The Duties of Marriage

[sbr]

I agree with what seems to be the majority.  If they don't have compatible sexual appetites they should figure out why; if it can't be resolved they should probably split up.  Sex is as much a part of an adult relationship as changing her oil and listening to her bitch about her boss; I think cheating is wrong but wouldn't condemn a guy who stepped on a wife who cut him off completely.

[Jacob]

When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified.  That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed.  If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.

So really it's a little of column a and column b.  By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long.  Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.

With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".

*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I found this amusing article on MSN ( ): http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articledoublex.aspx?cp-documentid=22822846&GT1=32023

"My affair saved my marriage"

Until she had an affair and they went to a therapist, her husband couldn't understand that his behavior was a major contributor to her straying. That counselor saved their relationship by reminding them how much they really cared about each other.

It was 1986. We'd been married seven years (yeah yeah, what a cliché — the Seven Year Itch) and had two small children. My husband is a professional musician and has always traveled for a living. Back then he was playing lead alto for Frank Sinatra, flying first class all over the world, staying in fabulous hotels, rubbing shoulders with celebrities, living the high life.

Meanwhile, I was home, alone with our daughter and son, 1,000 miles away from my own family. We lived close to my in-laws, but they had a very active social/work life, and didn't have time for much baby-sitting. I had grown increasingly resentful, disenchanted with my marriage. Mike came home from weeks on the road, exhausted, ready to catch up on his sleep, have home-cooked meals. I longed to have him step in and share child-rearing responsibilities and take me out to dinner. No such luck.

The watershed moment I remember is when, in the middle of us having words, I said, "Listen, pal, when you come home, you're HOME. This isn't your celebrity life — the limos, hotels, fancy dinners. You carry out the garbage, help with the kids, be a partner to me — this is your REAL life." And Mike said, "How do you know? Maybe that other life — the limos and glamour and celebrity — maybe THAT'S my real life."

He couldn't understand that his being happy and successful wasn't enough for me, that I had desires and dreams of my own, a career of my own, which had been put on hold so that he could have the life he wanted while I assumed all responsibility for our home and family.

I was devastated, and my feelings of aloneness and my anger were overwhelming. I ignited a relationship with someone who was a friend to both me and my husband. It was an intensely emotional affair — he was a sweet, available, quiet, and domestic man. He wanted me to leave my husband and marry him. He was ready to take on my children, too.

When my husband found out, he was completely freaked out. After years of me asking him to go to counseling and him saying, "What for? I'm perfectly happy with things the way they are," things changed. He begged me to go to counseling with him, even went so far as to find a therapist and make an appointment. And we went.

He, of course, felt that he had the upper hand — the moral high ground — because I'd betrayed the marriage by having an affair. I really didn't know what to expect from our therapy; frankly, I didn't care. I was already emotionally checking out of the relationship. The going rate for therapy back then was $70 an hour, about half what it is now. At our first session, when Margaret asked us to talk about our issues, my husband immediately talked about how I'd betrayed him and our marriage, while he'd been out on the road, always faithful, focused only on his career. And then she asked me how I perceived our marriage. Out poured all my heartache and loneliness, my terrible unhappiness. I talked about my deferred dreams, what it was like to be alone, how angry I'd been for so long.

And Margaret looked at my husband and said, "What an ass. Of course she had an affair. She had to get something from someone. She should have left your sorry ass."

My husband's jaw dropped. He expected to hear that I was the bad guy, and that's not what our therapist saw or told him.

Long story short, this woman kept our marriage together, helped us to remember how we'd adored each other as newlyweds. She made us recognize that we had a good foundation for marriage — physical attraction, two children, a basic appreciation of each other. My husband made huge changes, his eyes opened up to what it was like to be the one left behind while the other flew. It didn't change the nature of his job, but he came home a different man.

We've now been married for 30 years, solidly, happily. We have, in our own estimation, a very successful, close relationship. I believe our therapy made all the difference in the world. We both got words of real empathy and wisdom when we needed it. So when people say that affairs saved their marriages — it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Sometimes a big catalyst is necessary to move a relationship forward.

More from MSN Lifestyle Site Search: Get additional content on having an affair, divorce proceedings, and how to win big through child support payments.

If the man cheats, he's a scumbag, but if the woman cheats, it's a-okay!

[Martinus]

When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified.  That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed.  If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.

So really it's a little of column a and column b.  By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long.  Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.

With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".

*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.

The problem with your explanation is that the divorce option is not "painless".

Let's assume his wife tells him he won't be getting any, anymore and she is not agreeing to any "open marriage" situation, either. So according to you his options are: (a) accept it, or (b) seek divorce - and give half of his money to his wife (I am talking about a no-prenup situation).

Seems hardly fair, doesn't it?

[Martinus]

OK, since this whole Tiger Woods thing has come up, I've been having this discussion with a lady friend of mine regarding "wifely duties", adultery, etc.

In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion, I posited the question of whether Mrs. Woods had, well, terminated "wifely duties", or at least brought them to a substantial curbing of frequency/quality/whathaveyou.

Now, she's of the opinion that, regardless of the state of the sexual relationship in a marriage, men have no right to violate the committment if the faucets are turned off, as a marriage can still be "emotionally fulfilling" without sex.  In short, just because he's not getting it at home, he still doesn't have the right to get it elsewhere, either.

I am of the opinion that, just as a husband does not possess the legal, moral or ecclesiastical right to rape his wife, neither does the wife possess the right to enforce celibacy unto her hubby.

So, when it comes to adultery, her operative term is "commitment".  Mine is "breach of contract".

For you married people, ex-married people, and people about to make that stupid ass mistake of a lifetime, what say you?  Is adultery justified in certain cases?




*For the record, my lady friend has her husband in "embargo" mode. 

Unfortunately, from a legal perspective, if the contract involves a bundle of rights and obligations from each party, and there is no clear equivalency line that can be drawn between individual rights and obligations (like "the obligation 1 of party A corresponds to the obligation 2 of party B"), then it is really hard to argue that if party A fails to perform one of his or her obligations under the contract, it entitles party B to stop performing any one of his or her obligations either. In such cases, the party B can really only sue for damages for a failure to perform the contract (plus any contractual penalties, if provided for) and/or seek for the contract to be annulled/terminated.

[Martinus]

The problem really is that, as far as I am aware, in most Western countries "not putting out" is not going to be considered a cause for a "fault divorce", but cheating is.

So if a husband wants to divorce a wife that is not putting out, he is still going to give her half of his money if they divorce, but the situation would be different if she was divorcing him for cheating on her (and vice-versa).

[sbr]

When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified.  That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed.  If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.

So really it's a little of column a and column b.  By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long.  Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.

With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".

*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.

The problem with your explanation is that the divorce option is not "painless".

Let's assume his wife tells him he won't be getting any, anymore and she is not agreeing to any "open marriage" situation, either. So according to you his options are: (a) accept it, or (b) seek divorce - and give half of his money to his wife (I am talking about a no-prenup situation).

Seems hardly fair, doesn't it?

When they got married they agreed to not fuck other people - may not have been specifically in the vows, but it was implied.

What was your point anyhoo?

[katmai]

The problem really is that, as far as I am aware, in most Western countries "not putting out" is not going to be considered a cause for a "fault divorce", but cheating is.

So if a husband wants to divorce a wife that is not putting out, he is still going to give her half of his money if they divorce, but the situation would be different if she was divorcing him for cheating on her (and vice-versa).

And yet you Homo's want to be able to marry

[Martinus]

When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified.  That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed.  If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.

So really it's a little of column a and column b.  By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long.  Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.

With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".

*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.

The problem with your explanation is that the divorce option is not "painless".

Let's assume his wife tells him he won't be getting any, anymore and she is not agreeing to any "open marriage" situation, either. So according to you his options are: (a) accept it, or (b) seek divorce - and give half of his money to his wife (I am talking about a no-prenup situation).

Seems hardly fair, doesn't it?

When they got married they agreed to not fuck other people - may not have been specifically in the vows, but it was implied.

What was your point anyhoo?

They also agreed to fuck each other. My point is that "marriage" is not a promise of celibacy, and yet if one party makes it celibate, the other party is punished for seeking to get out of the contract.

[Martinus]

The problem really is that, as far as I am aware, in most Western countries "not putting out" is not going to be considered a cause for a "fault divorce", but cheating is.

So if a husband wants to divorce a wife that is not putting out, he is still going to give her half of his money if they divorce, but the situation would be different if she was divorcing him for cheating on her (and vice-versa).

And yet you Homo's want to be able to marry

It's about:
(1) pissing off the fundies,
(2) gay power couple weddings.

I don't intend to get married if I can help it.

[DisturbedPervert]

If the man cheats, he's a scumbag, but if the woman cheats, it's a-okay!

That cuckold should have left instead of accepting her sticking strange dicks inside of her.

[Viking]

In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion

He's 33, the top athlete in his sport in the world, and worth a billion dollars, the question is why wouldn't he be banging tons of chicks on the side.

The question is, why he married in the first place? When he could be out there quite legitimately banging tons of chick out in the open.

[The Brain]

In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion

He's 33, the top athlete in his sport in the world, and worth a billion dollars, the question is why wouldn't he be banging tons of chicks on the side.

The question is, why he married in the first place? When he could be out there quite legitimately banging tons of chick out in the open.

Pressure from his parents, possibly internalized.

[DisturbedPervert]

The question is, why he married in the first place? When he could be out there quite legitimately banging tons of chick out in the open.

Maybe he wants children and a family.  They're well taken care of, maybe he just wants some new pussy on the side once in a while.

Or maybe he just married for marketing reasons and to get fat contracts from Nike by appearing to be a family man.   

[Martinus]

But I agree with Jacob that somehow the facts do not add up. Two rumours out there (which imo have big holes in them) are:

1. He is into some weird shit which he couldn't do with his wife. BDSM, some strange fetish or something. But this theory does not add up with the fact that the hookers are not telling anything of that sort - that would surely come up at some point, since they decided to go to the media anyway.

2. He is gay and this is a big cover-up campaign, to preempt some potential gay lover coming out with a story about banging Tiger Woods, since any such lover would be now dismissed as a me-too-ist and not treated seriously (assuming he doesn't have fluid evidence, Clay Aiken's style ).