But I’m not confining the discussion to sex. Any unfulfilled desire will lead to problems if it is not dealt with. Maybe the person can just suck it up and abandon the idea, choosing to sacrificing that hope for better things elsewhere; if so, good. But if not, there needs to be negotiation and compromise.
If you, say, don’t want to visit the inlaws at Thanksgiving, and your spouse wants to, and you go along with it year after year, either you’ve given up the idea of going elsewhere and are happy in going, or you want to go elsewhere and you aren’t and resentment is building, and you will have to discuss it.
True. And sometimes we have to discuss things.
Realising one’s relationship isn’t working, and proposing changes, is unacceptable? I don’t understand.
I can’t either. People sacrifice their lives for their children; choosing non-involvement instead of an adventure if it means the kids will grow up healthy would seem to be a no-brainer to me too. But people differ.
Of course, in a marriage there must be negotiation and compromise. Proposing changes is fine. It’s breaking up a family over spurious whims that I find unacceptable.
People here are treating as absolutes the ideals of honesty and fidelity to one’s partner, but they are not ends unto themselves – they are means to some other end. They are rightly exalted because of their strong correlation with that which actually is a good unto itself. Sometimes, however, a thing that is almost always good is will be a hindrance.
Honesty is extremely valuable. It is almost always the best policy. It is one of our finest virtues. And it is still, apparently, overrated.
essell
I take your point. OTOH, If he had been looking for reasons not to do this I would have been as supportive as he could have wished although if that were the case, the whole thing would have just sounded like bragging. Since he came across as looking for support to do this then yeah, I admit I was a bit harsh.
May I offer a correction, sir? For you honesty and honour are not ends until themselves. For others, including me, they are. I would not choose to do business with someone who considers them means to an end let alone befriend or have sex with such a person. Yes, they have been hindrances to me at times and even cost me money. Still, I consider the monetary loss to be worth it. Money is worth far less to me than honor, reputation, or honesty.
So, getting back to the OP, remember, he only has her word for the situation in her marriage, and she’s already demonstrated a willingness to conceal facts, if not outright lie when it suits her. Is this really the sort of person he wants to get involved with? She’s chosen escaping into fantasy rather than dealing with reality and trying to improve it. Again, is this the sort of person he wants to get involved with? For me, personally, if someone were to behave as dishonorably as the woman in the OP is doing, that would make it impossible for me to fall in love with them, although I admit I could lust after them. Other than a shared, sexual kink, is there really enough in this woman’s character to override her willingness to break vows and run away from problems rather than solve them? That’s up to the OP to decide.
All you’re saying is, “don’t speak in absolutes”. Fine, I’ll accept that as a general truth. But in this specific context I call bullshit.
Means to an end? What end – your personal fulfillment, or your mutual fulfillment? And Sometimes a thing that is almost always good will be a hindrance? Hindrance to what – Getting your rocks off in a specific way?
Nobody is saying (or at least, I am not saying) that anybody should be forbidden from exploring getting sexual fulfillment outside a relationship. What I am saying is that there is no excuse for not making this an open issue in the relationship.
This is not about abstract notions of honor, honesty or integrity, it is a matter of character. You already know this is a Big Deal between you and the other person, or you wouldn’t even think about not bringing it up – the idea of bringing it up scares or upsets you because you think, or know, the other person will get upset or angry. That doesn’t mean you don’t bring it up.
Getting some on the side on the low-down says one of two things:
I’m the type of person who avoids unpleasant confrontations; a problem not discussed is a problem put off until later, and hopefully will just never come up.
In this partnership, my own needs are #1 and you are just an accessory to fulfilling them, where you do not do so I think it’s OK to look elsewhere and you don’t need to know. It’s my life, not yours.
I find both of these mentalities… Not exactly despicable, but certainly not desirable.
If you imagine the other person doing the same thing to you, what would your ultimate reaction be? (a) “Hey, I understand, it’s OK, I forgive you/why didn’t you tell me before?” If that would be your reaction, why not bring the matter up beforehand, so you don’t have to risk not getting forgiveness? Or, (b), “You lying XYZ, blah blah blah, I’ll never trust you again.” So in the reverse position, are you willing to be a Lying XYZ?
The vast majority of people consider honesty a means to an end, though they likely don’t think of it in those exact terms. See below. . .
The end I’m talking about has nothing to do with that. I’m talking about a higher moral good, not a selfish or financial one. Sometimes you can do the most good by foregoing honesty in favor of a more important, or more relevant, ideal.
I agree. As I said earlier in this thread, it would be stupid and immoral for the OP to sleep with this woman.
Just to clarify, that’s actually not what I’m getting at here. My point is that if you are going to deal in moral absolutes, honesty and marital fidelity are the wrong ones. Honesty isn’t good just because. It’s good because, on balance, it has good consequences for people in general.
What end? Whatever moral good you are ultimately pursuing.
Hindrance to what? To the best possible outcome for everybody, all things considered.
In the OP’s case there probably isn’t, but in some cases there may be excellent reasons for going behind a spouse’s back.
Sometimes it means: 3) (a) Not seeking extra-marital sex will result in divorce. (b) Having an affair and telling my spouse about it will end in divorce. (c) It is very important that the marriage survives.
I don’t doubt that 3) is a lot rarer than both 1) and 2), nor do I doubt that many cheaters tell themselves that 3) is true but are simply deluding themselves. That does not mean, however, that 3) is always fiction.
What if my reaction would be: “You bitch, I’m skipping town with the kids and making sure they know that their mother is a horrible person, and if you ever want to see them again we’ll spend years in an ugly legal battle that will make the whole family miserable”?
My point is that there all sorts of reactions and ultimate outcomes that might make duplicity preferable to honesty in a given case.
No, I don’t agree. If the reaction would likely be “I’m skipping town with the kids, you bitch,” then said bitch shouldn’t be sleeping around. Period.
You don’t get to decide for your spouse. He has the right to determine his own level of comfort with exposure to STD’s, pregnancy, time commitment and emotional complications that might arise as the result of your having sex with other people. Your marrying him did not give you the right to make those decisions for him. The only ethical sex is consensual sex, and if your spouse is having sex with other people, in practical terms, so are you. If you haven’t consented, then it’s not ethical sex.
Well, I’m forced to agree that a reasonable moral system has to consider consequences. OTOH, Most tyrants in history (I won’t mention the one I’m thinking of for fear of Godwin!) have thought, or at least claimed, that they were acting for the best for everyone, not just themselves. They may have actually believed it too. Nevertheless, they did some hellish things in pursuit of their goals and justified it on the basis of the greater good requiring whatever means they regretfully had to use. Yeah, I know the analogy is over the top when we’re considering someone stepping out on her husband but I think the analogy is valid nonetheless.
I guess my problem is where does the line get drawn and on what basis?
I was ok with the general idea of the OP until he stated:
Yeah, right there is your problem. If you had just been meeting to fuck and have some wild kinky sex for a couple of days then I’d side with the “They’re her vows, not yours” group (although I think there’s like…one of them). But once you start getting emotionally involved with someone that is married, you’re just asking for trouble.
In my youth, I slept with easily half a dozen married women…shrug…like I said, their vows, not mine. But it was always only just sex. No “I wish I were married to you” or “I love you” or anything like that. Meet for lunch, strip off, fuck, then back to our lives. Just because someone keeps Koser doesn’t mean I’m not going to enjoy my bacon in the morning.
But that’s not what you’re talking about. You’re talking about someone that you spend hours talking to online…someone that had developed an emotional attachment to you…and you to her. That’s a path to a whole different place. And not a happy one. I’d personally advise you to wave off on this. And in the future to look for emotional relationships with single women.
Dude, you’re full of shit. Don’t try to justify that Z is somehoe doing A and/or B a favor by having an affair with her. I’ve heard plenty of women delude themselves with talk of “he’s not happy in his relationship” and “he’s about to leave her”. The truth is that he just wants an extra piece of ass on the side and he isn’t going to leave her. People can talk themselves into believing all kinds of shit.
Look, A and B decided to get married. Unless they both agree to have an open marriage of convienience, being married means that you don’t cheat. That’s the agreement. No one forced them into it.
What are the “ends” of Z cheating with A? They get a few hours of pleasure that he can probably get from a prostitute for much cheaper than an international flight and it probably breaks up a marriage. Z wants to go have an affair, lets not pretend there is ANY moral highground for him to stand on. He should just man up and say that he wants to bang A because he can and not look for moral justification. Or maybe go find some other slut to shove a live chicken up her ass or whatever it is they are into.
Take this (not entirely uncommon) scenario: A married couple with kids, in their early 30s. The wife has maintained the same libido she’s always had, but the husband has completely lost all interest in sex, and usually is even unwilling to go through the motions for his wife’s sake. The marriage is healthy aside from this problem, and of course it’s to the kids’ benefit to have a happy mother and father living under one roof. Like most human beings, however, the wife still needs sex. Sex is very important to most people, and witholding it from your spouse (in effect preventing said spouse from having any sex at all) is a form of emotional violence.
This is what Dan Savage is talking about when he says that you can’t have it both ways. If sex is important, then you may not withold it from your spouse. If it’s not important, then you should be willing to look the other way when he or she goes out and gets what you’re unwilling to provide. Ideally the asexual member should be kept in the loop about the situation, but sometimes doing so would leave everyone worse off.
And nor does your spouse get to decide for you. You don’t get to decide that you don’t want sex anymore, therefore your wife may not have any either.
STDs, pregnancy, and emotional complications are serious and legimate practical concerns, but they are not insurmountable ones.
msmith, I agree. I’m taking issue with the attitude that it is never ok to cheat on or lie to your spouse. I’m not arguing that it would be ok for A and Z to hook up.
You use your best, deliberate judgement in assessing the potential good and harm invovled, and you try to consider the needs of everyone who might be affected by whatever choices you make. To be worthwhile this process requires that you are acting in good faith, but if you’re not acting in good faith, it probably doesn’t matter how you go about living your ethics.
VarlosZ
Acting in good faith is certainly a prerequisite, agreed. Still, I’m still uncertain of where a line could be drawn or even if it could be drawn at all. It would seem that **anything ** would be allowable if the goal was sufficiently worthy in one’s own mind.
Maybe I just have a simpler mind and require a few “thou shalt nots.” Otherwise, I could see myself doing some spectacularly bad things in the name of some greater good.