I can see that he could pull it off. Again, she probably knew (and I hold out hope that he told her but for some reason left it out of the letter so this does qualify as monogamish rather than simply "successful" cheating).
146
133, as it happens, fairly early in our marriage my husband was laid off and it took almost two years for him to find another job. His job was in a dying industry and he had to switch fields entirely. I was the "breadwinner" during that time. To suggest that I would have been within my rights to just ditch him, or to date some rich guy on the side to satisfy my basic needs for fancy stuff, is crazy and completely contrary to the basic values of marriage. Now, if people want to redefine relationships to allow for things like that, more power to them, but they need to be honest about it. That's the bottom line here, this guy was not honest! And I think his wife knew he was cheating, but whatever. It's strange you would say, on the basis of my high prizing of honesty, that I'm not able to empathize with people in different situations. Yeah, I get that people have different values. I just want them to be honest about it. If you value lying, I don't and won't, sorry. Been there, done it myself, saw the damage, won't tolerate it henceforth.
147
the difference between monogamishit and open/poly is that the monogamishitas don't want to admit that they are sluts.....
148
@146 Suzy
The comparison of a lost job to a lost libido as in this case only works if the out of work person never talked about it, never cared to look for work, showed no concern for the financial impact on you both, lied by pretending to go to work every day, and prevented you from getting a second job to keep a roof over your head. This letter is not about recreational cheating.
The LW's wife has checked out of their marriage and is equally a cheater at sexual fidelity. You can't just take your ball, leave, and then continue to claim that you are an honest participant in the game. She cheats and lies every day that she pretends to have a normal marriage.
I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief that you are so absolute about honesty in your own life that you never tell a lie. I rather suspect that you've set a special standard for sex wherein lies merit an extra tough judgement.
The comparison of a lost job to a lost libido as in this case only works if the out of work person never talked about it, never cared to look for work, showed no concern for the financial impact on you both, lied by pretending to go to work every day, and prevented you from getting a second job to keep a roof over your head. This letter is not about recreational cheating.
The LW's wife has checked out of their marriage and is equally a cheater at sexual fidelity. You can't just take your ball, leave, and then continue to claim that you are an honest participant in the game. She cheats and lies every day that she pretends to have a normal marriage.
I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief that you are so absolute about honesty in your own life that you never tell a lie. I rather suspect that you've set a special standard for sex wherein lies merit an extra tough judgement.
149
@138 EricaP
Welcome back.
It doesn't matter what he's tried. What matters is what they both have tried. I get that someone has to run the fuck, but does he really need to run their whole sex life, including inducing her to talk about it or to go to therapy? She needs to show equal initiative or draw equal condemnation from sloggers.
We are given the assertion that she's done nothing. I'm a bit surprised by your deflection of criticism of her merely because he wrote the letter. Your suppositions normally reach so much deeper into these letters than the set up of the situation.
Welcome back.
It doesn't matter what he's tried. What matters is what they both have tried. I get that someone has to run the fuck, but does he really need to run their whole sex life, including inducing her to talk about it or to go to therapy? She needs to show equal initiative or draw equal condemnation from sloggers.
We are given the assertion that she's done nothing. I'm a bit surprised by your deflection of criticism of her merely because he wrote the letter. Your suppositions normally reach so much deeper into these letters than the set up of the situation.
150
Mr. J, I agree she is in the wrong. She should be trying to fix her marriage, and she isn't. (Note: @148 you call her a liar, and you're right that she's lying to her community about the state of her marriage -- but she certainly isn't lying to her husband. He knows how much sex he isn't getting.)
So she's wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. Let's see how you like this analogy:
A man assures his fiancee that he wants children as much as she does. But after marriage, he keeps postponing and postponing children, and she begins to sense that he will never agree to have children. If he refuses to go to counseling with her about this, then he's in the wrong. But that doesn't give her permission to go out and find a man who looks like her husband, secretly get pregnant with him, and raise the child as her husband's child.
People who don't like their marital situation can leave, or can negotiate openly for something better. I'm not going to assume there's some reason the LW can't leave, when he didn't say so. He doesn't even say she refused counseling (secular or with her priest), or refused to talk to her doctor about her libido. Doesn't sound like he suggested any of those things. He just tried to fix things by will power. Didn't work. That doesn't give him carte blanche to cheat.
So she's wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. Let's see how you like this analogy:
A man assures his fiancee that he wants children as much as she does. But after marriage, he keeps postponing and postponing children, and she begins to sense that he will never agree to have children. If he refuses to go to counseling with her about this, then he's in the wrong. But that doesn't give her permission to go out and find a man who looks like her husband, secretly get pregnant with him, and raise the child as her husband's child.
People who don't like their marital situation can leave, or can negotiate openly for something better. I'm not going to assume there's some reason the LW can't leave, when he didn't say so. He doesn't even say she refused counseling (secular or with her priest), or refused to talk to her doctor about her libido. Doesn't sound like he suggested any of those things. He just tried to fix things by will power. Didn't work. That doesn't give him carte blanche to cheat.
151
@150 EricaP
I don't think two wrongs make a right and I'm not giving the LW a pass. He is a cheater. My point is that her wrong is equally bad and deserves equal condemnation (or an equal pass). Her lie is not about the amount of sex. It is exactly the same lie as the one people here are so outraged about. Her lie (unilaterally forced on him) is the illusion of a normal life. His lie is only different because she doesn't know about it. They both know about her lie, but it's still the same lie, and it robs him of an honest life.
He could have been honest and left her, cursing her for her dishonesty as he went. Or he could do what I did: Forgive her for the (ongoing) lie. Most wouldn't choose that alternative (or imagine they wouldn't). My Love is my life. I've kept what matters most to me. Life carries cost.
I don't think two wrongs make a right and I'm not giving the LW a pass. He is a cheater. My point is that her wrong is equally bad and deserves equal condemnation (or an equal pass). Her lie is not about the amount of sex. It is exactly the same lie as the one people here are so outraged about. Her lie (unilaterally forced on him) is the illusion of a normal life. His lie is only different because she doesn't know about it. They both know about her lie, but it's still the same lie, and it robs him of an honest life.
He could have been honest and left her, cursing her for her dishonesty as he went. Or he could do what I did: Forgive her for the (ongoing) lie. Most wouldn't choose that alternative (or imagine they wouldn't). My Love is my life. I've kept what matters most to me. Life carries cost.
152
Mr. J and EricaP: Perhaps the difference is between the actions or non-actions that accompany those lies that makes the difference.
She is actively lying when she says she'll go to a therapist with him, whereas his is a lie of omission. Unless she asks him a question ("where were you yesterday?" ) and he actively lies ("at the hardware store, looking at energy efficient lightbulbs").
But her lies result in no action, while his result in action.
She is actively lying when she says she'll go to a therapist with him, whereas his is a lie of omission. Unless she asks him a question ("where were you yesterday?" ) and he actively lies ("at the hardware store, looking at energy efficient lightbulbs").
But her lies result in no action, while his result in action.
153
Mr. J, why use the word "lie" for something that is known by both people? Fraud or betrayal, maybe?
154
@137 (Fortunate):
I think you are right: many people probably do not have an explicit discussion regarding monogamy and non-monogamy before making a commitment to each other, although these days, maybe it's a more common conversation than it was a generation ago. I think that for most it is a general assumption that marriage or an equally committed relationship necessarily means monogamy and a conversation about "under what circumstances, if any, would you consider making this relationship non-monogamous" or "let's be willing to re-visit the terms of the relationship in x years" rarely happens, though perhaps pre-marital counseling covers some form of "what would you do if your spouse strays?"
I think that there are two types of potential cheaters who enter into committed relationships, those that intend to be monogamous, and those that know from the start that they have no intention of remaining mono or no real belief in their ability to remain mono but think that making their thoughts or intentions known would jettison the marriage, and so say nothing, even should the topic come up in a more traditional way ("you'd never cheat on me/her/him, right?")
Both types could vastly benefit from an explicit, calm discussion (or several) before making a serious commitment.
I think what you and your husband did was wise, but wonder if you would have had that conversation if you had not already been hurt by a partner's cheating, and were therefore more aware of the need for it, or if you would have assumed that partnering meant being monogamous? I wonder if you had such a discussion with your first love?
I remember being on an early date with the man who would later be my husband, in which I told him that I had never been in an exclusive relationship, and that based on something a professor of mine had told me, I didn't think humans were biologically wired to be monogamous, but that monogamy was a a product of culture (this wasn't based on evo-psych, btw, which in those days I hadn't heard of, but based on a study of animals in which if there was a certain body-size/height differential between average male and female, those species tended toward non-monogamy. Humans fell into that category. I think that since then, far more species have been observed to be non-monogamous). I wondered at my capacity for monogamy. He said, "All I can tell you is I don't want to date anyone else; I don't want to have sex with anyone else. I can't tell you what to do, and of course, you're free to see and have sex with whomever you want, but I wish you would only want me." As time went on, and my feelings deepened, I didn't really have any interest in being with anyone but him, and I stopped dating others. I assumed that I would be fine with monogamy. By the time we had moved in together and then gotten engaged, it was obvious that I wasn't seeing or sleeping with anyone else, and we never returned to that conversation. I don't know that it would have done any good if we had: I was so in love, and so much a product of my culture, that I would never have believed I would ever have an affair when we married, though I fully expected to be attracted to and have crushes on others. Indeed, I had several intense crushes in the first 14 years of my marriage but never in a zillion years would have considered cheating. It was something else that made me try to get him to help me find more satisfaction in our sex life.
So I think that the conversation is valuable, and I agree, rarely had. But I don't even know that it would always guarantee the results you have had. You were able to take the discussion much deeper than most people and talk explicitly. For what it's worth, I've had much more explicit conversations about monogamy with the one man I dated seriously since my divorce, and I know that I always will in any future relationships. For me, now especially, complete and total honesty is the most important aspect. And I make no assumptions. Chalk it up to age and experience.
I also think that when the cheater's rationalization of "doing this to save the marriage" is phrased as you have:
("claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it") it highlights the contradiction in a way that would likely give pause to the would-be cheater. I never said that or something like it to myself--I always felt that I was having my cake and eating it, too.
More...
I think you are right: many people probably do not have an explicit discussion regarding monogamy and non-monogamy before making a commitment to each other, although these days, maybe it's a more common conversation than it was a generation ago. I think that for most it is a general assumption that marriage or an equally committed relationship necessarily means monogamy and a conversation about "under what circumstances, if any, would you consider making this relationship non-monogamous" or "let's be willing to re-visit the terms of the relationship in x years" rarely happens, though perhaps pre-marital counseling covers some form of "what would you do if your spouse strays?"
I think that there are two types of potential cheaters who enter into committed relationships, those that intend to be monogamous, and those that know from the start that they have no intention of remaining mono or no real belief in their ability to remain mono but think that making their thoughts or intentions known would jettison the marriage, and so say nothing, even should the topic come up in a more traditional way ("you'd never cheat on me/her/him, right?")
Both types could vastly benefit from an explicit, calm discussion (or several) before making a serious commitment.
I think what you and your husband did was wise, but wonder if you would have had that conversation if you had not already been hurt by a partner's cheating, and were therefore more aware of the need for it, or if you would have assumed that partnering meant being monogamous? I wonder if you had such a discussion with your first love?
I remember being on an early date with the man who would later be my husband, in which I told him that I had never been in an exclusive relationship, and that based on something a professor of mine had told me, I didn't think humans were biologically wired to be monogamous, but that monogamy was a a product of culture (this wasn't based on evo-psych, btw, which in those days I hadn't heard of, but based on a study of animals in which if there was a certain body-size/height differential between average male and female, those species tended toward non-monogamy. Humans fell into that category. I think that since then, far more species have been observed to be non-monogamous). I wondered at my capacity for monogamy. He said, "All I can tell you is I don't want to date anyone else; I don't want to have sex with anyone else. I can't tell you what to do, and of course, you're free to see and have sex with whomever you want, but I wish you would only want me." As time went on, and my feelings deepened, I didn't really have any interest in being with anyone but him, and I stopped dating others. I assumed that I would be fine with monogamy. By the time we had moved in together and then gotten engaged, it was obvious that I wasn't seeing or sleeping with anyone else, and we never returned to that conversation. I don't know that it would have done any good if we had: I was so in love, and so much a product of my culture, that I would never have believed I would ever have an affair when we married, though I fully expected to be attracted to and have crushes on others. Indeed, I had several intense crushes in the first 14 years of my marriage but never in a zillion years would have considered cheating. It was something else that made me try to get him to help me find more satisfaction in our sex life.
So I think that the conversation is valuable, and I agree, rarely had. But I don't even know that it would always guarantee the results you have had. You were able to take the discussion much deeper than most people and talk explicitly. For what it's worth, I've had much more explicit conversations about monogamy with the one man I dated seriously since my divorce, and I know that I always will in any future relationships. For me, now especially, complete and total honesty is the most important aspect. And I make no assumptions. Chalk it up to age and experience.
I also think that when the cheater's rationalization of "doing this to save the marriage" is phrased as you have:
("claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it") it highlights the contradiction in a way that would likely give pause to the would-be cheater. I never said that or something like it to myself--I always felt that I was having my cake and eating it, too.
155
@152 nocutename
I've been mulling making a comment about positive bias. People definitely give a pass to failure to act (there's no such thing as a bad Samaritan).
Here we have a really good example of parallel sins, one positive and one negative. He acts by cheating with others. She acts through neglect. Behold the imbalance of anger directed at each of these two!
I've been mulling making a comment about positive bias. People definitely give a pass to failure to act (there's no such thing as a bad Samaritan).
Here we have a really good example of parallel sins, one positive and one negative. He acts by cheating with others. She acts through neglect. Behold the imbalance of anger directed at each of these two!
156
@153 EricaP
Lying to yourself is lying. We have the expression, "living a lie." Lies need not be secret to be classified as lies. I just thought that since so much of the discussion centers on truth (living an honest life) that "lie" was appropriate. And yes, her lie is a betrayal too.
Lying to yourself is lying. We have the expression, "living a lie." Lies need not be secret to be classified as lies. I just thought that since so much of the discussion centers on truth (living an honest life) that "lie" was appropriate. And yes, her lie is a betrayal too.
159
I don't think it's that stark a contrast, but rather a set of competing probabilities. There is some amount of chance you won't be caught, so we're really comparing the near certain end of the relationship with an action whose outcome depends, in part, on how successful the cheater is at hiding their activity.
If I cheat and get caught, there's a 90% chance our relationship is over. If I cheat and don't get caught, I've reduced my unhappiness around sex.
If we have the honest conversations and I insist something must change, there's a 90% chance that "change" is the end of the relationship, and a 10% chance I'll get a pass that will break her heart every time I use it. If the relationship ends, we both suffer.
If I do nothing, continuing along shoving my resentment into a deep hole that will hopefully never see the light of day, then only I really suffer.
So what are the chances of being caught, what are the chances of increasing the suffering in the relationship, and what are the chances of reducing it? To be clear, two of the options I've presented are lies; the only honest option would be to demand change and ask for an open relationship. So what's more important, being honest or reducing suffering? I'm not posing it as a rhetorical question, or one that necessarily has an answer. I think, however, that sometimes we hold to absolute positions without really considering the outcomes, when morality just isn't that certain. Consider the classical moral dilemma of pushing a person in front of a train, actively causing their death, to save five others. Most people say they won't do it, even though it results in the least amount of harm.
What good is cake if you can't eat it? Eventually it dries up, and the ganache goes rancid.
More...
I also think that when the cheater's rationalization of "doing this to save the marriage" is phrased as you have:
("claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it") it highlights the contradiction in a way that would likely give pause to the would-be cheater. I never said that or something like it to myself--
I don't think it's that stark a contrast, but rather a set of competing probabilities. There is some amount of chance you won't be caught, so we're really comparing the near certain end of the relationship with an action whose outcome depends, in part, on how successful the cheater is at hiding their activity.
If I cheat and get caught, there's a 90% chance our relationship is over. If I cheat and don't get caught, I've reduced my unhappiness around sex.
If we have the honest conversations and I insist something must change, there's a 90% chance that "change" is the end of the relationship, and a 10% chance I'll get a pass that will break her heart every time I use it. If the relationship ends, we both suffer.
If I do nothing, continuing along shoving my resentment into a deep hole that will hopefully never see the light of day, then only I really suffer.
So what are the chances of being caught, what are the chances of increasing the suffering in the relationship, and what are the chances of reducing it? To be clear, two of the options I've presented are lies; the only honest option would be to demand change and ask for an open relationship. So what's more important, being honest or reducing suffering? I'm not posing it as a rhetorical question, or one that necessarily has an answer. I think, however, that sometimes we hold to absolute positions without really considering the outcomes, when morality just isn't that certain. Consider the classical moral dilemma of pushing a person in front of a train, actively causing their death, to save five others. Most people say they won't do it, even though it results in the least amount of harm.
I always felt that I was having my cake and eating it, too.
What good is cake if you can't eat it? Eventually it dries up, and the ganache goes rancid.
161
@159 (delwalk): You left out the possibility that if you leave the relationship you will not suffer, not forever. And perhaps neither will she.
Two things from my own story:
For a great deal of time my affair allowed me to interact with my husband without feeling resentful and angry. I was happier, looser, a more balanced person. For a brief time, I even enjoyed our sex life more because I was able to bring a renewed sense of desirability to it. (Later, the contrast between the sex I was having with my bf and the sex I was having with my husband made husband-sex even worse by comparison, but initially, it was a bit of a booster.) I think this is what people mean when they talk about "staying sane," or "cheating to save the marriage." In my case, that only worked for so long, but I can see how for some people, it would allow you to simply appreciate all that you love about your spouse without being consumed by bitterness.
Also, when I left, very few people could understand my choice. But I remember my mother asking me why and me saying something about not being sexually satisfied and her asking how I could be sure I'd find that satisfaction with someone else. I answered, "I don't know; I may not find it, it's true. But I can GUARANTEE I won't have it if I stay in this marriage."
I think that you, as a man, have a far greater chance finding a new relationship that makes you happy than a middle-aged woman does.
Just more food for thought to go with that stale cake and dried up ganache.
Two things from my own story:
For a great deal of time my affair allowed me to interact with my husband without feeling resentful and angry. I was happier, looser, a more balanced person. For a brief time, I even enjoyed our sex life more because I was able to bring a renewed sense of desirability to it. (Later, the contrast between the sex I was having with my bf and the sex I was having with my husband made husband-sex even worse by comparison, but initially, it was a bit of a booster.) I think this is what people mean when they talk about "staying sane," or "cheating to save the marriage." In my case, that only worked for so long, but I can see how for some people, it would allow you to simply appreciate all that you love about your spouse without being consumed by bitterness.
Also, when I left, very few people could understand my choice. But I remember my mother asking me why and me saying something about not being sexually satisfied and her asking how I could be sure I'd find that satisfaction with someone else. I answered, "I don't know; I may not find it, it's true. But I can GUARANTEE I won't have it if I stay in this marriage."
I think that you, as a man, have a far greater chance finding a new relationship that makes you happy than a middle-aged woman does.
Just more food for thought to go with that stale cake and dried up ganache.
162
@161 Oh, I don't think we'd suffer forever. But 20 years is a lot of unwinding to do. The house, the cars, the kids, the dog, the credit card bills. Child support and alimony mean I'll likely need to take a second job. And fair or not, it's hard not to look like an asshole to your mutual friends if you dump someone they love over an anemic sex life.
163
@delwalk, why do you assign 0% probability that she'll end up agreeing to the open marriage and happy with your happiness? You think it's impossible she'd be like me, not needing outside sex but willing over time to see it as a good thing?
164
That is, isn't there a chance that you may cause her short-term pain but long-term bring the two of you closer together?
165
About what a CPOS is.
I knew one. He was, and still is for the time being, my husband.
On day one, a saturday, I was coming home from work and I had to cook the meal, he told me he wanted to cheat. He told me that while fake-crying over himself. That same day, later on, after I had lost myself while going out to the groceries - it was dark and raining and the kids in the car couldn't see me cry - he took time to yell at me for having extorted him his dearest secret - that he wanted to cheat on me. That alone is day one.
On day three, a monday, he was soo excited over me having met the object of his desire outside of the kids' school, and over me having said hello to her, and over her not having responded, as she had told him because she felt like such a CPOS herself, all that he knew before I reached home, because they had been instant messaging all the time it took me to get the kids out of the school and out of the nanny and come home - he was so excited that he unleashed the Spanish Inquisition on me. What had I really said to her ? Had I given her a hard look, like one fitting for a CPOS ? If no, then why was she feeling so low ? That was day three. My birthday, by the way.
It lasted one year and half.
He had no reasonable cause : we were having sex. Not awesome sex by far, but given that he never cared about what I felt in bed, and always got to discharge his load, I don't see where he could have had ground to complain. There were 3 children in this marriage, and our youngest one was eight months old. He took no gloves to spare me any of the pain over him having an affair. On the contrary, he made sure to rub my face right into it, and to keep it there.
I stayed as long as I could, yes for the children, despite his constant threats of divorcing, moving out and taking the children with him of course, which never materialized. He always chose special occasions for his threats, like Christmas night at the time to put the kids' presents under the tree, or the week before my birthday.
I think I needed time to process what was happening to me too. I was in a shock. I didn't know how to deal with any of this. It's been 4 years now that he's gone, almost the minute I told him now I wanted to divorce.
The divorce is not final yet, but he already has a child by another woman (not the first mistress, ultimately she stayed with her husband, nor the second mistress, I guess she dumped him at some time), and he lives in her house and he uses her bank account. Of course she hates me, she's learned her lesson well, and she says hurtful things about me to my children when they stay in her place.
That man, my husband, is a cheating piece of shit. If you can't spot the differences with the LW, who behaved as a honorable man, you're hopeless.
More...
I knew one. He was, and still is for the time being, my husband.
On day one, a saturday, I was coming home from work and I had to cook the meal, he told me he wanted to cheat. He told me that while fake-crying over himself. That same day, later on, after I had lost myself while going out to the groceries - it was dark and raining and the kids in the car couldn't see me cry - he took time to yell at me for having extorted him his dearest secret - that he wanted to cheat on me. That alone is day one.
On day three, a monday, he was soo excited over me having met the object of his desire outside of the kids' school, and over me having said hello to her, and over her not having responded, as she had told him because she felt like such a CPOS herself, all that he knew before I reached home, because they had been instant messaging all the time it took me to get the kids out of the school and out of the nanny and come home - he was so excited that he unleashed the Spanish Inquisition on me. What had I really said to her ? Had I given her a hard look, like one fitting for a CPOS ? If no, then why was she feeling so low ? That was day three. My birthday, by the way.
It lasted one year and half.
He had no reasonable cause : we were having sex. Not awesome sex by far, but given that he never cared about what I felt in bed, and always got to discharge his load, I don't see where he could have had ground to complain. There were 3 children in this marriage, and our youngest one was eight months old. He took no gloves to spare me any of the pain over him having an affair. On the contrary, he made sure to rub my face right into it, and to keep it there.
I stayed as long as I could, yes for the children, despite his constant threats of divorcing, moving out and taking the children with him of course, which never materialized. He always chose special occasions for his threats, like Christmas night at the time to put the kids' presents under the tree, or the week before my birthday.
I think I needed time to process what was happening to me too. I was in a shock. I didn't know how to deal with any of this. It's been 4 years now that he's gone, almost the minute I told him now I wanted to divorce.
The divorce is not final yet, but he already has a child by another woman (not the first mistress, ultimately she stayed with her husband, nor the second mistress, I guess she dumped him at some time), and he lives in her house and he uses her bank account. Of course she hates me, she's learned her lesson well, and she says hurtful things about me to my children when they stay in her place.
That man, my husband, is a cheating piece of shit. If you can't spot the differences with the LW, who behaved as a honorable man, you're hopeless.
166
@159 delwalk on honesty and inflicting pain :
My CPOS husband claims to this day that he has been more than honest with me, since "he told me everything", and what can one woman ask for more than for honesty ?
On the same line of talk, he has never cheated on me, since he made all his moves quite clear to me.
My CPOS husband claims to this day that he has been more than honest with me, since "he told me everything", and what can one woman ask for more than for honesty ?
On the same line of talk, he has never cheated on me, since he made all his moves quite clear to me.
167
@163 I know, it seems a bit uncharitable. But we've had many discussions about open relationships, and she's just not interested. She long ago gave me a DADT pass which was revoked in short order. The idea made her feel sick to her stomach, and only increased her feelings of inadequacy and insecurity. I think that first step is a step too far for her. We've had discussions about how I'm not interested in leaving her, how I enjoy the sex we have together, and how we love each other but just have very different sex drives. Each discussion has been less productive than the one before. You could be right, maybe it would bring us closer together, but that first step has been quite elusive.
168
Everyone's complaining about how the LW was "unfaithful to the relationship with his wife". But, clearly, his wife took sex out of the relationship. We don't know why she did, or what she was thinking - we only now that she told him she had no clue why she felt no physical desire for him for 5 years. The wife took sex out of the relationship, at which point, outside sex was no longer a betrayal of the relationship.
A similar thing happened to me - as my fiance, my ex was GGG - but from the day we married, her libido was gone. There was no sex at all for the four years of our marriage. At least, I had no sex for 4 years, despite my monthly attempts to initiate it. I think it was a control thing, it was the carrot she would dangle just out of reach. It was also an insecurity thing - "I don't want you, don't touch me" is part of the larger message "You are undesireable, nobody else would want you, you'd be stupid to look, you're so lucky I'm keeping you despite your repulsiveness." She also displayed signs of BPD - the maintenance of a "perfect" facade, then the fear of discovery of the real person behind the facade, then the distrust of anyone who threatens exposure by revealing what they've seen beyond the facade, then the disrespect of anyone who sees past the facade but still wants to be with her.
The difference between me and LW is that when my wife's libido returned, she still rejected me (control & disrespect) and found herself a boyfriend.
So I DTMFA - and the courts rewarded her with sole custody of our 5y/o son and gave her a $58,000 child support divorce incentive prize.
A similar thing happened to me - as my fiance, my ex was GGG - but from the day we married, her libido was gone. There was no sex at all for the four years of our marriage. At least, I had no sex for 4 years, despite my monthly attempts to initiate it. I think it was a control thing, it was the carrot she would dangle just out of reach. It was also an insecurity thing - "I don't want you, don't touch me" is part of the larger message "You are undesireable, nobody else would want you, you'd be stupid to look, you're so lucky I'm keeping you despite your repulsiveness." She also displayed signs of BPD - the maintenance of a "perfect" facade, then the fear of discovery of the real person behind the facade, then the distrust of anyone who threatens exposure by revealing what they've seen beyond the facade, then the disrespect of anyone who sees past the facade but still wants to be with her.
The difference between me and LW is that when my wife's libido returned, she still rejected me (control & disrespect) and found herself a boyfriend.
So I DTMFA - and the courts rewarded her with sole custody of our 5y/o son and gave her a $58,000 child support divorce incentive prize.
169
@165,166 sissoucat
Your ex was more than a cheater. He was an abuser.
Open rather than secretive cheating is still cheating. Violation of the vow is the breach of trust. Keeping it a secret adds a layer injury. Rubbing your face in it moves the whole thing into a separate category of evil.
Assholes produce shit.
@167 delwalk
Your ex was more than a cheater. He was an abuser.
Open rather than secretive cheating is still cheating. Violation of the vow is the breach of trust. Keeping it a secret adds a layer injury. Rubbing your face in it moves the whole thing into a separate category of evil.
Assholes produce shit.
@167 delwalk
She long ago gave me a DADT pass which was revoked in short order.The walk back of permission really stings, but move beyond it. Forgiveness is powerful. Understand that you are in an unsettling situation where people's decisions change a lot because they are so very upset and off balance. Promises get made that one quickly realizes were a mistake.
170
@155 sissoucat,
There is a difference between being honest to make things better, and honesty that is brutal to inflict pain. just remember, at least you have a hope of being happy in the future, I don't know if his personality type can ever be happy.
I hope you can separate your anger at your soon-to-be-ex from your relationship with your children. The kids will be better for it, and so will you.
Peace.
There is a difference between being honest to make things better, and honesty that is brutal to inflict pain. just remember, at least you have a hope of being happy in the future, I don't know if his personality type can ever be happy.
I hope you can separate your anger at your soon-to-be-ex from your relationship with your children. The kids will be better for it, and so will you.
Peace.
171
@165, 166 (sissoucat):
I'm sorry for what you had to go through, which sounds like the work of a true sadist. I agree with what Mr. J said, this is beyond cheating, this is abuse. I hope you find greater happiness ahead.
I'm sorry for what you had to go through, which sounds like the work of a true sadist. I agree with what Mr. J said, this is beyond cheating, this is abuse. I hope you find greater happiness ahead.
172
@167, can she find any fun in admiring a pretty woman with you? In watching porn together, or getting a couple's massage? Can you open up to her in bed about your fantasies, without her getting freaked out and shutting down? There are a lot of baby steps that could come before any actual outside sex, to see if she can adjust. I recommend the book Passionate Marriage, too, as a way to help couples think about the complexities of sex in a very long-term relationship...
173
@sissoucat, I'm very sorry for what you went through. Personally, however, I still can't see the LW as "honorable," to either his wife or his mistress. That's not to say your husband was honorable -- he's a dick.
174
@sissoucat, I think the situation you describe is an example of honesty not being exactly honesty -- i.e., even the idea that 'honesty is important' can be manipulated into something that is the exact opposite of what it was meant to express.
And this is why I tend to disagree with nocutename above, that the formulation "claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it" (which was actually originally mine, not Fortunate's) is not necessarily a rationalization or excuse.
It often is. I'm sure CPOS's worldwide would love to be saying that what they're doing selfishly is actually selfless. (Sissoucat's soon-to-be ex-husband is a despicable example).
But always? We're all familiar with examples from Dan's column in which a "permission to cheat" was given, because of extraordinary circumstances. Life being a continuum of circumstances that often seems to be designed to destroy anyone's belief in any orderly system, I don't find it hard to imagine less extreme situations in which still one of the partners has an affair precisely in order to 'keep sane' and be able to keep the (otherwise satisfying) relationship going.
What works for one person, may not work for another. I don't think I could do what Mr. J is doing, if I were in his situation; but if he can, and this is his choice, then I fully support him. Just as I would fully support someone who did the opposite, like the LW. I don't know him, or his wife, their personalities and the circumstances of their marriage; there is a chance that the solution he found was indeed the best one. I don't know.
Honesty is important. In fact, crucial. But honesty should not become itself an inescapable fetish; or else it would run increasingly higher risks of causing real harm.
More...
And this is why I tend to disagree with nocutename above, that the formulation "claiming that the relationship is so important to maintain that you are willing to do something that, if found out, would end it" (which was actually originally mine, not Fortunate's) is not necessarily a rationalization or excuse.
It often is. I'm sure CPOS's worldwide would love to be saying that what they're doing selfishly is actually selfless. (Sissoucat's soon-to-be ex-husband is a despicable example).
But always? We're all familiar with examples from Dan's column in which a "permission to cheat" was given, because of extraordinary circumstances. Life being a continuum of circumstances that often seems to be designed to destroy anyone's belief in any orderly system, I don't find it hard to imagine less extreme situations in which still one of the partners has an affair precisely in order to 'keep sane' and be able to keep the (otherwise satisfying) relationship going.
What works for one person, may not work for another. I don't think I could do what Mr. J is doing, if I were in his situation; but if he can, and this is his choice, then I fully support him. Just as I would fully support someone who did the opposite, like the LW. I don't know him, or his wife, their personalities and the circumstances of their marriage; there is a chance that the solution he found was indeed the best one. I don't know.
Honesty is important. In fact, crucial. But honesty should not become itself an inescapable fetish; or else it would run increasingly higher risks of causing real harm.
175
@172
no
no
maybe
no
she actively dislikes porn, claims to have zero fantasies, and never masturbates and isn't interested in being in the room if I do. she doesn't get freaked out, she just shuts down from lack of interest. massages for her are non-sexual. yes, we've read that book (among many others), and also listened to the audiobook version (which is somewhat different).
I gave up long ago on trying to change her, realizing that I can only change myself. In time I realized that it wasn't about me and I gave up trying to be whoever she needed me to be to get there. Now I spend my downtime commenting on the internet and cultivating an interest in sports. It helps pass the time quite nicely.
no
no
maybe
no
she actively dislikes porn, claims to have zero fantasies, and never masturbates and isn't interested in being in the room if I do. she doesn't get freaked out, she just shuts down from lack of interest. massages for her are non-sexual. yes, we've read that book (among many others), and also listened to the audiobook version (which is somewhat different).
I gave up long ago on trying to change her, realizing that I can only change myself. In time I realized that it wasn't about me and I gave up trying to be whoever she needed me to be to get there. Now I spend my downtime commenting on the internet and cultivating an interest in sports. It helps pass the time quite nicely.
176
@128, I'm sorry. To me, thatsounds like time to leave, assuming there's no hope for hormonal adjustment... Good luck to you, either way.
179
@162 (delwalk):
I understand all about untangling 20+ years--it is difficult. But it isn't impossible. The cars and credit cards are surprisingly easy; the house, while less so, is not so bad. You do it piecemeal. The bigger loss may be in the loss of living with your children every single day. But with that loss comes some time to do just what you want to do, without making special arrangements. This can be a good thing. Another big loss may be in your relationship with your in-laws, if you are close. This is indeed sad, and yet even here, it might be possible to salvage some sort of post-marital relationship. Of course, if you never cared for your in-laws, this can be seen as a bonus!
Yes, mutual friends may or may not be supportive. I suspect that if you actually cheated and that came out and you were branded a cheater they would have less sympathy for you, and you might be the object of condemnation, but assuming you two are still respectful towards and about each other (which you'd want to do for your children's sakes anyway), the lackluster sex life might be less of an issue/topic than you might think. You could just say that you'd grown apart over the years--true enough--and people often let it go. And I promise that if several of your closest friends heard the real story (as long as it got told without accusation or bitterness) they'd be sympathetic to you both. You're mis-matched. Phrase it like that and your friends will likely be sad for you, perhaps even wish you two could "work things out" or "stay together." You may get suggestions like you should go away for a romantic weekend together or take a class together or pursue a mutual hobby, but after your friends stop giving advice, it's unlikely that you would be deemed a selfish asshole. People end marriages because they've "grown apart" all the time, and rarely is one spouse crucified over it amongst their mutual friends. The act that brings down the wrath of friends and results in the loss of friendships, is an affair. Or in the case of a hostile divorce or separation, with one spouse crying the shortcomings of the other to sympathetic audience. If you say "I still love Betty as a friend and the mother of my children, but we are different people than we were when we married 17 years ago, and we both deserve a chance to find partners more compatible with each of us.", your friends will take their cue from you.
I haven't lost any of our "couple" friendships, whatever else I may have lost. My ex and I are still good friends, great go-parents, and able to socialize together. We didn't require any of our friends to choose sides and we didn't publicly blame the other for our split; in short, we behaved like grownups and our friends did, too.
More...
I understand all about untangling 20+ years--it is difficult. But it isn't impossible. The cars and credit cards are surprisingly easy; the house, while less so, is not so bad. You do it piecemeal. The bigger loss may be in the loss of living with your children every single day. But with that loss comes some time to do just what you want to do, without making special arrangements. This can be a good thing. Another big loss may be in your relationship with your in-laws, if you are close. This is indeed sad, and yet even here, it might be possible to salvage some sort of post-marital relationship. Of course, if you never cared for your in-laws, this can be seen as a bonus!
Yes, mutual friends may or may not be supportive. I suspect that if you actually cheated and that came out and you were branded a cheater they would have less sympathy for you, and you might be the object of condemnation, but assuming you two are still respectful towards and about each other (which you'd want to do for your children's sakes anyway), the lackluster sex life might be less of an issue/topic than you might think. You could just say that you'd grown apart over the years--true enough--and people often let it go. And I promise that if several of your closest friends heard the real story (as long as it got told without accusation or bitterness) they'd be sympathetic to you both. You're mis-matched. Phrase it like that and your friends will likely be sad for you, perhaps even wish you two could "work things out" or "stay together." You may get suggestions like you should go away for a romantic weekend together or take a class together or pursue a mutual hobby, but after your friends stop giving advice, it's unlikely that you would be deemed a selfish asshole. People end marriages because they've "grown apart" all the time, and rarely is one spouse crucified over it amongst their mutual friends. The act that brings down the wrath of friends and results in the loss of friendships, is an affair. Or in the case of a hostile divorce or separation, with one spouse crying the shortcomings of the other to sympathetic audience. If you say "I still love Betty as a friend and the mother of my children, but we are different people than we were when we married 17 years ago, and we both deserve a chance to find partners more compatible with each of us.", your friends will take their cue from you.
I haven't lost any of our "couple" friendships, whatever else I may have lost. My ex and I are still good friends, great go-parents, and able to socialize together. We didn't require any of our friends to choose sides and we didn't publicly blame the other for our split; in short, we behaved like grownups and our friends did, too.
180
Thanks everybody who answered... You're very kind and it's so heartwarming. Yes, he's an horrible person, and no, I never thought for one second that his definitions of "honesty" and "not cheating" were anything but a further way to hurt me.
But as ankylosaur very well said, he did use the word as a mean to justify himself "as if honesty had become an unescapable fetish" in our culture. And magical words such as those have helped him to manipulate people around him.
I don't have much anger at having been abused - per se. Of course I sometimes write about it anonymously on the net, writing it helps me getting it out, and it may serve others as a cautionary tale ; but mostly I try not to think about it because it only gives me the sads and that prevents me from sleeping, eating, the usual stuff.
And I worry for my children, when they're with him.
But as ankylosaur very well said, he did use the word as a mean to justify himself "as if honesty had become an unescapable fetish" in our culture. And magical words such as those have helped him to manipulate people around him.
I don't have much anger at having been abused - per se. Of course I sometimes write about it anonymously on the net, writing it helps me getting it out, and it may serve others as a cautionary tale ; but mostly I try not to think about it because it only gives me the sads and that prevents me from sleeping, eating, the usual stuff.
And I worry for my children, when they're with him.
181
@162 delwalk
Don't be too afraid of what the mutual friends will say. It's in time of hardship that you'll see who really cares and who wants to know what's happening, and who was just hanging around. Be it a nasty or a nice divorce, many mutual friends end up disappearing completely from the lives of both the divorcees.
Don't be too afraid of what the mutual friends will say. It's in time of hardship that you'll see who really cares and who wants to know what's happening, and who was just hanging around. Be it a nasty or a nice divorce, many mutual friends end up disappearing completely from the lives of both the divorcees.
182
ankylosaur @174 "If this is [Mr. J's] choice, then I fully support him." Agreed. He is prioritizing his wife's preferences over his own, to keep the marriage going -- I support him in this decision even though I think he has other ethical options.
Then you say: "Just as I would fully support someone who did the opposite, like the LW. I don't know him, or his wife, their personalities and the circumstances of their marriage; there is a chance that the solution he found was indeed the best one. I don't know."
What kind of ethics remains to us, if we follow you? "I don't know what brought a person to lie/steal/cheat, but it may be the best solution to their circumstances, so I will fully support them in their decision."
No. If people want to do something that is, on its face, unethical -- lie/steal/cheat/hurt -- then it's up to them to provide enough clarification to persuade us that they are justified in doing so. If divorce is off the table for some specific reason, the LW should tell us that reason. If divorce is not off the table, then the wife is not the property of her husband and is ethically entitled to all relevant information about the marriage (info about his debts, his fraudulent practices, his DWIs, his affairs, any children from such affairs, etc.)
Then you say: "Just as I would fully support someone who did the opposite, like the LW. I don't know him, or his wife, their personalities and the circumstances of their marriage; there is a chance that the solution he found was indeed the best one. I don't know."
What kind of ethics remains to us, if we follow you? "I don't know what brought a person to lie/steal/cheat, but it may be the best solution to their circumstances, so I will fully support them in their decision."
No. If people want to do something that is, on its face, unethical -- lie/steal/cheat/hurt -- then it's up to them to provide enough clarification to persuade us that they are justified in doing so. If divorce is off the table for some specific reason, the LW should tell us that reason. If divorce is not off the table, then the wife is not the property of her husband and is ethically entitled to all relevant information about the marriage (info about his debts, his fraudulent practices, his DWIs, his affairs, any children from such affairs, etc.)
183
I saw the LW's purpose in writing this as explaining how to have a discreet affair. I am not sure of what was known or not known by LW's wife, and thus what was on or off the table between them. Perhaps LW does not think that is any of our business, or that sharing distracted from explaining the "how to". We don't know if the wife wish was not to know anything about how he was handling his sexual frustration and his obligation was to do handle his "solution(s)" without being found out by her or anyone in their social circle. It is possible that the wife desired to live in an illusion. My grandmother certainly did during WW II and continues to, she thought it unlikely that my grandfather would remain celibate as he was such an enthusiastic 5 times a day newlywed in his late teens when he was sent out, but she decided that she'd rather pretend that he was celibate as she was awaiting the birth of their first child and the years that followed before his return. They have been married over 70 years now, and he has never told her. She presumes that he did and prefers to pretend that he didn't, and he did but pretends that he did not and withholds the truth from her. My point is we don't know who knew what. The LW chose not to elaborate. The purpose of the letter is in the how not the why, in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
184
@183 Kim
Thanks for sharing that story. It's a shame that some people would look at your grandparents marriage and deem it unthinkable or some kind of fake life not worth living.
Thanks for sharing that story. It's a shame that some people would look at your grandparents marriage and deem it unthinkable or some kind of fake life not worth living.
185
@183, I agree that the LW didn't write in to ask for our approval. I was responding to the many posters who did give him their approval, saying either:
1) his dishonesty is actually honorable because he's not hurting his wife
2) or that we can't judge him because we don't know enough about their situation.
Your grandparents seem to have come to an understanding -- I'm sure they don't care what someone on the internet thinks of their marriage but I personally see a big difference between their situation and the LW's.
1) his dishonesty is actually honorable because he's not hurting his wife
2) or that we can't judge him because we don't know enough about their situation.
Your grandparents seem to have come to an understanding -- I'm sure they don't care what someone on the internet thinks of their marriage but I personally see a big difference between their situation and the LW's.
186
@184 Mr J,
I suppose they would. I don't agree. Only my grandparents opinion about their marriage matters. They owe us no explanations or justifications, in my opinion. How few of us make 70+ years with the same person and all the trials and joys that comes with building a relationship? I tip my hat to them. Maybe life has taught them, as it has taught me, that we all suspend our beliefs, and live with illusions for those we love? After all, reality is where we live and ideals are what we strive for. No-one escapes paying the price of admission. Not even 90+ year old parents/grandparents/great grandparents. :-)
Take care.
k
I suppose they would. I don't agree. Only my grandparents opinion about their marriage matters. They owe us no explanations or justifications, in my opinion. How few of us make 70+ years with the same person and all the trials and joys that comes with building a relationship? I tip my hat to them. Maybe life has taught them, as it has taught me, that we all suspend our beliefs, and live with illusions for those we love? After all, reality is where we live and ideals are what we strive for. No-one escapes paying the price of admission. Not even 90+ year old parents/grandparents/great grandparents. :-)
Take care.
k
187
@185,
Call me obtuse, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that the LW's situation it that unlike or like my grandparents situation. Other than my grandparents living on different continents when my grandfather had his affairs. I see very little information provided by the LW, I see a lot of unknown. We have no information provided by the LW 's wife to know her thoughts. We can only guess at her feelings and suppose that she would share ours, or not. I'm inclined to want a lot more information before judging someone whose shoes I have never worn. I'm just too ignorant about the LW's marriage and any agreements they may or not had. My thoughts don't matter. Maybe you see a big difference, because you would want to know if you were the LW's wife and elements of this letter remind you of your own story? Feel free to toss my $0.02 in the Slog dustbin. :-)
Take care.
Call me obtuse, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that the LW's situation it that unlike or like my grandparents situation. Other than my grandparents living on different continents when my grandfather had his affairs. I see very little information provided by the LW, I see a lot of unknown. We have no information provided by the LW 's wife to know her thoughts. We can only guess at her feelings and suppose that she would share ours, or not. I'm inclined to want a lot more information before judging someone whose shoes I have never worn. I'm just too ignorant about the LW's marriage and any agreements they may or not had. My thoughts don't matter. Maybe you see a big difference, because you would want to know if you were the LW's wife and elements of this letter remind you of your own story? Feel free to toss my $0.02 in the Slog dustbin. :-)
Take care.
188
I finally figured out what was driving me batshit fucking crazy about so many of the negative responses to this letter -- and truth to tell about so many of the comments on Savage in general: it is the absolute fucking privileging of honesty and absolute truth-telling over every other significant human value.
Perhaps our letter writer did not tell his wife about his girlfriend because he did not want to hurt her? And we've established that he went to someone for sex outside his marriage because he could no longer bear to hurt himself?
Would his wife have been better off if she had known? Might she not have even felt worse about hurting him? Even more pressure to change a situation she apparently could do nothing about?
And what if he had told her and they had gotten divorced, missing out on all the happiness they've shared since? Not to mention both suffering untold conflict and hardship?
Can someone please tell me why honesty trumps compassion? Which god, philosopher or sage said that?
Perhaps our letter writer did not tell his wife about his girlfriend because he did not want to hurt her? And we've established that he went to someone for sex outside his marriage because he could no longer bear to hurt himself?
Would his wife have been better off if she had known? Might she not have even felt worse about hurting him? Even more pressure to change a situation she apparently could do nothing about?
And what if he had told her and they had gotten divorced, missing out on all the happiness they've shared since? Not to mention both suffering untold conflict and hardship?
Can someone please tell me why honesty trumps compassion? Which god, philosopher or sage said that?
189
@188, so if she wanted a child, and he had promised they would have children, but then he reneged on his promise.... but she still wants a child... can she go get pregnant with a guy who resembles her husband and raise the child as her husband's, lying to both him and the child for the rest of her life? If you're compassionate for her desire to have a child and stay married to her husband, and you think that compassion trumps honesty, then you should be fine with that lie. After all, no one is hurt, as long as her lie is never uncovered.
190
@187 - the LW believes his wife didn't know ("I had a 4-year affair without getting caught.") If she understood the situation (as your grandmother did), it seems odd for him to stress that he never got caught. Granted, she may have figured it out, and stayed anyway, as several posters have suggested.
I want the culture to change so that people speak more honestly about their needs & desires. I disapprove of men thinking it's okay to lie to their wives to spare the wives from truly understanding their husbands' needs (to be lustfully desired, to do something kinky, to have more vanilla sex, whatever). I think marriage should involve truthful communication about those difficult issues. Call me an idealist, call me an activist -- I don't like the status quo ("she'll be hurt and leave me if I tell her, and I don't want her to hurt or to leave me, so I won't tell her"), so I'm doing my bit to change society. For people who don't want things to be different, then it's true, there is no reason to speak out against these lies and betrayals.
I want the culture to change so that people speak more honestly about their needs & desires. I disapprove of men thinking it's okay to lie to their wives to spare the wives from truly understanding their husbands' needs (to be lustfully desired, to do something kinky, to have more vanilla sex, whatever). I think marriage should involve truthful communication about those difficult issues. Call me an idealist, call me an activist -- I don't like the status quo ("she'll be hurt and leave me if I tell her, and I don't want her to hurt or to leave me, so I won't tell her"), so I'm doing my bit to change society. For people who don't want things to be different, then it's true, there is no reason to speak out against these lies and betrayals.
191
@190,
You are putting an understanding upon my grandmother that she may not have had. She didn't want him to have sex with anyone but her. My grandmother understood that they were not having sex, that they promised to forsake all others in their vows. She was also realistic enough to know that there was an excellent chance that he would be involved with others. She has said so. My grandfather never got caught, he has never confessed to my grandmother. He confessed it to others. And the LW's statement "I had a 4-year affair without getting caught" leaves things open. It suggests being caught by his wife, but it does not state that. The LW's wife knew she was having very little, if any, sex with her husband for 4 years. What she thought we don't know. She could have thought that he had lost his libido as well. She could have thought that he used his shower to meet his needs. She could have communicated that she did not wish to know how he took care of his needs. She may have hoped he remained celibate, masturbated furiously, and yet thought like my grandmother that there was a chance that was not how he was meeting his needs. She may have become so absorbed with life (work, family, school, death in the family, health scare...) that she did not give it a second thought, but felt relief that LW was not bringing up the slump in their sex lives. We don't know. Nor do we know if she would feel lied to. We do know that things got better for the two of them, according to the LW.
I get that you are passionate about this. In an ideal world everything would be out in the open, people would talk and they would make compromises that they would honor. I'd like to see the culture change, too. Every situation is different, and some will never be ideal, balanced, or fair. There is more than one path to take on a journey, the traveling is unique, the point is making it to the destination. You have a lovely heart. Keep up the good work.
Take care.
More...
You are putting an understanding upon my grandmother that she may not have had. She didn't want him to have sex with anyone but her. My grandmother understood that they were not having sex, that they promised to forsake all others in their vows. She was also realistic enough to know that there was an excellent chance that he would be involved with others. She has said so. My grandfather never got caught, he has never confessed to my grandmother. He confessed it to others. And the LW's statement "I had a 4-year affair without getting caught" leaves things open. It suggests being caught by his wife, but it does not state that. The LW's wife knew she was having very little, if any, sex with her husband for 4 years. What she thought we don't know. She could have thought that he had lost his libido as well. She could have thought that he used his shower to meet his needs. She could have communicated that she did not wish to know how he took care of his needs. She may have hoped he remained celibate, masturbated furiously, and yet thought like my grandmother that there was a chance that was not how he was meeting his needs. She may have become so absorbed with life (work, family, school, death in the family, health scare...) that she did not give it a second thought, but felt relief that LW was not bringing up the slump in their sex lives. We don't know. Nor do we know if she would feel lied to. We do know that things got better for the two of them, according to the LW.
I get that you are passionate about this. In an ideal world everything would be out in the open, people would talk and they would make compromises that they would honor. I'd like to see the culture change, too. Every situation is different, and some will never be ideal, balanced, or fair. There is more than one path to take on a journey, the traveling is unique, the point is making it to the destination. You have a lovely heart. Keep up the good work.
Take care.
192
@191 Your grandmother said out loud that she knew he might be cheating on her. I guess I do see the point that the LW's wife may feel similarly. Before I found out about my husband's infidelity, I did know, intellectually, that such things were possible. But emotionally, I just didn't think he would do it, because we were (I thought) so open about everything. Plus we were having weekly sex.
I hate hearing the pain in people's letters, when they feel they can't bear to cheat, but they can't bear to feel no one desires them. It resonates with the pain I felt that my husband hadn't felt close enough to me, to tell me all about his desires. To me, they feel like different sides of the same coin, to be solved by combining honesty with compassion. Thank you for your kind words to me, personally. It means a lot.
I hate hearing the pain in people's letters, when they feel they can't bear to cheat, but they can't bear to feel no one desires them. It resonates with the pain I felt that my husband hadn't felt close enough to me, to tell me all about his desires. To me, they feel like different sides of the same coin, to be solved by combining honesty with compassion. Thank you for your kind words to me, personally. It means a lot.
193
168, you will get crickets from this crowd, because they don't believe in stories like yours, but I feel you, bro.
Move on. It is all you can do. Spread the word to younger men by just telling the facts; they speak for themselves.
Move on. It is all you can do. Spread the word to younger men by just telling the facts; they speak for themselves.
194
@193 - what is the lesson to be drawn from @168's story? Get a good prenup? Spend enough time with your children that the courts see you as an active parent? And live in a state where the courts usually assign joint physical custody? What are those states? I do feel bad for that guy, but I'm struck that in his whole post, everything just keeps happening to him. The only active thing he mentions doing was trying each month to initiate sex, without success. I think he could use some therapy to consider how to take charge of his own life and start making things happen instead of letting things happen to him.
196
EricaP @189- the unwanted child is not analogous. In your hypothetical, you are forcing the husband to become a father against his will. Actively changing his life, his minute-by-minute existence, another mouth to feed, another lifetime obligation, and of lineage not his own. The LW situation does not in any way change his spouses existence, assuming he did not get caught.
I love your advocacy, but I think it comes at the expense of the individuals involved. You really want this LW to force potentially brutal truths on his spouse: "I am miserable, I want out, I desperately want to have sex with another woman." For what purpose? To enable the bigger cause? That is like outing a closet homosexual against his will.
Can you not grant the LW the fact that 1) He had, and now again has a great relationship, and 2) he tried virtually everything short of cheating before he did? Is the world a better place if this couple was torn apart by an "honest" divorce or him otherwise shredding her self-esteem and worldview when the drought was at its worst?
KiminPortland - exactly. My grandparents have the same story from WWII. I can't imagine my grandmother would have preferred grandpa returning from Belgium and disclosing his efforts to "stay sane" throughout the war.
Full disclosure, I would much prefer my wife do to me what the LW did. At the end of this lifetime, I would rather her remain a witness to my life, and mine to hers, than rip open the scars of what we may have done to make it to the end, at the alter of "total honesty."
Ankylosaur - you have a knack for writing, I enjoyed the whole exchange. You should write a book.
I love your advocacy, but I think it comes at the expense of the individuals involved. You really want this LW to force potentially brutal truths on his spouse: "I am miserable, I want out, I desperately want to have sex with another woman." For what purpose? To enable the bigger cause? That is like outing a closet homosexual against his will.
Can you not grant the LW the fact that 1) He had, and now again has a great relationship, and 2) he tried virtually everything short of cheating before he did? Is the world a better place if this couple was torn apart by an "honest" divorce or him otherwise shredding her self-esteem and worldview when the drought was at its worst?
KiminPortland - exactly. My grandparents have the same story from WWII. I can't imagine my grandmother would have preferred grandpa returning from Belgium and disclosing his efforts to "stay sane" throughout the war.
Full disclosure, I would much prefer my wife do to me what the LW did. At the end of this lifetime, I would rather her remain a witness to my life, and mine to hers, than rip open the scars of what we may have done to make it to the end, at the alter of "total honesty."
Ankylosaur - you have a knack for writing, I enjoyed the whole exchange. You should write a book.
197
@196, thanks for engaging with my analogy. If the husband, once presented with the fact of his wife being pregnant (despite his use of condoms), became happy with the reality of fatherhood, and never suspected that it wasn't his kid -- would that make her lie okay? Suppose they were trying to get pregnant, but couldn't (as with kings of old), until she found a stud to provide the seed? So he's happy about being a father, but deceived about the parentage of the kid. Does that make her lie okay?
I am not advocating saying the LW saying "I want out!" and destroying a good marriage.
I am advocating him working harder to figure out her libido issue, or else saying, "Honey, I love you, I never want to live without you, but I have needs that are going unmet. How can we figure out a solution so I can either have more sex with you (my preference), or go see an escort to get my needs taken care of with no threat to our family."
I would never do this to someone against their will. I do talk to many men in this situation, and I would never go tell their wife. I'm not outing any closet cheaters, I'm just advocating for them coming out on their own, gently, to the wives who love them and whom they love, so as to build greater intimacy in the marriage, over the long-term.
I am not advocating saying the LW saying "I want out!" and destroying a good marriage.
I am advocating him working harder to figure out her libido issue, or else saying, "Honey, I love you, I never want to live without you, but I have needs that are going unmet. How can we figure out a solution so I can either have more sex with you (my preference), or go see an escort to get my needs taken care of with no threat to our family."
I would never do this to someone against their will. I do talk to many men in this situation, and I would never go tell their wife. I'm not outing any closet cheaters, I'm just advocating for them coming out on their own, gently, to the wives who love them and whom they love, so as to build greater intimacy in the marriage, over the long-term.
198
Everyone else has debated the CPOS-or-not question into the ground. Lots of great points have been made. One last criticism to add: why is cheating the "least bad" option? I'd much rather have my husband divorce me than lie and cheat for four years (actually, cheat for four years, lie until death-do-us-part). Maybe if there are kids involved and/or the spouse has cancer or something. But in most circumstances, I am not convinced cheating is preferable to ending the marriage. Is divorce really so bad? It isn't the 1950s any more . . .
Dan has argued in the past that "responsible" cheating is preferable to divorce if the rest of the marriage is great. I think this contradicts his other assertion, that who we are sexually is key to who we are, period. A great marriage that doesn't do anything for me sexually would be like having an all-you-can-eat buffet and no toilet. Or a great bottle of wine and no corker. Divorce sounds much better than having a sexless, deceitful marriage.
Dan has argued in the past that "responsible" cheating is preferable to divorce if the rest of the marriage is great. I think this contradicts his other assertion, that who we are sexually is key to who we are, period. A great marriage that doesn't do anything for me sexually would be like having an all-you-can-eat buffet and no toilet. Or a great bottle of wine and no corker. Divorce sounds much better than having a sexless, deceitful marriage.
199
#198 and Erika P and all you other unrealistic, judgmental folk:
Marriages aren't just about PERSONAL FULFILLMENT. They are about economics, and families, and businesses and communities, and all sorts of shit.
When a spouse "cheats" on another spouse he or she may or may not be hurting that other spouse, but a divorce hurts kids, hurts society (check the stats), hurts wallets, drags down extended families and friendship groups and even hurts the fricking pets!
But it does make divorce lawyers rich.
If someone is a good spouse in every OTHER POSSIBLE WAY--a good parent, a good friend, a good provider, a good housemate, a good lover, isn't it rather selfish to privilege sexual fidelity -- which is an inherently egotistical concern -- over every other concern?
Marriages aren't just about PERSONAL FULFILLMENT. They are about economics, and families, and businesses and communities, and all sorts of shit.
When a spouse "cheats" on another spouse he or she may or may not be hurting that other spouse, but a divorce hurts kids, hurts society (check the stats), hurts wallets, drags down extended families and friendship groups and even hurts the fricking pets!
But it does make divorce lawyers rich.
If someone is a good spouse in every OTHER POSSIBLE WAY--a good parent, a good friend, a good provider, a good housemate, a good lover, isn't it rather selfish to privilege sexual fidelity -- which is an inherently egotistical concern -- over every other concern?
200
@199
No one here is "privileg(ing) sexual fidelity... over every other concern." It seems you are defensively doing the converse though: totally dismissing the importance of sexual fidelity in spite of the enormous importance it has to many people (check the stats).
No one here is "privileg(ing) sexual fidelity... over every other concern." It seems you are defensively doing the converse though: totally dismissing the importance of sexual fidelity in spite of the enormous importance it has to many people (check the stats).
201
@199 an amicable divorce doesn't do any of those awful things except cost money (for a second household). If you are unfulfilled sexually in your wonderful marriage, you have to decide if betraying your wife is the price you're willing to pay to avoid the expenses of setting up another household.
This is a bad economy, so maybe your honor is worth less to you than the monthly cost of that second household. Of course, if you do get caught you'll have those expenses plus you'll have lost the love of your wife & children (as well as your honor). So, from where I sit, it's a bad choice. Your mileage may vary.
This is a bad economy, so maybe your honor is worth less to you than the monthly cost of that second household. Of course, if you do get caught you'll have those expenses plus you'll have lost the love of your wife & children (as well as your honor). So, from where I sit, it's a bad choice. Your mileage may vary.
202
@199, also, since you say "a good lover," then you and your spouse are still having sex. No matter how careful you are about condoms, you can't protect against possibly giving her herpes. How's that for "inherently egotistical"?
205
@204, yes, but if you look at justchecking's profile, she wrote back in April:
"I had two babies and breastfed for close to three years total and never leaked or sprayed once."
So, there's that.
"I had two babies and breastfed for close to three years total and never leaked or sprayed once."
So, there's that.
207
I've read Savage Love since '93 and I have contempt for Dan's smearing of the ex-senator. That said, I believe this letter may save my low-sex marriage.
208
@207, You have contempt for Dan's choices, and I don't think much of yours (assuming you propose to cheat on your wife), so it all balances out.
209
I decided to make an account so I could post a signed comment.
LW is a CPOS. Lying to your spouse for that long is a disgusting thing to do. Just because nothing went wrong (or so he thought - I really wonder how the other woman felt about being dumped like an old shoe after four years) isn't a reason to brag about what he did. Any number of things could have gone wrong. He's VERY lucky that:
1) Neither he nor the other woman formed an emotional attachment
2)No condoms broke EVER, so he didn't bring home an STD or get the other woman pregnant 3)Nobody they knew ever found out about it, including the wife.
Those were some big risks - and he was gambling with *her* health and happiness. If any of these things had happened, the pain he would have caused his wife would have been horrible. Finding out that your spouse cheated on you is devastating.
I don't know why Dan would include this letter as an example of a positive (enviable) monogamish relationship.
LW is a CPOS. Lying to your spouse for that long is a disgusting thing to do. Just because nothing went wrong (or so he thought - I really wonder how the other woman felt about being dumped like an old shoe after four years) isn't a reason to brag about what he did. Any number of things could have gone wrong. He's VERY lucky that:
1) Neither he nor the other woman formed an emotional attachment
2)No condoms broke EVER, so he didn't bring home an STD or get the other woman pregnant 3)Nobody they knew ever found out about it, including the wife.
Those were some big risks - and he was gambling with *her* health and happiness. If any of these things had happened, the pain he would have caused his wife would have been horrible. Finding out that your spouse cheated on you is devastating.
I don't know why Dan would include this letter as an example of a positive (enviable) monogamish relationship.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (209) RSS