The irrelevant cheating spouse

[PennLady]

Sorry -- edit -- should just be the "irrelevant spouse."

This is a secondary character I've seen pop up in a number of stories and have come to label as above. My question is -- why are they there?

I've read, and edited, a number of stories where Person A gets involved with Person B, whether it's full-on romantic love or some kind of erotic coupling/one-night stand. Person A is married, yet that fact is merely mentioned and then dropped. It adds no tension, no suspense, and in my case, serves to lessen any empathy I might have had for Person A (for doing the cheating) or Person B (for helping A cheat on their spouse). So I'm curious as to why people put it in there when it adds little or nothing.

I'm specifically thinking of stories such as where a guy is on a business trip, meets a woman, then it's mentioned he has a wife buts he's not around, and then the rest of the story progresses without another mention of his wife or marriage. Why bring it up in the first place?

I have to state up front that I don't like stories about cheating spouses, whether it's agreed on by the couple or not. Purely a personal thing. I do have a couple of exceptions -- if there was an abusive relationship and the spouse is getting out of it and falls in love with someone else in the process; or, if the marriage is all over but for the signing of papers. And probably a couple more.

So why do people drop in the irrelevant spouse?

 

[lovecraft68]

This is a secondary character I've seen pop up in a number of stories and have come to label as above. My question is -- why are they there?

I've read, and edited, a number of stories where Person A gets involved with Person B, whether it's full-on romantic love or some kind of erotic coupling/one-night stand. Person A is married, yet that fact is merely mentioned and then dropped. It adds no tension, no suspense, and in my case, serves to lessen any empathy I might have had for Person A (for doing the cheating) or Person B (for helping A cheat on their spouse). So I'm curious as to why people put it in there when it adds little or nothing.

I'm specifically thinking of stories such as where a guy is on a business trip, meets a woman, then it's mentioned he has a wife buts he's not around, and then the rest of the story progresses without another mention of his wife or marriage. Why bring it up in the first place?

I have to state up front that I don't like stories about cheating spouses, whether it's agreed on by the couple or not. Purely a personal thing. I do have a couple of exceptions -- if there was an abusive relationship and the spouse is getting out of it and falls in love with someone else in the process; or, if the marriage is all over but for the signing of papers. And probably a couple more.

So why do people drop in the irrelevant cheating spouse?

First off I agree whole heartedly on the cheating subject. If I still wanted to play I would not have committed. On a personal note I am tired of midle age teenagers who continue to judge their manhood on how many women they can "nail" even while married. The funny thing though is their reaction when they find out wifey has been doing it to them as well.

On the subject of why it is mentioned in stories I think it is simply a cheap plot device to add sleaze or "spice" it up. The taboo of having some one elses husband or wife. I think why it is never mentioned again is the average stroke writer is not going for any type of depth whatsoever and wouldn't know how to take it any further.

In general I think you are right if you are not going to follow up why bother.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

On the subject of why it is mentioned in stories I think it is simply a cheap plot device to add sleaze or "spice" it up. The taboo of having some one elses husband or wife. I think why it is never mentioned again is the average stroke writer is not going for any type of depth whatsoever and wouldn't know how to take it any further.

In general I think you are right if you are not going to follow up why bother.

I have to state up front that I don't like stories about cheating spouses, whether it's agreed on by the couple or not. Purely a personal thing. I do have a couple of exceptions -- if there was an abusive relationship and the spouse is getting out of it and falls in love with someone else in the process; or, if the marriage is all over but for the signing of papers. And probably a couple more.

So why do people drop in the irrelevant spouse?

Both of you are confusing your own biases, prejudices, and preferences with the quality of the writing where you do not agree with the subject matter. I personally find incest to be detestable and disgusting, and cannot get three paragraphs into an incest story before I want to puke. Does that make it bad writing? Not at all. It's just not written to my taste.

You dislike extra-marital sex, and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. Legions of bulls, cuckolds, slut-wives, and the fans of their exploits feel differently, however.

There are many readers for whom extra-marital sex is a taboo thrill. If you don't believe me, check out the numbers for the Loving Wives category. The scores are lower, but the views are much higher than most other categories on Lit.

Why must the irrelevant spouse reappear in the story? If the story is about the effect of the illicit sex on that spouse, then by all means, that character deserves more than a brief mention in the opening paragraph. Likewise, if the story is about the guilt the cheater may feel, or the events that drove that person to cheat, then more is necessary. But if the story is about the opportunity to cheat, or the thrill of cheating, then why would the spouse need to be brought back into the story?

If the boss makes his secretary stay late, and as a result she gets into a fight with her husband, and then they later have some banging make up sex, it's not necessary that the boss appear at another point of the story. His initial presence set up the fact that 1) she is employed; 2) she is in a subservient position; and 3) her husband lacks understanding but can be forgiving. Likewise, mentioning that a man at a convention is taking off his wedding band before he hits on the girl at the end of the bar establishes 1) that he's horny; and 2) that he's an opportunist. If the author doesn't mention that he feels conflicted, then we also know he's a cad. This might be a turn off for you, but for others it is a turn on. Every story doesn't have to be a romance with a happy ending.

 

[TE999]

I wrote an LW story where the wife was abused and neglected by her husband, so she had an affair. Her lover later cold-cocked the husband and she ran off with him. I still got flamed. There's no pleasing the readers in that cat.

 

[PennLady]

Both of you are confusing your own biases, prejudices, and preferences with the quality of the writing where you do not agree with the subject matter. I personally find incest to be detestable and disgusting, and cannot get three paragraphs into an incest story before I want to puke. Does that make it bad writing? Not at all. It's just not written to my taste.

You dislike extra-marital sex, and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. Legions of bulls, cuckolds, slut-wives, and the fans of their exploits feel differently, however.

There are many readers for whom extra-marital sex is a taboo thrill. If you don't believe me, check out the numbers for the Loving Wives category. The scores are lower, but the views are much higher than most other categories on Lit.

I think you've misread or misunderstood what I meant. I don't like cheating spouses, but I don't think just because a story is about one, or includes one, it means the story is badly written, or bad writing. I don't care for incest, or non-con, but again -- I'm not saying people shouldn't write them or read them.

The quality of the writing is only at issue in the sense that a sub plot, or story line, or whatever you want to call it, is introduced and then dropped.

I've also edited a number of stories with some themes -- like cheating, or whatever -- that I don't like, so this isn't so much about my personal preferences.

Why must the irrelevant spouse reappear in the story? If the story is about the effect of the illicit sex on that spouse, then by all means, that character deserves more than a brief mention in the opening paragraph. Likewise, if the story is about the guilt the cheater may feel, or the events that drove that person to cheat, then more is necessary. But if the story is about the opportunity to cheat, or the thrill of cheating, then why would the spouse need to be brought back into the story?

But that's my point - I'm talking about stories that do not get into the thrill, or whatever. In those cases, why is the character married at all? What is the point? If all that's written is, "John's wife wasn't there," and then the story goes on like the spouse who's cheating isn't married at all, what was the point in mentioning it? To me it always feels like some line has been introduced to be revisited later, and then it isn't. It feels... incomplete, perhaps.

If the boss makes his secretary stay late, and as a result she gets into a fight with her husband, and then they later have some banging make up sex, it's not necessary that the boss appear at another point of the story. His initial presence set up the fact that 1) she is employed; 2) she is in a subservient position; and 3) her husband lacks understanding but can be forgiving. Likewise, mentioning that a man at a convention is taking off his wedding band before he hits on the girl at the end of the bar establishes 1) that he's horny; and 2) that he's an opportunist. If the author doesn't mention that he feels conflicted, then we also know he's a cad. This might be a turn off for you, but for others it is a turn on. Every story doesn't have to be a romance with a happy ending.

The part with the boss is absolutely true, although not what I was getting at. But I'd agree. The boss is only there to be part of the misunderstanding between the wife and husband in that case. And whether the boss re-appears would depend on the story the author is writing. For example, if the boss is harassing or blackmailing her, then he should reappear. If the story is about the woman's marital troubles, then no, he doesn't need to come back once the initial set up is made.

And taking off a wedding band is different than what I'm talking about. You're right -- that detail establishes many things about the guy. Or the woman -- some stories are about the women cheating as well.

But as I said, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm wondering why, when if you took out a line referring to the spouse, it wouldn't change the story in the least, the spouse is even mentioned.

 

[PennLady]

I wrote an LW story where the wife was abused and neglected by her husband, so she had an affair. Her lover later cold-cocked the husband and she ran off with him. I still got flamed. There's no pleasing the readers in that cat.

Well, see that I wouldn't mind. And I'm not even talking about the LW category here. Hotbed of discussion that it is. haha.

I'm talking about romance, or whatever, where the spouse is said to exist, but then dropped, such that if you removed that sentence, and changed nothing else, nothing would be affected. Then why put it in?

 

[TE999]

Well, see that I wouldn't mind. And I'm not even talking about the LW category here. Hotbed of discussion that it is. haha.

I'm talking about romance, or whatever, where the spouse is said to exist, but then dropped, such that if you removed that sentence, and changed nothing else, nothing would be affected. Then why put it in?

Then it wouldn't fit in the LW cat...it would be in 'Erotic Coupling's' or the like. It's a gratuitous plot device, nothing more. Authors like to see if they can charm the trolls that haunt LW...good luck with that.

 

[lovecraft68]

Both of you are confusing your own biases, prejudices, and preferences with the quality of the writing where you do not agree with the subject matter. I personally find incest to be detestable and disgusting, and cannot get three paragraphs into an incest story before I want to puke. Does that make it bad writing? Not at all. It's just not written to my taste.

You dislike extra-marital sex, and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. Legions of bulls, cuckolds, slut-wives, and the fans of their exploits feel differently, however.

There are many readers for whom extra-marital sex is a taboo thrill. If you don't believe me, check out the numbers for the Loving Wives category. The scores are lower, but the views are much higher than most other categories on Lit.

Why must the irrelevant spouse reappear in the story? If the story is about the effect of the illicit sex on that spouse, then by all means, that character deserves more than a brief mention in the opening paragraph. Likewise, if the story is about the guilt the cheater may feel, or the events that drove that person to cheat, then more is necessary. But if the story is about the opportunity to cheat, or the thrill of cheating, then why would the spouse need to be brought back into the story?

If the boss makes his secretary stay late, and as a result she gets into a fight with her husband, and then they later have some banging make up sex, it's not necessary that the boss appear at another point of the story. His initial presence set up the fact that 1) she is employed; 2) she is in a subservient position; and 3) her husband lacks understanding but can be forgiving. Likewise, mentioning that a man at a convention is taking off his wedding band before he hits on the girl at the end of the bar establishes 1) that he's horny; and 2) that he's an opportunist. If the author doesn't mention that he feels conflicted, then we also know he's a cad. This might be a turn off for you, but for others it is a turn on. Every story doesn't have to be a romance with a happy ending.

I think you need to take a pill. I said my personal opinion is that I don;t believe in it. With that stated I answered PA'S question.

I will read stories that involve extra marital affiars it does not turn me off to that degree (I don't do loving wives because it just does nothing for me) but have read them elsewhere. I was making the point that like PA says if you are not taking it any further then why bother?

I have made it more than clear the only stories I will not read is non consent for personal reasons after that I don't care about subject matter as well as it was decently written.

In closing do me a favor and next time your ill and want to puke click on my stories at least I'll get a view out of it.

 

[estragon]

SA Penn Lady, Setting up the cheating line may just be a convention, like stopping on red, going on green, and accelerating on yellow. Cheating is supposedly forbidden, so the protagonist has to be a cheater, to add the forbidden fruit to the whiskey sour, or none of the punters will drink it up. And some who order the whiskey sour complain loudly and demand their money back (after they've drunk it, of course).

As a quibbler/copy editor, I've edited and quibbled a number of stories not to my taste; I view my obligation as being to the author and the text. I may not like the subject, the characters, the plot or any of the conventions the plot requires; but I have to make sure the author's voice is maintained throughout, and the story is told grammatically and spelled correctly. I don't equate what I myself don't like with bad writing.

And of course I wax loud and lyrical about authors whose stories I do like--like you.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I think you've misread or misunderstood what I meant. I don't like cheating spouses, but I don't think just because a story is about one, or includes one, it means the story is badly written, or bad writing. I don't care for incest, or non-con, but again -- I'm not saying people shouldn't write them or read them.

The quality of the writing is only at issue in the sense that a sub plot, or story line, or whatever you want to call it, is introduced and then dropped.

I've also edited a number of stories with some themes -- like cheating, or whatever -- that I don't like, so this isn't so much about my personal preferences.



But that's my point - I'm talking about stories that do not get into the thrill, or whatever. In those cases, why is the character married at all? What is the point? If all that's written is, "John's wife wasn't there," and then the story goes on like the spouse who's cheating isn't married at all, what was the point in mentioning it? To me it always feels like some line has been introduced to be revisited later, and then it isn't. It feels... incomplete, perhaps.



The part with the boss is absolutely true, although not what I was getting at. But I'd agree. The boss is only there to be part of the misunderstanding between the wife and husband in that case. And whether the boss re-appears would depend on the story the author is writing. For example, if the boss is harassing or blackmailing her, then he should reappear. If the story is about the woman's marital troubles, then no, he doesn't need to come back once the initial set up is made.

And taking off a wedding band is different than what I'm talking about. You're right -- that detail establishes many things about the guy. Or the woman -- some stories are about the women cheating as well.

But as I said, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm wondering why, when if you took out a line referring to the spouse, it wouldn't change the story in the least, the spouse is even mentioned.

It's never an irrelevant point. If present, it adds a whole new color to the story, whether it serves as the main theme or merely background shading. It makes everything that follows illicit. For many readers--both fans and haters--that point is critical.

 

[3113]

Good point

Good point on the issue of relevancy, Penn. You say you've edited these stories? Did you use that opportunity to point out the irrelevancy of the marriage? That's your job, after all. It's not just to check that commas are in the right place. You need to bring this up. You need to ask, "What's the point of this romantic guy mentioning that he's married? And why is your heroine sleeping with him if he is?"

Because if it's mentioned but comes to nothing--no "thrill of the forbidden" even, then it should go--and you as an editor need to point that out. If the writer doesn't want it to be a big deal then heroine has to say she doesn't care, or that she sleeps with married men all the time, or that this is bothering her, but the thrill of the forbidden excites her...or something. It has to be used at least for character development if not plot.

I think by the way, the answer to your question of why it gets mentioned but never used is pretty simple. The writer, at one time or another, probably had a crush on a married man--who did not cheat on his wife. So the fantasy she wrote up was to have a romantic affair with that man with no consequences, emotional or otherwise for either of them. It gets mentioned simply because the man the writer is basing the character on was married and that became part of him as she fantasized about him. Like his curly black hair. It matters only as much as his features do, as if it were color of his eyes, nothing more.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I think you need to take a pill. I said my personal opinion is that I don;t believe in it. With that stated I answered PA'S question.

I will read stories that involve extra marital affiars it does not turn me off to that degree (I don't do loving wives because it just does nothing for me) but have read them elsewhere. I was making the point that like PA says if you are not taking it any further then why bother?

I have made it more than clear the only stories I will not read is non consent for personal reasons after that I don't care about subject matter as well as it was decently written.

In closing do me a favor and next time your ill and want to puke click on my stories at least I'll get a view out of it.

So, anyone who disagrees with you needs medication?

Stop for a minute and think about what you're saying. You detest infidelity. (Nothing wrong with that, by the way). Yet, mentioning that a character engaging in sex is married is an irrelevant fact if it is not developed to a certain degree in the story. We all know what is meant by married. The mere fact that you feel so strongly about extra-marital sex demonstrates that it is not an irrelevant fact. One reference changes the entire story. The consequences of the illicit sex may or may not be developed in the story, but it is an entirely different story if one or both of the characters are not single. For some, that fact alone is a deal breaker. For others, it is the raison d'etre for reading the story.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's never an irrelevant point. If present, it adds a whole new color to the story, whether it serves as the main theme or merely background shading. It makes everything that follows illicit. For many readers--both fans and haters--that point is critical.

It only adds to the story if followed through or developed later on. PA's original post was pretty much why bring it up if nothing more comes out of it. It's a classic tride and ture plot device when expounded upon but if not there is no point.

Example; lets say I write a story and in the beginning state the main character is allergic too bee stings. okay during the course of the story you are waiting from him to be stung otherwise why would I mention it? Then at the end of the story nothing else happens with that so why did I say it?

 

[seducedHylas]

I agree with PennLady

All of my stories have involved a cheating husband or boyfriend. There are several authors and a few more readers out there who do enjoy this.

As someone who is actually looking for this stuff it is very frustrating when you click on the married man tag and there is only one line in the resulting story. Surely the point is the author's skill in developing a three dimensional character rather than just throwing in bullet-pointed character facts. Being married should have ramifications for the character's motivations, actions and the consequences.

When I write I try to make every sentence mean something but not all authors do that and PennLady is entitled to voice her objection to that.


Hylas

(p.s please don't slate me off just because you clearly don't share my fantasies.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've seen exactly what you're talking about. I wouldn't bother with it, personally. But cheating isn't my fetish...

I think it's so very revealing. You'll find stories in celebrities for instance, where Johnny Depp -- or Vin Deisel or pick your leading man-- dissolves in tears because his wife doesn't understand him, as a prelude to the writer's avatar banging him and then he says he's never had it so good... It's horrifying and kinda sweet.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

It only adds to the story if followed through or developed later on. PA's original post was pretty much why bring it up if nothing more comes out of it. It's a classic tride and ture plot device when expounded upon but if not there is no point.

Example; lets say I write a story and in the beginning state the main character is allergic too bee stings. okay during the course of the story you are waiting from him to be stung otherwise why would I mention it? Then at the end of the story nothing else happens with that so why did I say it?

If he's romancing a bee, it makes all the difference in the world, whether he is stung or not.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jesus people! The fact isnt irrelevant, its incomplete. Like mention of a gun in the first scene then no further mention of it.

 

[Darkniciad]

It's about the kink, as has already been mentioned. That one line defines the character as having an extramarital affair, and that in itself is the attraction to scores of readers ( and reason to foam about the mouth without even reading it for countless others )

There's no need to expand upon it in your average Lit story, which is written for the purpose to arouse, and nothing else. Stroke stories form the foundation of the story file, and that's what most people are coming here to read. Establishing the kink transforms everything that follows.

You can change your average stroke story into incest with some simple find/replace. The kink is the blood relationship, and that's all that's necessary for a large segment of the readership. Make one character black and one white, and you have an interracial story instead.

For strokers, there's no need to go beyond establishing the kink. A large percentage of the readership isn't even going to see what happens after everybody comes anyway. If you do expand upon the consequences to the marriage, they'll never know or care. You've already done the trick for them.

What seems odd and incomplete to you is perfectly natural to large numbers of readers and writers. It's simply a different readership you aim for, the ones who keep reading after the orgasms are over.

 

[PennLady]

Then it wouldn't fit in the LW cat...it would be in 'Erotic Coupling's' or the like. It's a gratuitous plot device, nothing more. Authors like to see if they can charm the trolls that haunt LW...good luck with that.

But I'm not talking about LW stories. Not at all. Sigh.

SA Penn Lady, Setting up the cheating line may just be a convention, like stopping on red, going on green, and accelerating on yellow. Cheating is supposedly forbidden, so the protagonist has to be a cheater, to add the forbidden fruit to the whiskey sour, or none of the punters will drink it up. And some who order the whiskey sour complain loudly and demand their money back (after they've drunk it, of course).

I understand this, really I do. However, I don't think one mention of "John's got a wife" does much. However, that's me. If it does it for other people, well, then, it does.

It's never an irrelevant point. If present, it adds a whole new color to the story, whether it serves as the main theme or merely background shading. It makes everything that follows illicit. For many readers--both fans and haters--that point is critical.

I disagree. If you can remove the line -- and I really do mean that in many stories there is only one line, maybe two, that says "John was married" -- and then nothing is affected, well, then it's irrelevant.

Good point on the issue of relevancy, Penn. You say you've edited these stories? Did you use that opportunity to point out the irrelevancy of the marriage? That's your job, after all. It's not just to check that commas are in the right place. You need to bring this up. You need to ask, "What's the point of this romantic guy mentioning that he's married? And why is your heroine sleeping with him if he is?"

Yes, I do. In fact, it was editing a story last night that made me think of it. Now, that story was different. The guy was married and his wife was a character who figured in. She was, or had turned into, a cold woman who was aloof and quite bitchy. The guy started to have a thing for the babysitter, who had a thing for him (and that was another issue I left alone, how this 18yo (yet another pet peeve of mine) was angling for a married guy, but one thing at a time). The guy even tried to fix things up with his wife and was summarily rejected. However, I suggested that the author change things so that the guy was divorced or widowed. Not so much b/c the cheating issue bothered me, but because the guy seemed like a total wuss to stay with this woman. I wanted him to stand up for himself.

I'm always pointing out things I think are irrelevant. Probably drives my authors nuts.

Like his curly black hair. It matters only as much as his features do, as if it were color of his eyes, nothing more.

But curly black hair and eyes do matter, most times, because it is those features that draw one character to another.

Yet, mentioning that a character engaging in sex is married is an irrelevant fact if it is not developed to a certain degree in the story. We all know what is meant by married. The mere fact that you feel so strongly about extra-marital sex demonstrates that it is not an irrelevant fact. One reference changes the entire story.

To your first sentence -- yes. If such a fact is brought out, then it should matter later, somehow. To your last sentence -- no, it doesn't always. That is my point, which either I'm not getting across, or people are simply not acknowledging. If you can remove the reference, and everything in the story still makes sense, then what was the point of putting it in?

As someone who is actually looking for this stuff it is very frustrating when you click on the married man tag and there is only one line in the resulting story. Surely the point is the author's skill in developing a three dimensional character rather than just throwing in bullet-pointed character facts. Being married should have ramifications for the character's motivations, actions and the consequences.

Yes! This is what I mean!

When I write I try to make every sentence mean something but not all authors do that and PennLady is entitled to voice her objection to that.

(p.s please don't slate me off just because you clearly don't share my fantasies.)

Please understand that I am not, here, objecting to cheating spouses as a plot, subplot, category, or plot device or anything else. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't like my HEA stories, and that's fine. What I am objecting to is a significant detail that is dropped in but never revisited -- hence I find it irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, why put it in?

I've seen exactly what you're talking about. I wouldn't bother with it, personally. But cheating isn't my fetish...

I can't read celebrity stories. They weird me out. Don't know why.

What seems odd and incomplete to you is perfectly natural to large numbers of readers and writers. It's simply a different readership you aim for, the ones who keep reading after the orgasms are over.

I agree to a point. I'm not saying everyone has to be as critical (and I know I'm critical) as I am when reading. Still, if you're writing a stroke story, even then the details should count. And if the detail of one person cheating warrants only one sentence, then... what's the point?

 

[Darkniciad]

I agree to a point. I'm not saying everyone has to be as critical (and I know I'm critical) as I am when reading. Still, if you're writing a stroke story, even then the details should count. And if the detail of one person cheating warrants only one sentence, then... what's the point?

Mary fucks John in a hotel room.

Mary sneaks away from her husband to fuck John in a hotel room.

Mary goes to a hotel room to fuck her brother John.

Mary goes to a hotel room to fuck a black guy named John.

They're all different stories, hitting different kinks, and that's all it takes to set them up. Once the dynamic is established, it colors the perception of everything that follows, even if not a single word of the sex changes.

I suppose that there's no explaining it if you can't put yourself in the shoes of a stroke reader. That one line makes it a completely different story, and it is the detail that counts.

The writer would get a stronger response by reinforcing the kink ( My husband never licked me like that! ) but it isn't necessary to satisfy a stroke reader at the base level. The kink alone is sufficient for that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I can't read celebrity stories. They weird me out. Don't know why.

Ditto, actually, and I know exactly why-- especially as they get written here on lit, speaking generally. But that's a subject for a different thread...

 

[PennLady]

I suppose that there's no explaining it if you can't put yourself in the shoes of a stroke reader. That one line makes it a completely different story, and it is the detail that counts.

I'll concede here, but again, I'm not even really talking about stroke stories.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Sorry -- edit -- should just be the "irrelevant spouse."

This is a secondary character I've seen pop up in a number of stories and have come to label as above. My question is -- why are they there?

I've read, and edited, a number of stories where Person A gets involved with Person B, whether it's full-on romantic love or some kind of erotic coupling/one-night stand. Person A is married, yet that fact is merely mentioned and then dropped. It adds no tension, no suspense, and in my case, serves to lessen any empathy I might have had for Person A (for doing the cheating) or Person B (for helping A cheat on their spouse). So I'm curious as to why people put it in there when it adds little or nothing.

I'm specifically thinking of stories such as where a guy is on a business trip, meets a woman, then it's mentioned he has a wife buts he's not around, and then the rest of the story progresses without another mention of his wife or marriage. Why bring it up in the first place?

So why do people drop in the irrelevant spouse?

How many people do you know in RL who cheat? Seriously?

If you wonder why the spouse in mentioned once, it's to add the distinction that marital infidelity is a possibility; if you don't mention the irrelevant spouse later, it's because of that exact reason. They're irrelevant.

Most people who cheat on their spouses don't do much more than acknowledge their presence to begin with. That their married is irrelevant, so is the spouse in question.

Q_C

P.S. (edit) I skipped the posts that seemed argumentative, so if this is repetitive, my apologies.

 

[3113]

It "shouldn't" be irrelevant

Both of you are confusing your own biases, prejudices, and preferences with the quality of the writing where you do not agree with the subject matter. I personally find incest to be detestable and disgusting, ...There are many readers for whom extra-marital sex is a taboo thrill. .

Apples and Oranges comparison, unless the story takes place in a time or place or religion where divorce is difficult and/or the person is, say a politician where it can ruin their career. Incest is a taboo set upon the, say, brother and sister by society and they are stuck with it because they came out of the same womb, not because they choose it to be that way.

If a man and woman marry, and they both agree that, whatever society says, it will be an open marriage, then that is their choice. They can have sex with other people all they want, society doesn't stop them and the swinging society they hang with doesn't condemn them. If they both agree, however, that the marriage is to be monogamous, this was promised by one of them to the other, then the infidelity is not a social taboo that one is daring to break--it is a promise that one is breaking.

Though both incest and infidelity involve secrets, the incest does so because, presumably, people like you would be disgusted if some guy said he was banging his sister. But infidelity must only remain a secret if the one spouse refuses to be honest and say, "I can't be faithful to one person" or "I'm no longer in love with the person I married" (this is excepting, of course, someone who fears he/she will lose her children if they divorce, or the above examples of stricter views on divorce that I named).

Hence, the "taboo" factor, the thrill of it all, is artificial. It is not trying to hide because society will condemn, it is trying to hide because one doesn't want to be caught lying and cheating to the person with whom you made a contract in good faith. Not the same.

It's never an irrelevant point.

That it SHOULDN'T ever be an irrelevant point is Penn Lady's whole point. If one is making love to a bee, don't pretend that there isn't a stinger. That undermines the relevancy--and all that readers like you seem to want to get out of the story. If that stinger isn't always at the back of the character's minds, then why have a story about making love to a bee?

 

[PennLady]

P.S. (edit) I skipped the posts that seemed argumentative, so if this is repetitive, my apologies.

No, it's not really repetitive. Well, perhaps, but more in the sense of supporting or collaborating other people's thoughts.

Never mind, I'm just looking too hard at things, I guess.