Morals of sleeping with a married person

[robardin]

@VarlosZ

his 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.

So in other words, if you’re stuck with someone who won’t fulfill you sexually at all (goes on a strike, as opposed to indulging in a new kink), and who you’ve brought the subject up with and yet won’t let you “go outside” for fulfillment nor make the attempt, and breaking up with said person would harm others besides the two of you (i.e., children, other family members), and sex is Just That Important to you… Then it’s OK to do some aftermarket shopping?

I think you’re going well outside the bounds of the scenario in the OP (we’re talking about A originally indulging in “a kink” with Z and not a total withholding of sexual activity from B, nor are there children involved), but even so, I have to say that I can see your point but don’t agree with it. If my partner were not a jerk, that partner would make one of two concessions – some attempt at fulfillment or a release to find it elsewhere. I did not marry a jerk, nor would I marry a jerk, nor would I necessarily want to stay married to a jerk without first pointing out that s/he is being a jerk in the hopes that jerkitude is curable. Or else, come to realize that gratifying My Particular Missing Fulfillment may not outweigh the cost.

I categorically refuse to be a person who said has looked into someone’s eyes, in front of my family and hers, said words that everyone understands to mean “I will not screw anyone but you”, and then goes ahead and does it.

Yes, that sort of “honor” means that much to me, and it really doesn’t take that much to maintain it. If necessary, I would simply tell my partner explicitly, “fulfill me or I will find fulfillment somehow, and you can’t stop me.”

That doesn’t mean I disagree with you that sometimes it’s kindest to lie to someone. My grandmother was very old when my aunt (her youngest daughter) died of a breast cancer that was diagnosed very late. Per her own request (my aunt’s), we kept the news from her. It was heartbreaking to hear her ask wistfully for her last holiday season why this daughter, alone of her children, hadn’t called to say Happy New Year, and my mother had to come up with excuses as to why she hadn’t called.

[WhyNot]

@VarlosZ

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.

Take this? Honey, I’m IN this, except that it’s me, the wife, with next to no libido. And so I’ve given my husband my permission and blessing to have safe sex with other women. (Well, that’s not exactly true, he had that blessing back when I did have a libido. It wasn’t the lack of libido that triggered our open marriage.)

As **robardin **says, if such a situation exists and the partner isn’t a jerk, then some acceptable compromise will be found: Viagra twice a month, a new vibrator and stash of porn and a promise to knock before entering the bedroom, backrubs instead of sex, or sex with other people. If the partner IS a jerk and isn’t willing to fulfill his/her partner’s needs in any way whatsoever, then it’s not “a healthy marriage”.

“European monogamy”, that is, discrete mistresses that the wife knows about but everyone pretends she doesn’t, is perhaps as far as I would condone down the path of infidelity. “Open” doesn’t have to mean “in your face”. A quiet but sincere, “I don’t plan to have sex with you very often, if you need to get your urges taken care of elsewhere, please be safe and discrete about it and never let me know,” is consent enough.

Someone asked upthread if one should confess an infidelity if it was really a one-time only thing. I think no, and don’t think it hypocritical. Not telling doesn’t make the infidelity OK, nor does telling after the fact. But I see no reason to compound the pain of knowledge with the unethical behavior of being a cheat. IOW, you already fucked up once by cheating, don’t be more of an asshole by absolving yourself by confession: that only turns the pain over to the person who really doesn’t deserve it. Repent, do whatever you need to absolve yourself and silently make it up to your spouse, and know that the nagging guilt that will haunt you until your grave is your own punishment for your own immorality.

[Zeriel]

As another one of the open marriage types, though usually less vocal, I’m with jackalope on the OP. See her, if and only if she has a signed permission slip from B.

The rest of this discussion is really getting way outside the scope of the OP, but for the record I’m with the “honesty” camp–if you need some on the side, it better be in your marriage vows or your ongoing agreement with your spouse that you’re allowed to. Lying isn’t acceptable in a long-term trust-based relationship.

[CarnalK]

@Testy

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.

Most of them believed in a strong transportation infrastructure. Better not trust that Nazi impulse!

In addition to VarlosZ hypothetical, I ask the absolutists:
Would Christopher Reeve’s wife have been a “lying cheating weasel” if she had taken a lover a few years after the paralysis? Should she have tried to get Christopher’s green light before she did? And if he wouldn’t OK it, should she have divorced him if she wanted sex so darn bad ?
eta: Oh yeah, the OP. Dumb idea to sleep with this lady, especially if you are actually looking for a real girlfriend. If you gotta have the sex, follow SHAKE’s rat bastard advice.

[WhyNot]

@CarnalK

In addition to VarlosZ hypothetical, I ask the absolutists:
Would Christopher Reeve’s wife have been a “lying cheating weasel” if she had taken a lover a few years after the paralysis?

Yes, if her marriage vows included the standard “in sickness and in health” and monogamy assumptions.

Should she have tried to get Christopher’s green light before she did?

Yes.

And if he wouldn’t OK it, should she have divorced him if she wanted sex so darn bad ?

Yes. Or bought a vibrator and the collected works of Jean M. Auel.

[CarnalK]

Then we definitely disagree. If her sexual drive was so strong that it forced a decision, she would have been a bitch to divorce him and rather pathetic to accept 10 years of vibrator instead of sex.

[Jodi]

@CarnalK

Then we definitely disagree. If her sexual drive was so strong that it forced a decision, she would have been a bitch to divorce him and rather pathetic to accept 10 years of vibrator instead of sex.

None of this necessarily follows. First, your sexual drive doesn’t “force your decision.” If a person chooses to place their sexual satisfaction over other considerations in the marriage, then that’s on them. I’m not saying a person would be wrong to consider sex to be that important, but that is their decision, not forced on them by the sex drive as if they have no self-control.

Second, if a person with a suddenly incapacitated spouse had decided that sexual fulfillment was that important to him/her, that he/she couldn’t recieve it from the spouse any more, AND the spouse refused to allow him/her to do what he/she felt was necessary to meed that need . . . why would the healthy spouse then be a “bitch” to divorce the other? The bargain of the marriage has been fundamentally changed: One party used to provide sex to the other, and now he or she can’t. The other party is not automatically a “bitch” to insist that this fulfillment is a necessary component without which the marriage does not survive. Certainly being honest about that is no worse (no “bitchier”) then just cheating on your spouse.

Third, if instead such a person decided to honor his/her marriage vows and remain faithful to the incapacitated spouse, why would masturbation make that person “pathetic” as opposed to practical?

[saoirse]

I think this sort of call is especially easy for those people who get more satisfaction out of censuring others than sex. It may be that getting a note from the husband would make an affair okay. Or it may be the ultimate act of cruelty by this woman, who previously had tacit permissionion, and just destroyed an otherwise functional marriage. Either way, Barrington took no vows to be faithful to any of them.

[CarnalK]

Jodi, I said forced A decision. Sure, she could choose to subsume her sexuality and live like a loyal wife.

And she would be a bitch for the obvious frigging reasons if she left him. Abandoning your husband because of his paralysis wouldn’t be too nice. Less nice than cheating on him, that’s for sure, IMHO.

Thirdly, I guess that’s just my opinion of someone with so little love for themselves that they are willing to give up something so fundamental. Pathetic.

[StGermain]

To me, besides the sexual infidelity, is the fact that A and Z have already gotten to the point where they’re “deeply in love” and spending hours every day online together. She’s already been unfaithful. I’m not saying people can’t have friends outside of marriage, but there’s a big difference. She says she still retains her love for B, but how can she and treat him this way.

For what my opinion is worth, no, **Barrington **shouldn’t agree to meet her. And A should be encouraged to see what it is she really needs (rather than what she wants - we can’t always have what we want) and communicate that to her husband. I don’t think exploring some sexual itch is worth breaking one’s word. Maybe couples counseling would help. What won’t help is flying to another country for a fling.

StG

[Epimetheus]

Maybe sex isn’t fundamental to some people, ever consider that?

[WhyNot]

@CarnalK

Then we definitely disagree. If her sexual drive was so strong that it forced a decision, she would have been a bitch to divorce him and rather pathetic to accept 10 years of vibrator instead of sex.

I agree she would be a bitch to divorce him, no question. I also think she would be a bitch to cheat on him. I also think he’d be a bitch to deny her sexual gratification. The only virtuous action (that I can think of) in your hypothetical is celibacy or self-pleasure.

[Vihaga]

@CarnalK

Thirdly, I guess that’s just my opinion of someone with so little love for themselves that they are willing to give up something so fundamental. Pathetic.

You think it’s pathetic that someone would have enough love for their spouse that they would give up something so fundamental? I think our definitions of pathetic are a little different.

[VarlosZ]

Testy:

@Testy

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.

Don’t knock “in your own mind” – that’s all we ever have access to. If you sincerely believe that a particular goal represents a good which is greater than whatever harm will be created – and if you’re accounting for the possibility that you’re incorrect in some or all of your judgements – you are not merely permitted to carry out your plan. You may, in fact, have a positive moral obligation to seek out your goal.

An obvious example of where a line could be drawn: your friend Mike bursts into your house, informs you that a murderer is chasing him, and then goes and hides in your closet. A few minutes later, a large man knocks on your front door, his clothes covered in blood-splatter and holding an axe. He asks if you happen to knw where he can find Mike.

You’re obligated to lie, yes? This is an extreme example, but there are plenty of more realistic ones in which the pattern holds: something that is normally immoral has become, through circumstance, an obligation. No action exists in a vacuum.

robardin:

@robardin

I think you’re going well outside the bounds of the scenario in the OP. . .

Definitely. I’m objecting to the reasoning some people are using to reach their conclusion (e.g. “cheating is always wrong”), rather than the conclusion itself (“Z and A would be wrong to sleep together”).

If my partner were not a jerk, that partner would make one of two concessions – some attempt at fulfillment or a release to find it elsewhere. I did not marry a jerk, nor would I marry a jerk, nor would I necessarily want to stay married to a jerk without first pointing out that s/he is being a jerk in the hopes that jerkitude is curable.

Perhaps your partner has been a ninja-jerk all along. Or, more realistically, perhaps he or she is the wonderful life partner and parent you knew them to be all along, but has this one hang-up when it comes to sex and fidelity. (“Hang-up” is the wrong word – too flippant – but you know what I mean.)

I categorically refuse to be a person who said has looked into someone’s eyes, in front of my family and hers, said words that everyone understands to mean “I will not screw anyone but you”, and then goes ahead and does it.

Yes, that sort of “honor” means that much to me, and it really doesn’t take that much to maintain it. If necessary, I would simply tell my partner explicitly, “fulfill me or I will find fulfillment somehow, and you can’t stop me.”

That’s great (really), but some people are not going to be in a position to make that work, either because sex is too important to them to give up, or because they know that telling their SO what was coming would lead to a messy dissolution of a worthwhile marriage.
WhyNot:

@WhyNot

If the partner IS a jerk and isn’t willing to fulfill his/her partner’s needs in any way whatsoever, then it’s not “a healthy marriage”.

Technically, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean it can’t still be worth saving.

“European monogamy”, that is, discrete mistresses that the wife knows about but everyone pretends she doesn’t, is perhaps as far as I would condone down the path of infidelity. “Open” doesn’t have to mean “in your face”.

That’s the sort of thing I have in mind when I talk about justifiable cheating – discrete, and sensitive to the needs and feelings of the rest of your family.
Epimetheus:

Maybe sex isn’t fundamental to some people, ever consider that?

And for others, it is. I’m not one of them, but it’s clear to me that sex is much more important and necessary to some other people than it is to me.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@VarlosZ

And for others, it is. I’m not one of them, but it’s clear to me that sex is much more important and necessary to some other people than it is to me.

Those people are dysfunctional. Anyone who puts sexual kinks ahead of human relationships is emotionally fucked up.

[Epimetheus]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Those people are dysfunctional. Anyone who puts sexual kinks ahead of human relationships is emotionally fucked up.

I know it is extremely judgmental, but I can’t help it, I agree. I would be more hurt by somebody that divorced me (or cheated on me) because of a sexual kink more than if we had real problems.

It is extremely shallow to consider sex alone in any sort of relationship. It is like dumping a girlfriend or divorcing a wife because she got heavy. Shallow and pathetic. You are supposed to love a woman no matter what, for who she is, not how good the sex is.

[Sarahfeena]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Those people are dysfunctional. Anyone who puts sexual kinks ahead of human relationships is emotionally fucked up.

That’s exactly right. The OP never said that there was no sex in the relationship…only that a particular kink wasn’t being explored. Anyone who would let that stand in the way of a happy relationship with their spouse has got a problem.

[Jodi]

@CarnalK

Jodi, I said forced A decision. Sure, she could choose to subsume her sexuality and live like a loyal wife.

If she’s choosing something, then she hasn’t been “forced” to do anything, has she?

And she would be a bitch for the obvious frigging reasons if she left him. Abandoning your husband because of his paralysis wouldn’t be too nice. Less nice than cheating on him, that’s for sure, IMHO.

That certainly is IYO. The fictional husband’s paralysis is not his fault, obviously, but it also isn’t hers. If the marital bargain has changed fundamentally in a way neither anticipated, but one or the other can’t live with the change, those are the unfortunate breaks. What makes it “abandonment”? The fact that we’re talking about paralysis? What if the husband decided he wants or needs a sex change and will be living as a woman from now on? Is the woman who walks “abondoning” him? What if he decides that he wants to be celibate and she’s not okay with that and leaves? Is that “abandonment”? You try to paint the fundamental change in marital bargain in the most pathetic terms possible (poor hubby, abandoned in his wheelchair), as if a wife is obliged to sacrifice herself and her needs on the altar of her husband’s abilities. And even if she does do that, contenting herself (literally) with self-pleasure, you have the gall to label her “pathetic” for that choice. The poor woman can’t win, can she? If she leaves, she’s a bitch; if she stays and takes care of herself, she’s pathetic . . . clearly, the only option is to break her marital vows, betray her husband’s trust, and cheat on him. It’s complete crap.

Thirdly, I guess that’s just my opinion of someone with so little love for themselves that they are willing to give up something so fundamental. Pathetic.

So she’s supposed to have enough love for herself to insist on sex with someone else, but if she loves herself enough to want sex that is open, honest, and in the context of a relationship, then she’s a bitch. That’s a nice misogynist dilemma you’ve put our fictional heroine in.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[Chessic_Sense]

Ok, here’s the rule, Barrington…

If she’s married to me, you **can’t ** fuck her. If she’s married to you, I **can ** fuck her. If it’s anyone else, I don’t care what you do.

My point is that all the talk so far telling him not to do it has been about the husband’s feelings. He’s not the husband! There’s no objective answer here. It’s like the fox-chasing-bunny morality scenario. You know, the one where you choose between robbing the fox of dinner or the bunny of life? It all depends on if you’re the fox or the bunny. Anyone outside those two should have no opinion. So, OP, if you really want an answer, tell me: which person am I in this scenario?

No one has presented an argument that the OP should care about the husband. Tell me it’s human decency, tell me it’s a ‘brotherhood of man’ thing, tell me to respect marriage, anything! All the chatter is of the “A should do this, B should do that” or “A and B should have this or that type of marriage” but what does that have to do with Z? The only reasonable answers we’ve given the poor guy, I think, are the ones that give him criteria to evaluate his situation (the mirror test, my post, etc).