I’m not sure how great a debate this might be, so if a mod deems to toss it over to IMHO, so be it.
Hypothetical situation: You love your wife very much, and would never even think of divorcing her. But she’s in a coma, or has severe dementia, or is otherwise cut off from all communications. There is no hope of recovery. She might die next week, next year, or next decade.
You meet a woman whose husband is in pretty much the same sort of medical condition. Is it OK to date her?
(Not so hypothetical – a friend’s relative was in this exact situation a few years ago.)
I’d say that it would depend on what your wife would expect of you.
For myself, I’d tell my spouse that if I was comatose or essentially useless to the world to put me in professional care and go out and live her life. I love her, I don’t want her to ruin years of or even the rest of her life in the faint hope that I’ll be magically cured. But, by extension, she should divorce me before dating, but just so she can go into dating unfettered.
But if on the other hand she would expect me to remain faithful right up to the moment she died, and I married her with full cognizance that this was her expectation, then that’s the rules I’ve got to play by.
My wife would expect me to move on, even if it’s just ‘friends with benefits’ relationships. I’d expect her to do the same.
There’s no such thing as cosmically defined morality. It’s OK if you say it’s OK. Unless you follow a particular religion, then they probably have rules, like being bound by marriage. Of course, legally speaking it’s probably not OK and she can divorce you if she ever wakes up. But that’s nothing to do with it being ethically sound.
If your wife would want you to, and if your conscience wouldn’t trouble you, and if no one else who would be bothered by it (like maybe your children) would find out, then it’s okay.
If not all those conditions are met, it’s iffier. Whatever you decide, I wouldn’t presume to pass judgment on you.
It’s based on the relationship between the two. If they had a good relationship hopefully the husband would be able make a decision that the wife would understand.
I know if my lover was in a coma I’d have no issues with having sex elsewhere.
Being alone is devastating–especially for years and years. If I had dementia and my partner was taking good care of me, both physically and emotionally, I wouldn’t begrudge him anything he did outside of our relationship to maintain his emotional equillibrium. I also wouldn’t presume to predict what I might do in such a situation. I certainly wouldn’t judge the choice anyone else would make, or think that it indicated anything about their relationship prior to the incapacitation.
If they are not likely to come out of it (for instance, dementia) I say fine. My f-i-l (who is well over 90) started dating a woman, older than he is, whose husband was in a home with dementia. It was fine with their kids. It kind of helps that he was a rat who had affairs while they were married. He eventually passed on, so now they are legit.
Before this I had never realized that facilities for the elderly were such hotbeds of sin.
If I were the one permanently incapacitated, I would want my husband to stay married to me and be in charge of my care, but I would be fine with him having a relationship with another woman as well.
It does seem like you’re just asking for opinions, not debate.
I think it depends on what you promised in the wedding vows. As far as I’m concerned, you should treat a marriage as a legally binding contract between both of you. If you can’t remain faithful, why even bother to get married?
“In sickness and in health” is in most of them. “As long as we both shall live” or “Until death do us part” makes it clear that the demarcation line is death. The only way out before that is divorce. You say you wouldn’t inflict that on your sick spouse? Then you must wait. I’m not even sure why it’s up for debate.
What’s worse, in your scenario, is that I’m supposed to be trying to get with someone in the same situation. How the heck can I trust somebody enough to be in a (romantic) relationship with them, when I know they can’t even keep their word for the sake of a sick, dying, love of their life?
I find the mere idea repugnant.
ETA:
I submit that, if you are over them in four years, your relationship wasn’t strong enough for marriage in the first place. We treat marriage so lightly nowadays. What was once a lifelong commitment is now just a symbol that can be removed at a whim.
Maybe that comment will actually jump start some sort of debate.
If there isn’t any chance of recovery, then I’d say the person is effectively deceased, but I’d personally have to be very convinced that no recovery was possible, and it would take a long, long time before I felt like seeing anyone else. I would be more concerned about my kids than with getting laid.
Personally, I believe the line of consciousness demarcation between sleep and coma is quite faint. When [del] the ol’ battle ax[/del] …my dear sugar plumb sally’s forth to slumberland each evening, I’m never 100% certain she’ll wake again…and this causes me considerable strife and anxiety :(. So, if I happen to go out during these stressful times in order to quell my mental strife, I figure as long as I disengage from any wonton flagrante delicto I may find myself party to, and head for home before my better half’s alarm clock goes off, I’m still on moral high ground.
My grandpa died a few years ago leaving my grandma behind. I’d gladly say that they were in love up to the day he died and in no way short of qualifying for marriage. But that doesn’t mean that I expect my grandma to be bawling her eyes out, devastated lo these many years later on a daily basis. If you expect that, I’d have to vote that you’re talking about a level of commitment that is infeasible for most people and if anything probably indicates something more like an unhealthy dependency than “love”.
Promises are not an end in themselves, and exist in a specific context. Even a promise as “sacred” as a marriage vow exists in order to enrich the lives of the two people involved. In this tragic circumstance, the marriage vow no longer serves any of the participants, and they shouldn’t be expected to honor a promise that, if anything, takes away more than it gives. These two individuals can be an immense solace to each other, in the midst of horrible circumstances. There’s no point in denying them some measure of happiness, just to honor a promise that was made in very different circumstances. Life is for the living.
I’m not saying they should abandon their spouses, because obviously there’s still love and a sense of commitment there. But that doesn’t mean they’re obligated to live out their lives in misery.
It’s wrong to cheat on a significant other because it harms them. If the spouse is literally incapable of knowing about the affair, then it’s impossible for the affair to harm them, and there’s nothing morally wrong with it.
Note that cheating on a perfectly healthy spouse is not covered under the term, “literally incapable of knowing about it.” Even if you cheat and get away with it, it’s not okay, because you’re gambling with your partners happiness. You’re taking the chance on hurting them to satisfy your own pleasure, which is not okay, even when the gamble works out in your favor.
As is the case with most dating questions (and quite a few involving someone in a coma), there is no right or wrong answer. It all depends on the relationship in question. My knee-jerk reaction to someone dating while their SO is in a coma might be ‘That’s tacky’ or something similar, but with a little consideration I hope I’d realize I couldn’t judge their actions and that everyone grieves in their own way, even minus a dead body.
Also, things could be worse. Instead of seeking succor somewhere else they could be getting it from the comatose partner.
