Where do the vows begin/End?

[Lord Pmann]

And beware the consequences if you do get caught...

 

[SweetErika]

I just have to jump in and say: Don't count on this.

It's a much smaller world than your friend might think, and all it takes is one little thing that makes the wife suspicious -- then she starts connecting the dots. Besides that, if they are really as close as you say, she will eventually become suspicious anyway, even with no proof to speak of. Women have a knack for knowing when something is up, even if he never breathes a word of it to her.

Yep, or the cheater starts getting overconfident and makes a mistake.

Would finding out after his death negate all that was good? No, but it would sure as hell cast a shadow over his memory. Because once you find out, you start wondering what, if anything, the cheater was honest about. Everything's fair game to be called into question because such a fundamental trust was broken. What else did they lie about or not tell you about? If someone can put your health, heart and whole life at risk, did they really love you? Were they staying out of convenience, using you? If the one person you trusted completely hurt you so badly, then how can you ever trust anyone else, including yourself?

 

[amofiga]

<<<<Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieJ424
Well, there's this too: There's almost no chance she will ever know. He only does it when he's traveling. There's no paper trail because his hotels and meals are all business expenses. There's no overlap between his sexual partners and his domestic social circle. He doesn't see coworkers or friends of friends of friends. There's no suspicious incoming texts or email. >>>

Don't ever count on "never know". First off, there's the issue of potential STD's showing up. You'll say that you'll use condoms, but condoms aren't always perfect and there's stuff you'll do together that doesn't include condoms. How many guys really like blowjobs with condoms and like eating pussy with a rubber sheet over it.

Secondly, even while traveling, you can be seen. I used to travel a lot and did NOT mess around while traveling. Still, there were times I ran into friends, neighbors, and co workers in hotels and restaurants all over the country. Hell, once while traveling with my wife, we had two people from our church come out of a restaurant in San Francisco to say hi because they saw us walking down the street.

Third, I did unfortunately mess around at home, never with anybody that was part of our social circle or work place, and with married women who (all except for the last) were on the same sheet of music with me and were super discreet. However, the last one was a psycho who eventually went bat-shit and delighted in outing me to my wife and herself to her husband. I think she delighted in watching the explosions and chaos. Really, she was mentally ill and I didn't realize it for two years. It was well hidden.

Moral of story.....never say never and honesty is indeed the best policy.

 

[bailadora]

Yep, or the cheater starts getting overconfident and makes a mistake.

Would finding out after his death negate all that was good? No, but it would sure as hell cast a shadow over his memory. Because once you find out, you start wondering what, if anything, the cheater was honest about. Everything's fair game to be called into question because such a fundamental trust was broken. What else did they lie about or not tell you about? If someone can put your health, heart and whole life at risk, did they really love you? Were they staying out of convenience, using you? If the one person you trusted completely hurt you so badly, then how can you ever trust anyone else, including yourself?

Beat me to the punch. But yeah - this. I would feel as if my whole life had been based upon a lie.

 

[imemkay]

Well, there's this too: There's almost no chance she will ever know. He only does it when he's traveling. There's no paper trail because his hotels and meals are all business expenses. There's no overlap between his sexual partners and his domestic social circle. He doesn't see coworkers or friends of friends of friends. There's no suspicious incoming texts or email.

J

Oh she''ll figure it out eventually. All it takes is a teeny tiny kernel of suspicion and it's off to the races! Wives almost always figure it out. It's like a superpower we get once that wedding band is on. The question is what will she do with that knowledge once she gets it. Some choose to do nothing and maintain the status quo; others get out amicably; still others get out and nail the guys ass to the wall on the way out.

I wish this lady luck....sounds like she needs it!

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't think we're talking about standard run of the mill every day marriages here in this thread.. At least I am not.

I've never seen a standard run-of-the-mill every-day marriage. Even the ones that look like the Standard Model invariably turn out to be unique when you know them better.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Well, there's this too: There's almost no chance she will ever know. He only does it when he's traveling. There's no paper trail because his hotels and meals are all business expenses. There's no overlap between his sexual partners and his domestic social circle. He doesn't see coworkers or friends of friends of friends. There's no suspicious incoming texts or email.

A while back, I had a partner who cheated on me. There was no evidence to speak of, but I picked up an awkward vibe almost immediately. Nothing major, just tiny hesitations and the like. I knew something was wrong and I had a good suspicion what it was.

I waited, and a few days later she came clean with me. We were able to patch things up and proceed from there, and it had no lasting impact on our relationship. Had she kept quiet and let it fester, I don't think we would've lasted very long.

Point being: on the average, your partner is as smart as you are, and they're accustomed to reading your 'tells'. They don't have to get any kind of evidence that would hold up in a court of law; all it takes is enough to cause suspicion, and that relationship will start to fester. The mindset required to keep an affair secret is very hard to reconcile with the mindset required to maintain a healthy relationship.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment. He is a great guy. They travel with and without the kids. Whenever there's a fundraiser at the school or for the team, he either participates or he writes a check, sometimes both. He supports his parents and hers financially. When he's home, he's fully engaged with the kids and his wife.

Suppose you were married to him. Imagine it's thirty years from now, and he dies. The funeral is standing room only. A week after he passes you and you alone find out about his affairs. Does that negate everything good about your lives together for the past three decades? Do you tell the kids and grandkids and all your friends that although he seemed nice, he was a manipulative bastard the whole time?

I have my views on that, but I'm going to duck the question because it's not my answer that matters. What matters is HER answer. Maybe it's different to mine, maybe it's based in religious beliefs I find actively harmful, but I still feel that a serious relationship requires valuing my partner's preferences as highly as my own.

 

[NightL]

Wouldn’t it be nice if every perceivable emotional and health problem could be discussed freely and openly to resolve circumstances that have not yet even happened. While that statement is ridiculous, it is all too easy to say you should just discuss a situation and a happy solution might easily be found. Issues arising from developing sexual incompatibility often don’t happen instantaneously, it may well evolve over years, arising from health or other issues. Both parties fear the reality of discussing the problem. Strategies are developed independently, which may include an increased leaning on religion, alcohol, and drug abuse (medicinal or recreational) or seeking comfort outside the marriage. By the time someone says “we have to talk about this” it can be like trying to prise open Pandora's box with a toothpick, a really scary place to go.

There are indeed too many grey areas making it impossible to have a definitive answer to the original scenario. Cheating is deceit, deceit can wield a destructive blow. An open arrangement solution, however, may result in a very slow emotional death to the partner who is incapable or does not desire sexual activity. Remaining faithful in a sexless union may also result in a very slow emotional death for both parties.

Courage and honesty. Can a situation improve or do you be honest enough to walk away? Extending a non-resolvable problem over years or a lifetime will emotionally destroy at least one person, possibly more.

 

[njlauren]

it is interesting reading the responses, I am not surprised at the intensity of them or that some are so black and white in their thinking, because the issues are not easy, which is my whole point, how do you judge something that is so complex?

Take one of the examples I have given, where a spouse is being wiped out by something like ALS or MS, and let's say because of what their religion taught them (or they believe it taught, it doesn't matter) or from some moral framework the spouse refuses to recognize the situation their husband and wife is in and won't even talk about other options for them, whatever it is (online sex, with a person, whatever).....

According to the black and white view, the other spouse has one of two choices: a)forget about any kind of meaningful sex life i.e one that means somethng to the spouse, because the vows say "no', the spouse says "no" and that is it or b) get a divorce.....(which I will highlight the one problem with religious thought, Catholicism says that is a no no...you can get divorced, but guess what, you get divorced and have sex you are still cheating since you are still married).....and great, you have a spouse you love and care about, and you are supposed to divorce and abandon them to make having sex right, and as I pointed out in my original post, which is worse, abandoning the spouse you otherwise love or live a half a life because of lack of sex? Sounds like a lose lose to me.

I don't condone cheating, but I think it is interesting, this is an area where in some ways the arguments are talking out of both sides of their mouth, so to speak. They say sex is part of the marriage vows, the sacrament of marriage, whatever, is so important, so powerful it shouldn't, even in extreme cases, ever happen outside marriage (and to boot, in effect saying throw away everything else with marriage over this one issue if that is the only way you feel you can be happy sexually), and on the other hand in effect it is saying "okay, your spouse doesn't want to have sex, doesn't like to have sex, but big deal, you'll live if you can't have sex and just have sally and suzy (left and right hand) to take care of you....it is damned if you do and damned if you don't, literally.

BTW I suspect many pastors would quietly tell you they have known cases like this, I have spoken to clergy and rabbis about this one over the years, Catholic and Protesant, Uber reform and conservative Jews, and what they basically told me is there are times and places where you wish that God didn't seem to be so cruel, that life created these situations, and the solutions, while not perfect or optimal, often meant making a horrible situation a little bit better. A husband with a wife who is sexless, who won't even think of having a sex life outside once a month with the lights out because mama told her that was what sex was, who has kids he loves and even loves the wife, and realizes that divorce would cause devastation beyond belief, who makes the decision to go outside, may not have made a totally moral decision, but rather may have made a moral compromise that though not perfect, tried to make a bad situation a little less bad. This isn't a husband going outside the marriage because his wife has gotten old and her body is no longer that of a 24 year old, this isn't the woman seeking 'thrills', we are talking examples where there aren't any options, where a lot of bad things come together. If this were more simple cases, of not getting what you need then yeah, communicating is important, but what if faced with a series of options, none of them particularly good, can you condemn someone from choosing one that is the lesser of the options in terms of harm?

The problem with black and white thinking, that cheating is cheating for example,to me is it leaves no wiggle room. Christianity does have ambiguity in it, though far too many have turned it into simple minded rules, ironclad and clear. Ultimately Christ's lesson was we are human and will fail, and that in our striving to do the right thing we may fail or find ourselves in morally dubious positions, and that in the end if we have tried to do our best, have tried to make the best decisions we can, we shouldn't judge ourselves because ultimately God or whatever will forgive us. I am not talking someone who cheats for the thrill of it, who does it simply because it is fun or thrilling or whatever, or because he found a willing woman with an incredible set of breast or she a guy who is incredibly hung, I am talking in cases where there are no easy choices. Leaving a sick spouse or one unable to perform you otherwise love isn't exactly painless and may not be the best solution, I think the key is looking at the shades of gray and saying which one seems the least problematic.

One of the things to keep in mind is that marriage vows were originally written in a time when people could expect to be married 10 years or so on average, given the lifespans, women routinely died in childbirty, war, famine and disease took its toll, so they could not envision the situations we face today, where longevity means facing a lot more situations like I am talking about so applying ancient precepts may take a bit of understanding as well.

I am not encouraging cheating per se, I am not justifying it, what I am saying is there are cases where I won't judge because the situations were such that it wasn't black and white, and where if faced with what they were I don't know what I would do. It is like the parent given knowledge their unborn child has a major defect or defects, I can't judge them for what they decide because as they say, there but the grace of god go I, and I know how I would agonize in that kind of situation, so how could i judge them?

 

[NightL]

I have spoken to clergy and rabbis about this one over the years, Catholic and Protesant, Uber reform and conservative Jews...

Why? Why on this subject?

I may be off target here but...
Hmm I have met many who have stepped away from the religions they were raised with, but the ex-Catholics I have met seem determined to outwardly look for a new moral compass rather than just trusting their own internal sensibilities of right and wrong.

An atheist is in some ways placed in more demanding a moral and ethical position, because whereas a deist or theist presumes that god knows all things, and can adjust somehow or justify forgiveness - an atheist must themselves be the best he or she can morally and ethically be, in order merely to follow 'the Golden Rule' just on a secular basis as a moral code, not a religious one.

Nonsense. Trusting one's own judgement is not an issue or a dilemma for an atheist. It seems you are placing religious convictions upon people who really don't have a battle with their own moral conscience. I don't feel the need to compare what I feel inside to a set of imposed conflicting moral guidelines. Good, bad, compassion, understanding, forgiveness, love are intrinsically hard wired into humans. Sure there are exceptions just like there are religious zealots that cause great harm to society.

Moral convictions based on religious beliefs are not my area.

 

[pplwatching]

His wife suffers from a condition called vaginismus, which means sex for her ranges from tolerable to excruciating. She never enjoys it, even when she uses the medicine the doctor prescribed...it's basically a topical anaesthetic. She does her best to do what she calls her "wifely duties," but it's exactly that, and she takes zero pleasure in it.

They have had numerous conversations about it, and as a good Catholic, she steadfastly refuses to accept the option of him seeking another outlet, be it online, another lover, or what have you. She even looks askance at him if she catches him masturbating in the shower.

So in your world, he either throws away his family and community, emotionally devastates his kids, especially his autistic son...with his schedule it's questionable how often he would even see his kids at all if he and his wife split...OR he suffers through the rest of his life without ever being with a woman who appreciates him sexually. Do I have that about right?

For the record, he chooses door #3. Judge away.

You've put this out for comment, so please understand that I am not picking on you. I would like to address what you've posted from the perspective of a man who's lived through sexual problems in marriage.

I don't know the depth of your relationship with your friend, While he has clearly expressed his frustration to you, I wonder if he has perhaps not adequately conveyed the depth of his commitment to his wife in equal measure. The danger in venting frustrations to friends is that while it is theraputic, it tends to be a peep hole view into the marriage. What might truly be important to him in his marriage might not be visible through the keyhole. Frustration and hurt are strong and very visible emotions, and it's no surprise that he's vented to you. Love, commitment, and compassion are much more subtle and harder to see from the outside.

Has your friend told you why he chose door number 3? Does he simply not want the scarlet letter and custody issues, or does he perhaps love his wife and accept that as a married couple they share the burden of her condition together even though it is difficult?

I have a friend that I vent to, and share my frustration with. When I am frustrated I complain ad nausium because it's a coping mechanism. It makes it easier to feel like I'm not going through it alone but I'm sure on the other side of the fence post there must be some element of "Dude. Enough already. Why do you stay if it's so painful?" Of course, I'm not alone. My wife is in it with me, but venting frustration at her is something that would make her feel bad because it's about her. Still, someone understands how I feel and I appreciate the ear. Joys are another matter. Who wants to sit and listen to how madly in love I am with my wife? I'm sure if I were sharing that as often there would be vomit.

Until she somehow builds a context for sexual fulfillment, having never experienced it herself? Until she realizes that the Catholic moral framework on which she bases her world view is flawed and she needs to let go of some of her antiquated ideas about sexual interaction?

While, masturbation is a tricky subject in the Catholic church, it is undoubtedly also a sensitive subject in her marriage. I would imagine that her condition doesn't completely dampen her sexual desire or her desire to meet his sexual needs. There is a possibility that every time she sees him masturbating it reminds her that even when she's turned on she can't enjoy sex herself, and that she's failing to meet his sexual needs. That would seem like a burden that no one who hasn't been in her shoes can fathom. Her objections may simply be prudishness or Catholic teachings, but that's part of the package of who she is. Whether or not it's fair to judge her beliefs and call them flawed is another subject.

He is a real guy in a real situation. Their issue in his marriage is not lack of love, lack of communication, lack of respect, or lack of commitment. He would lay down in front of a slow moving train for his wife.

Maybe he'd also choose to accept and love her for who she is and what she believes, in spite of the sexual issues between them because of the respect, commitment, and communication. Laying down in front of a train is quick and easy, even if the train is slow moving. Dedicating himself to making his marriage work is a long, difficult, labor of love. They both have my deepest respect.

My perspective on this is, not surprisingly, complex. First, marriage is an unconditional acceptance of who my wife is. That has included a complete lack of libido, long and painful reproductive issues, and mercifully times when she enjoys and wants sex. That sword cuts both ways. I expect her to completely accept who I am, including my sexual needs. I believe that our commitment to each other is sexually exclusive. I don't believe that my needs entitle me to stray outside of our marriage. In practical terms, I also believe doing so would undermine our marriage by creating opportunities for emotional attachments that could test our commitment to each other. I have posted elsewhere how we found our middle ground, and will omit that here for brevity. In summary, she accepts that I have needs and makes a loving and compassionate effort to meet them. I accept her libido and health problems, and make an effort to be loving and compassionate. Perhaps your friend does the same.

There is a childlike presumption, on behalf of most people most of the time, that 1. they are able to make a vow like a marriage vow at all, 2. and that they either did so or always would do, in full and complete, learned, experienced and wise knowledge of what they were undertaking to commit to...

And that is why - if you want to hear what the inner circle in the upper rooms say - the phrase that is used to describe the nature of relationships that are akin to what is 'outside of the world' is: 'to consecrate,' rather than 'to marry.'

For the record, I am Catholic although I am far from good at it. Even so, my belief is that marriage is a sacrament that we give to each other every day. In your parlance I'd say that we consecrate our marriage every day. Whatever the semantics, I renew my commitment to her and our marriage every day. I think that's an essential part of getting through the sexual problems in our marriage.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't condone cheating, but I think it is interesting, this is an area where in some ways the arguments are talking out of both sides of their mouth, so to speak. They say sex is part of the marriage vows, the sacrament of marriage, whatever, is so important, so powerful it shouldn't, even in extreme cases, ever happen outside marriage (and to boot, in effect saying throw away everything else with marriage over this one issue if that is the only way you feel you can be happy sexually)

For myself, I don't give a toss what religion has to say about relationships. I'm an atheist and I've been nonmonogamous for the last ten years, with my partners' knowledge and consent. But if my partner has religious beliefs that are important to them... okay, let's take sex out of the picture and look at it another way.

Suppose I have a friend who's a strict vegetarian for ethical reasons. I've invited him over for dinner, and just as they walk through the door I realise that the "vegetarian" meal I was going to serve him contains a tiny bit of beef stock in among the veggies.

Two options: I can tell him what's in it. If I do, I know he won't want to eat it - he's really strict about this. I don't have another meal option handy, so we're both going to go hungry, and he'll be understandably grumpy about it.

Or, I can give him the meal and tell him it's vegetarian. He'll never know, he'll love it, and we'll both have a good evening. It's not like my beliefs preclude eating meat, and anyway the cow is as dead as it's going to get.

Even though option B makes both of us happier, I have to go with option A, because there are things that matter more than happiness. It's hardly an exact parallel to a sexless marriage, but there's something of the same principle involved.

 

[JamieJ424]

Interesting and thought provoking replies, all. I was particularly struck by Bailadora's comment that her entire life would have been "based on a lie" if she were married to my friend and discovered he'd been cheating.

There's so much moral ambiguity out there. In some western European countries, infidelity is obviously not accepted as the norm or ideal, but it's viewed more as a mistake that someone (anyone) might make rather than the soul-crippling betrayal it's seen as in the US.

My friend always starts our conversations with stories about great times he has with his wife and kids. Water skiing trips, kid soccer games, nights out with his wife. I do believe he loves her deeply, and I know he loves being a dad. It's only after a few beers that we get down to the stuff he keeps buried. Mostly I envy him, but sometimes I am glad I haven't had to make the decisions he's faced.

J

 

[bailadora]

Interesting and thought provoking replies, all. I was particularly struck by Bailadora's comment that her entire life would have been "based on a lie" if she were married to my friend and discovered he'd been cheating. J

I'm curious as to why you find that so puzzling. I think Sweet E succinctly summarized the reasons why I'd feel that way.

I'm not at all dismissing or trivializing the difficulties that occur within relationships. I'm well aware that shit happens and people often have a difficult time coping. It's a terrifying situation to realize that a relationship you highly value might end because you have chosen to be completely honest and forthcoming with your partner. BTDT in my own marriage and honestly, hope to never have to go through that again.

That said, Bramblethorn mentioned a term that I think more accurately explains why I find cheating so abhorrent: consent. For me, that's what it all boils down to. I view cheating as one partner robbing the other of informed consent. As long as I have possession of all my mental faculties, I want to be given the chance to make my own decisions - not have someone else make them for me, based upon what THEY think is best. There have been times when I've not liked ANY of the options presented to me WRT a particular situation. But having the opportunity to make my own choices made me feel as if I had some control as to where I went from that point on and made me feel much more at peace with it.

 

[Eilan]

Interesting and thought provoking replies, all. I was particularly struck by Bailadora's comment that her entire life would have been "based on a lie" if she were married to my friend and discovered he'd been cheating.

You don't get to decide how your "friend's" wife or other people would/should feel.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Interesting and thought provoking replies, all. I was particularly struck by Bailadora's comment that her entire life would have been "based on a lie" if she were married to my friend and discovered he'd been cheating.

There's so much moral ambiguity out there. In some western European countries, infidelity is obviously not accepted as the norm or ideal, but it's viewed more as a mistake that someone (anyone) might make rather than the soul-crippling betrayal it's seen as in the US.

Attitudes vary widely, even within countries. I know many women find infidelity shattering; I've heard it described as "traumatic on a par with rape", because they would not have consented to a relationship if they'd known the truth. Others aren't greatly troubled.

But in a relationship, it's not helpful to say "well, other people would be OK with this". The question is how your partner feels about it, and it sounds as if we already know the answer in this situation.

 

[JamieJ424]

True enough. I'm not judging, just taking it all in.

It is a friend, truly. This guy is handsome, outgoing, stable, well dressed, successful in sales and marketing, with tons of friends. I'm an emotionally stunted introvert with weird, off-putting obsessions, no socks and mood swings that would make a pubescent Twilight fan say, "Whoa, dude! Take a pill!"

J

You don't get to decide how your "friend's" wife or other people would/should feel.

 

[Somehowyou]

If only life was that clean cut and we ALL lived in la-la land.

Whatever you decide make sure that Heavyhitter01 approves. This is all that matters.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Whatever you decide make sure that Heavyhitter01 approves. This is all that matters.

eh? How is Heavyhitter different from everybody else here who's offered their opinion in response to a post that asked for opinions?

 

[Lord Pmann]

eh? How is Heavyhitter different from everybody else here who's offered their opinion in response to a post that asked for opinions?

He send evidence of a girl's infidelities to her family, friends, co-workers and boss. He set up a blog and a Facebook page about everything she did. So yeah. He's a little different.

 

[Bramblethorn]

He send evidence of a girl's infidelities to her family, friends, co-workers and boss. He set up a blog and a Facebook page about everything she did. So yeah. He's a little different.

...ew. Point taken. Sorry, didn't realise that comment had context beyond this thread.

 

[silverwhisper]

njlauren queried:
are those vows the be all and end all for behavior? given that sex is a powerful need, not something you can easily turn off as some (especially religion) wants to tell us, what about causes where a spouse cannot have sex? what about the partner of someone who has been sexually abuse or raped and is incapable of not only having sex now, but may be screwed up for a long time if not forever (and yes, folks, that does happen). what if the spouse/partner has ALS or MS and cannot function sexually? what if they are simply asexual?

interesting questions, lauren.

to me, an oath--like a contract, actually--sets the threshold for minimum expected behaviors in a relationship. we take it for granted that a marriage is going to be entered into in good faith and that the participants are going to act in the best interests of both. so to me these are the guiding principles that wedding vows are attempting to support.

sexuality is for the vast majority of people a fairly significant component in a romantic relationship. therefore, i think that it's important that the couple address factors interfering with the amount and character of intimacy in their marriage.

when personality or medical factors do interfere and the two cannot, in good faith, reach some kind of accord re: frequency/type of sex, the dissatisfied party has some soul searching to do. how important is this?

if it's sufficiently important and the couple is at an impasse, the dissatisfied party will very likely seek what is missing outside of the marriage. i'm a big believer in transparency so actually stating that this will occur is to me a pretty important step.

i don't as a rule dig on cheating. i think a lot of people don't want to do the hard work of trying to find a way to make things work. but i also don't (generally) believe in absolutes.

ed

 

[lovecraft68]

Another thread where someone posted about how to stop guilty about cheating brought another topic to mind, the question where do the marriage vows with sex begin and end? Are those vows the be all and end all for behavior? Given that sex is a powerful need, not something you can easily turn off as some (especially religion) wants to tell us, what about causes where a spouse cannot have sex? What about the partner of someone who has been sexually abuse or raped and is incapable of not only having sex now, but may be screwed up for a long time if not forever (and yes, folks, that does happen). What if the spouse/partner has ALS or MS and cannot function sexually? What if they are simply asexual?

The other person still loves them, cares for them, is there for them and is otherwise coupled, but isn't able to get their sexual needs met......is the answer throwing away the spouse because of sex? Is the answer living with it and 'taking care of yourself? Are the marriage vows even true here, since in effect, through no fault of their own, the other partner is violating the vows by not being able to give the other person sex that is part of being married....

When I hear people judging others for cheating, calling it a cheap thrill, etc, it got me to thinking, because in some ways that is as cold as the person who cheats because it is a thrill, it is the forbidden, and they justify it saying "it is just sex"......that trivializes what sex to me should be to a married couple (I am not prude, having sex is also hot and fun, and I make no judgements about couples who have open relationships, do threesomes, swing, etc....since that is consensual), but telling the partner of someone who cannot give them sex that they have to 'deal with it' as if sex is like doing without a new tv or whatever, is just as trivializing (disclaimer, this is not about the other thread per se, and this is not about any specific post or poster).

It is hard, and I have lived through it, I went through many years with a nonexistent sex life because of horrible abuse my spouse suffered as a child, it tinged many things in our lives, and it meant I ended up taking care of myself as best I could. I never physically cheated, nor would I do that, I couldn't, most of what I did was in my head, fantasy or online play when that became an option later on and it isn't a great alternative but it was what I had, and my spouse understood that.

Maybe because I went through it, I find the ironclad judgements about cheating leave out those gray areas. Religion loves to lay down hard and fast rules (to their credit, members of said religions often are more pragmatic and smart then the leaders) but are they really? Like I said above, marital sex is supposed to be a two way street, and if that isn't there, then aren't the vows already breached? Some couples when faced with this have a tacit agreement...but what about where the spouse the other person loved is so fucked up they are asexual, where they can't even recognize how powerful sex is, so think that while they don't want sex, it is no big deal for their spouse not to have it.....Should the other spouse hang out in a sexless marriage like that, not have it, simply because vows said he/she cannot cheat, when perhaps even through no fault of their own, the other party has broached those vows...and if the other party has done so, does that mean the only recourse if the other partner wants sex, is to walk away from someone they otherwise love?

I don't condone cheating when there are alternatives, I think a spouse if they aren't getting their needs met have every duty to try and make it work, try and get their spouse help, a book for partners of survivors of abuse I read when in the thick of dealing with the horrors that happened to my sweetie, said that is when your head and your imagination are all you have, and for many they can do that....but what if there really is no hope? At that point quite honestly I think throwing away a spouse because of the issue of sex is the lesser of two evils, that getting sexual needs met outside the marriage might be the less cruel thing. I can say that if I was laid up with MS or ALS or something like that, if there was no way for me to express physical joys to my spouse, I would tell them they had my blessing to find what they needed as long as they were discrete and didn't make me feel badly about not being able to do what I should be able to, or emotionally pull away from me.

i know of real world cases like that, the Pianist/Conductor Daniel Berenboim was married to Jacqueline DuPre, the great cellist, who tragically got hit with MS when in her early 20's and by the time she hit 30 was physically in such bad shape they couldn't have sex.....by the end of her life, Berenboim already had in effect another family while still taking care of his wife as best he could....can I judge him? Not really sure, though I have heard it said that he had cheated on her before this time, that she had cheated on him, but looking at this in the abstract what should we expect spouses to do?

Like I said, I don't airily promote cheating or condone it, but I can see cases where as a kind of last resort it may work out better then leaving a marriage.

Thoughts?

In the cases you cite about rape victims and anyone who cannot have sex regularly if that is a pre existing condition the person marrying that person knows it going in.

So by knowing it and still saying their vows and marrying that person, then you are a cheating dog if you step out on them. You have chosen to deal with it so deal with it.

It will be even more devastating to that person when they find out the issue that already effects them have led to this.

So in those cases I have no respect for someone needing to get their rocks off so bad they will betray that trust.

Otherwise if both parties are open to sex outside the marriage then fine all is well. If your someone who does not think they can stay with one sex partner, then don;t get married.

But if you are not open to "swinging" and you do say "I do" to that one person then there is no justification to break your vow.

If you reach a point in marriage that you want someone else its time for divorce

and to all those "well I still love them and we're friends and great together and..."

Know what that is? Trying to have your cake and eat it to. If one spouse cheating will hurt the other spouse then it is inexcusable and you do not truly love that person.

Whenever I see a post like this I know exactly what it is.

someone who has cheated, been cheated on or wants to cheat, looking to be encouraged.

just know the only encouragement you'll get will come from lying cheats who have done it themselves so as they say look at the source.

 

[njlauren]

Why? Why on this subject?

I may be off target here but...
Hmm I have met many who have stepped away from the religions they were raised with, but the ex-Catholics I have met seem determined to outwardly look for a new moral compass rather than just trusting their own internal sensibilities of right and wrong.




Nonsense. Trusting one's own judgement is not an issue or a dilemma for an atheist. It seems you are placing religious convictions upon people who really don't have a battle with their own moral conscience. I don't feel the need to compare what I feel inside to a set of imposed conflicting moral guidelines. Good, bad, compassion, understanding, forgiveness, love are intrinsically hard wired into humans. Sure there are exceptions just like there are religious zealots that cause great harm to society.

Moral convictions based on religious beliefs are not my area.

I spoke of these issues with various clergy and such because religion fascinates me and I also seek to find my own truths through a variety of them. This is but one issue I have spoken to faith people about, because these are fundamental to me in trying to figure out what God/the divine is or isn't. To me the rigid judgementalism that often seems rampant in religious strikes me as a fundamental contradiction, given that human beings are frail, aren't perfect, and such a tack makes no sense, it is like blaming a 2 year old because they broke a lamp. Not saying that people don't warrant judgement, but along with that judgement there needs to be a tempering, to recognize shades of gray and so forth.....it is something people of faith and non faith wrestle with because it is part of being human.

As far as ex Catholics seeking a new moral compass, it really depends, it depends on their backgrounds. In my experience growing up around and with people who belonged to the church, those who most seek external guidance are usually those who grew up in the more rigid, guilt driven variations of Catholicism, the kind where sex was dirty, to be done only for procreation, and where shame and taboo were the words of the day. When they start growing disenchanted with it, they see the faith they grew up in, not as moral guidance, but rather as indoctrinated propoganda, instilled often by fear, and they are afraid their judgement is clouded by the crap polluting them (ex fundamentalists are often the same way). Those who grew up in more liberal churches tend even if they move away to have learned to trust themselves, in part because those kind of churches across all denominations tend to stress the power of the individual, that moral judgement relies heavily upon your own experience as a person rather then dogma. As an example, in fundamentalist protestant churches, you are led to believe that the bible is the literal word of God, and there is little wiggle room, what it says is the law (where convenient, of course), and what the bible and especially what your preacher says is true. The Catholic Church traditionally, though they say the faith rests on scripture and there are places where individual discernment is allowed, has basically a set of dogma/teachings that is 'the law' so to speak (80% of Catholics reject that these days, though, cafeteria catholics are the norm). In more liberal churches, a lot more is put on the individual, the anglican/episcopal creed is the three legged stool, of scripture, of teaching and of reason, and people are supposed to use all three to ponder what is God and what isn't.....someone coming out of the more liberal traditions already have relied on themselves more, so therefore have no problem with an inner compass. Least that is my take on it...

 

[njlauren]

Interesting and thought provoking replies, all. I was particularly struck by Bailadora's comment that her entire life would have been "based on a lie" if she were married to my friend and discovered he'd been cheating.

There's so much moral ambiguity out there. In some western European countries, infidelity is obviously not accepted as the norm or ideal, but it's viewed more as a mistake that someone (anyone) might make rather than the soul-crippling betrayal it's seen as in the US.

My friend always starts our conversations with stories about great times he has with his wife and kids. Water skiing trips, kid soccer games, nights out with his wife. I do believe he loves her deeply, and I know he loves being a dad. It's only after a few beers that we get down to the stuff he keeps buried. Mostly I envy him, but sometimes I am glad I haven't had to make the decisions he's faced.

J

I don't think the problem is western european countries, it is more the US that treats sex outside the marriage as outside the norm, in Europe, especially among the upper classes, it is a lot more nuanced then that. Powerful men (and increasingly) women, are almost expected to have loves on the side (and in Europe for example the whole concept of a celibate priesthood is treated as a joke, and has been for a long time, in European countries they are not shocked that the local priest has a mistress, my grandfather, who was from Southern Italy, supposedly a catholic bastion, told stories about the local priest going to his mistress or caught coming back from her place in the wee hours of the morning, and the priest saying "Oh, I was searching for my cat) and as long as it is discrete, people don't really care. When Francois Mitterand, the ex premiere of France died, his wife had his mistress and his love child sitting next to her at the funeral. In the US we still have this incredible puritanical strain to us that when it comes to issues like sex still haunt us. And if it does happen, usually the response isn't the get out the knives and start flinging, throw the cheating bitch/bastard away you have here.