Extramarital Affairs in Women.

[marriedbigrl]

I've never cheated, but I also never judge.

Neither my mother nor my father ever cheated on each other. But my father was total shit to my mom their entire marriage. He never beat her, but he always made her feel small, worthless... unloved. Our culture would applaud his faithfulness while just dismissing his asshole personality as something he couldn't help.

We elevate fidelity above ALL the other marital vows. Well, I would have loved learning - as an adult - that my Mom at least felt adored/ cherished by a lover. And I would have rather had a father who treated my mother more kindly, and respectfully... but but had an occasional affair.

Your mother would not have felt adored/cherished, and just as unloved small and worthless once she found out he was cheating. Your father is an asshole in either situation. The only reason you'd prefer he had cheated is because he's a guy and it much more accepted that men cheat. Given how your father treated your mother, I'm guessing you'd have been thrilled had she cheated, but in general when a woman cheats, she's a slut, when a man cheats he's just following his god-given urges.

 

[policywank]

I almost completely agree with this. I wouldn't say all the blame falls on the cheater in that situation at all. But choosing to cheat over divorce, for whatever reason, is still dumb in my opinion, as divorce in that situation is going to happen much more often than not. And in the process the cheater has surrendered the moral high ground, and the divorce will likely be even worse for them than if they had just divorced to start with.

There is a good argument to be made that if divorce is inevitable then just go that route. But again it isn't always that simple. There are situations where the consequences of divorce may be worse than the cheating. And even if that isn't the case this scenario opens to prospect that the cheater made the wrong decision in a tough situation and under duress, so should be given more consideration than to be just written off as a jerk.

The involvement of kids is a complicating factor. In most cases I would argue that staying together for the kids is a dumb idea and they lose out in the long run. But we can't say that as an absolute. I have known couples where one partner was inclined to take a scorched earth approach and even use their family wealth to move the kids to the otters side of the world while poisoning their relationship with the other spouse. Does that mean staying together will be a less bad outcome? No. But it does mean that we can't say for sure that it is a better outcome.

 

[lovedoublepenetration]

I have always been a cheater. Never been satisfied with just one cock.

 

[policywank]

I've never cheated, but I also never judge.

Neither my mother nor my father ever cheated on each other. But my father was total shit to my mom their entire marriage. He never beat her, but he always made her feel small, worthless... unloved. Our culture would applaud his faithfulness while just dismissing his asshole personality as something he couldn't help.

We elevate fidelity above ALL the other marital vows. Well, I would have loved learning - as an adult - that my Mom at least felt adored/ cherished by a lover. And I would have rather had a father who treated my mother more kindly, and respectfully... but but had an occasional affair.

Your mother would not have felt adored/cherished, and just as unloved small and worthless once she found out he was cheating. Your father is an asshole in either situation. The only reason you'd prefer he had cheated is because he's a guy and it much more accepted that men cheat. Given how your father treated your mother, I'm guessing you'd have been thrilled had she cheated, but in general when a woman cheats, she's a slut, when a man cheats he's just following his god-given urges.

Hold on. I think that the point being made was that in the circumstance it would have been understandable for his mother to cheat (not that his father might have been less of a shit if he had cheated) and receive some appreciation. And I do see that point, especially in that era. It was not so long ago that for a woman to leave a faithful husband (even if he was an asshole) had terrible consequences for her and potentially her children.

Things are different now, but we cannot definitively conclude that divorce doesn't sometimes have terrible consequences compared to which a discrete affair might be a less bad option.

I do know couples who have stayed together for the children and that turned out to be a bad decision. But just observing that doesn't make it a universal truth that ending it is always 100% of the time the best way to go. I have also known people that took a different route due to extenuating circumstances and that appeared to work out for the best. Of course we can never know because we never know what would have lied on the road not taken. I do know, however, that having known lots of people who have faced these agonizing decisions that it is unfair to say that one answer is the only right answer.

 

[marriedbigrl]

There is a good argument to be made that if divorce is inevitable then just go that route. But again it isn't always that simple. There are situations where the consequences of divorce may be worse than the cheating. And even if that isn't the case this scenario opens to prospect that the cheater made the wrong decision in a tough situation and under duress, so should be given more consideration than to be just written off as a jerk.

The involvement of kids is a complicating factor. In most cases I would argue that staying together for the kids is a dumb idea and they lose out in the long run. But we can't say that as an absolute. I have known couples where one partner was inclined to take a scorched earth approach and even use their family wealth to move the kids to the otters side of the world while poisoning their relationship with the other spouse. Does that mean staying together will be a less bad outcome? No. But it does mean that we can't say for sure that it is a better outcome.

Cheating while having kids I'd just as likely to cause a scorched earth approach as not cheating. I may have misrepresented my thoughts in some ways. People can do and should do what they feel they need to. If you've communicated, are weighing the risks and think cheating is the safer, then by all means, who am I to judge. Everyone has their needs and if your spouse is refusing to take care of those needs, then she's pretty much breaking the marriage vows anyway. I just think assuming you won't get caught is almost always dumb. And the law never favors the cheater over dry spouse.

 

[policywank]

Cheating while having kids I'd just as likely to cause a scorched earth approach as not cheating. I may have misrepresented my thoughts in some ways. People can do and should do what they feel they need to. If you've communicated, are weighing the risks and think cheating is the safer, then by all means, who am I to judge. Everyone has their needs and if your spouse is refusing to take care of those needs, then she's pretty much breaking the marriage vows anyway. I just think assuming you won't get caught is almost always dumb. And the law never favors the cheater over dry spouse.

I am really thinking of scenarios where the unsatisfied partner feels locked in and does not anticipate any divorce scenario going well. So, they are faced with a sexless marriage, a nasty divorce or a discrete affair. They may get caught. They may make it worse. But compared to just remaining sexless for the rest of their lives or facing an almost certain terrible divorce they may choose to seek a discrete affair. Even if that isn't a great idea it is understandable and they don't deserve to be dismissed as a sleazy jerk.

 

[marriedbigrl]

Hold on. I think that the point being made was that in the circumstance it would have been understandable for his mother to cheat (not that his father might have been less of a shit if he had cheated) and receive some appreciation. And I do see that point, especially in that era. It was not so long ago that for a woman to leave a faithful husband (even if he was an asshole) had terrible consequences for her and potentially her children.

Things are different now, but we cannot definitively conclude that divorce doesn't sometimes have terrible consequences compared to which a discrete affair might be a less bad option.

I do know couples who have stayed together for the children and that turned out to be a bad decision. But just observing that doesn't make it a universal truth that ending it is always 100% of the time the best way to go. I have also known people that took a different route due to extenuating circumstances and that appeared to work out for the best. Of course we can never know because we never know what would have lied on the road not taken. I do know, however, that having known lots of people who have faced these agonizing decisions that it is unfair to say that one answer is the only right answer.

I completely agree with you but his post does say "I wish my father had treated her more kindly and respectfully...but HE had had an occasional affair."

 

[policywank]

I completely agree with you but his post does say "I wish my father had treated her more kindly and respectfully...but HE had had an occasional affair."

I think that was his second point on cheating. The first was in regards to the prospect of his mother cheating. But I think I still at least relate to the second point.

 

[gtnlynn]

My wife did her cheating before we married. We went to different colleges and she was free to date others, but not to have sex with them. I only saw her once or twice a month. When I was not with her, she was with another guy having sex. I didn't know for sure until she told me after we married, but zi suspected it. Why did she cheat? She was horny, enjoyed sex, and had no inhibitions after a couple of strong drinks of rum and Coke. After two and a half years, we agreed that she would stop dating others, and she stopped, never dating anyone again. After we had been married a while, I gave her permission to have sex with others, and she did a few times with my full knowledge and approval. She stopped when she turned 40 and has not been with anyone else in the past 20+ years.

 

[LMWM321]

@marriedbigrl
I thought I stated it pretty clearly. My Dad NEVER cheated, ..But my mom's life would have been considerably better if he HAD cheated, but he was otherwise always kind to her, and made her feel beautiful and smart. Even if she one day found out about his infidelity, she would have felt better about herself than she did being married to the man he was.

And my sister and brothers all agree that we would have loved it if, after my Dad's death, she admitted she had a lover during their awful marriage - someone who made her feel all the positive things he didn't. But she didn't. So, we look back at her life with great sadness. She deserved better

Why didn't my mom leave him? She had 5 kids, no college degree, no professional skills and no self-esteem. Thanks to my dad.

Don't judge people who cheat unless you know all the details of their marriage - which of course you won't. No one in our community knew how bad my father was. You can be sure that If my mom was caught cheating, all the sympathy would accrue to him and all the demonizing would accrue to her.

 

[marriedbigrl]

@marriedbigrl
I thought I stated it pretty clearly. My Dad NEVER cheated, ..But mom's life would have been better if he HAD cheated, but he was otherwise always kind to her, and made her feel beautiful and smart. Even if she one day found out about his infidelity, she would have felt better about herself than she did being married to the man he was.

And my sister and brothers all agree that we would have loved to have found out after my Mom's death that she had a lover during their awful marriage - someone who made her feel all the positive things he didn't. Instead, we look back at her life with great sadness. She deserved better

Don't judge people who cheat unless you know all the details of their marriage - which of course you won't.

Why didn't she leave him? She had 5 kids, no college degree, no professional skills and no self-esteem. Thanks to my dad.

I understood that. And mostly agreed. Again I think a class in reading comprehension might serve you well.

 

[MrsIndianPeach]

never cheated ! But just the thoughts of another much mature charming man flirting with me knowing im married makes me smile !

You wake up late at night feeling thirsty. Tiptoeing down the corridor on your way to the bathroom when you suddenly freeze as you see through the crack of the door. It only takes a moment before you realise what and who she is.Holding your breath as you see the bedroom door half open. You gasps and as your eyes slowly adjust to the dim light you can make out more of the shapes. Realising you are seeing your nephews wifes silhouette who is staying at your big ranch home…

 

[lc69hunter]

Hey everyone,

I've been thinking about relationships lately and wanted to open up a discussion. What are your thoughts on the topic of infidelity? I'm curious to hear about your experiences and what you think might lead someone to cheat in a relationship. Specifically, what factors do you think could lead a woman to cheat? No judgment here, just interested in hearing different perspectives.

I hate the word "cheat". It has many negative connotations, though many of them valid. I believe that many wives, given the circumstances and opportunity, will sample a strange cock at some time. That is not all bad, as a one off, is not a threat to a good marriage. It will elevate her self-esteem, and her libido, and upon getting home, will ride her husband like a rented mule, thus reigniting the flames of the marriage, which had died down to embers. Her one off has helped your marriage. It had nothing to do with you, or her marriage, or her love for you

 

[Tommelon]

I hate the word "cheat". It has many negative connotations, though many of them valid. I believe that many wives, given the circumstances and opportunity, will sample a strange cock at some time. That is not all bad, as a one off, is not a threat to a good marriage. It will elevate her self-esteem, and her libido, and upon getting home, will ride her husband like a rented mule, thus reigniting the flames of the marriage, which had died down to embers. Her one off has helped your marriage. It had nothing to do with you, or her marriage, or her love for you

Yes ur right. Wait let me change the heading.

 

[Justfantasies]

Cheating is not a great word except in jest. But women get propositioned all the time. Men should expect them to try out new things

 

[LMWM321]

I do believe that the prospect that some of us aren't wired for monogamy is pertinent. It is not a good reason to cheat in the sense that we should have known and not entered into a monogamous relationship in the first place

I love your post from which I clipped the above statement. I've read it several times.

However, I disagree with the above.

It's totally possible people enter into a marriage unaware how their attitudes towards sex will change as the decades go by - this incudes the kinds of sex that interest them and their possible interest in add'l partners.

I have a good friend who is 62 (yes, it's always a friend, right? ) who says his libido is essentially unchanged since he was 25. Except NOW he's keenly aware of his mortality. Consequently, he wants sex more often and has a greater interest in variety than at any point in his life. It sounds great except his wife is essentially over sex entirely, and won't consider sex therapy or even discussing her lack of desire with her OBGYN. She does love him, but she has no interest in sex anymore - and is fine with it. At most she will occasionally offer him a perfunctory hand-job. He adores his wife but is miserable. To my knowledge he has not and will never cheat. But he DEFINITELY wants to be non-monogamous now. Something he had no interest in 35 yrs ago when they wrote and exchanged their vows.

To my thinking, when you marry you promise to do all you can to provide for your partner's happiness. If there is something you can't provide that they need, you need to give them the latitude to find it elsewhere. I love his wife (she's a good friend too) but I'm pretty sure she thinks the drive to have sex is something he can/ should just ignore. Well, sorry, but for some it's an immutable life-force that can so easily be ignored.

Telling him he can't get sex elsewhere strikes me as petty and mean-spirited.

 

[Justfantasies]

Yes and as people live longer they will move onto second and third marriages more often or into polyamory. I chose the latter mostly

 

[policywank]

I love your post from which I clipped the above statement. I've read it several times.

However, I disagree with the above.

It's totally possible people enter into a marriage unaware how their attitudes towards sex will change as the decades go by - this incudes the kinds of sex that interest them and their possible interest in add'l partners.

I have a good friend who is 62 (yes, it's always a friend, right? ) who says his libido is essentially unchanged since he was 25. Except NOW he's keenly aware of his mortality. Consequently, he wants sex more often and has a greater interest in variety than at any point in his life. It sounds great except his wife is essentially over sex entirely, and won't consider sex therapy or even discussing her lack of desire with her OBGYN. She does love him, but she has no interest in sex anymore - and is fine with it. At most she will occasionally offer him a perfunctory hand-job. He adores his wife but is miserable. To my knowledge he has not and will never cheat. But he DEFINITELY wants to be non-monogamous now. Something he had no interest in 35 yrs ago when they wrote and exchanged their vows.

To my thinking, when your marry you promise to do all you can to provide for your partner's happiness. If there is something you can't provide that they need, you need to give them the latitude to find it elsewhere. I love his wife (she's a good friend too) but I'm pretty sure she thinks the drive to have sex is something he can/ should just ignore. Well, sorry, but for some it's an immutable life-force that can so easily be ignored.

Telling him he can't get sex elsewhere strikes me as petty and mean-spirited.

I don't think that we are in disagreement.

The context of the excerpt you have cited was one in which I was broadly saying yes it would be ideal to not enter into monogamy in the first place if we are not wired for it, BUT many (most) of us were raised to believe this is not acceptable so we weren't really in a position to make that determination at the time we got married.

Everything after "BUT" is just one example of why things may not work out the way they ideally ought to. There was no intent to preclude other possibilities such as changes in circumstances or attitudes later in life.

My overall theme is that while it is ideal to not enter into monogamy if it isn't for you and to immediately communicate any change in feelings or circumstance with your spouse, things aren't always ideal. Relationships are complicated. I am not sure that ever constitutes a guilt free excuse but it does provide context. And I think it is unfair to dismiss anybody as a jerk or a snake if they are unable to take the ideal path.

 

[policywank]

As long as we are on the topic I will confess that I cheated. It was just something that happened when I gave in to temptation. There was nothing special about the guy and nothing terribly wrong in my relationship. I was a bit bored with my sex life, interested in variety, away from home and tempted by a handsome guy. It was as simple as that. Obviously it was wrong. Obviously I should have either not done it or at least communicated effectively with my husband in advance so he could make his own informed decision about our relationship. But I refuse to see myself as a horrible irredeemable piece of shit for not doing whatever was ideal.

I felt horrible and I confessed immediately to my husband and expressed my unreserved remorse without excuse. Based upon that we patched things up and are where we are today.

I do not for a moment assert any legitimate excuse or justification. But I do genuinely believe that none of us should be judged solely by our dumbest mistake or weakest moment.

Reality is that the vast, vast majority of people give in to some kind of temptation. Obviously having one too many chocolate bars is less serious than infidelity. But what if you are a diabetic and have children counting on you to live? I'd say that is pretty damn serious too. But would we just outright condemn that person or might we seek to relate to why they succumbed to temptation. And who gets to decide where on the hierarchy of infractions cheating lies. Most of us regard it as serious. But there is not unanimity as to how serious it is let alone consensus that it is the one unforgivable sin.

I think that often the people who say you shouldn't give in to this or that temptation are people who are not tempted by that thing that tempts you. It isn't that they are wrong per se. But they are over simplifying the urges and circumstances of other people.

 

[LMWM321]

But I refuse to see myself as a horrible irredeemable piece of shit for not doing whatever was ideal.

Agreed. ..And nor do I think this necessarily makes you an unfaithful wife in the context of your entire marriage. As it pertains to religion (I'm not personally religious) people are still considered "faithful" even if there have been moments in their life when their faith eluded them.

Yet, as it pertains to marriage, the ridiculous notion persists that if you have sex outside your marriage just a few times - even if your marriage spans fives decades - you were NOT a faithful husband/wife. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[policywank]

Agreed. ..And nor do I think this necessarily makes you unfaithful in the context of your entire marriage. As it pertains to religion (I'm not personally religious) people are still considered "faithful" even if there have been moments in their life when their faith eluded them.

Yet, as it pertains to marriage, the ridiculous notion persists that if you cheated just once - even if your marriage spans decades - you were NOT a faithful husband/wife. Ridiculous.

I think that there is an interesting gender dynamic at play.

It was not that long ago that we had a more patriarchal society wherein it was tacitly accepted that some husbands had mistresses. JFK a purportedly noble and great politician and MLK a reverend and leading light for racial equality fooled around all the time and it is barely mentioned in the context of their legacies. As long as men kept it discrete, and separate from their family life it was deemed understandable. Not "right" or fully accepted but understandable. Their philandering didn't define them and their wives were expected to accept it with quiet dignity if the man took care of his family. It was workable.....as long as women did not have the same latitude.

Then when women started to get more rights it was only logical that we should have the same sexual latitude. Cheating was still wrong, but why should it be deemed more wrong for us than it was for men? But I think that society could not abide that so we went the other way and decided it was off limits for both men and women. Of course people still did it, but society started to develop these black and white views about it and feel the need to shine a light on it rather than sweep it under the rug like we did when it was only men doing it.

Back in the day even the men who were faithful and saw cheating as a terrible sin generally took the view that what happened in another man's house was none of their business. Arguably it was the prospect of women having equal latitude that compelled those people to abandon their own inclination to mind their own business.

I am not suggesting that the way it was back then was right or that things should be that way. Just that it was seen with a lot more nuance and understanding when there was a double standard.

 

[LMWM321]

Then when women started to get more rights it was only logical that we should have the same sexual latitude.

Again.. well said and I agree with all of it.

And, just to add...

The introduction of No-Fault divorce was significant too as it meant that women faired much better financially even if it was their own infidelity that led to divorce. This demonstrated that the courts, like US culture in general, started to acknowledge that the reasons for infidelity are many and may not lie entirely with the person committing the adultery.

This meant that a woman, who probably wasn't the primary breadwinner, wasn't risking destitution by having an affair.

Anyway, a nice couple of posts, PW.

 

[policywank]

The other thing that I think is interesting about the historical perspective is that when it was more male dominated there seemed to be a realistic understanding of why a man might be tempted. The idea that if a man was satisfied at home his eye would never wander didn't seem to be prevalent. Quite the opposite it was assumed to be in his nature. People weren't scratching their heads as to why JFK fucked Marilyn Monroe. They didn't need to attribute it to the notion that Jackie wasn't satisfying him at home. Even if she was a sexual dynamo it was only natural that he would want Marilyn too.

But a fallacy has developed that somehow women are different and that we are so driven by uniquely female motivation that if we are loved and sexually satisfied at home we will never even think of another man. I don't know of any basis for that other than what men wanted to believe. They wanted to believe that we couldn't or generally didn't have the same natural sexual desire for other men as men do for other women. Therefore if we do wander it must be because our husband is inadequate in some way. I think that is just made up nonsense used to justify the double standard or cope with its waning influence.

Sometimes we overcomplicate these things. Consider the JFK and Marilyn Monroe example. There is no real mystery as to why he cheated with her is there? I mean look at her. Who wouldn't want to fuck her? Asking why he would want to fuck her is like asking why I like prime rib - because it is awesome. Why did he cheat in order to fuck her is only a little less complicated - the perceived enjoyment of the indulgence outweighed the consequences. We can all argue that the consequences are never worth it, but people balance those dynamics all the time and frequently give in to temptation for seemingly irrational reasons.

It isn't a big mystery why JFK fucked Marilyn Monroe. He did it because she was highly desirable and he prioritized his own sexual urges. Jackie, his marriage and his life didn't need to come up short in any way for those natural urges to exist. And it isn't different for women who cheat. Or at least it need not be. There may be some deep underlying dynamics. Or it could be like it was with me. I just wanted to fuck some dude because I found him attractive, the urge is natural and I was careless (albeit momentarily) with my marital commitment.

 

[waratah]

You should have just asked what leads people to cheat. Men and women really arent that different. So, the exact same things that lead to men cheating. Unhappiness in their relationship, feelings of neglect(including but not limited to lack of sex), being taken for granted, etc, all while the attraction to and possibility of a different guy fills the needs she feels are neglected. I.E. She doesn't feel like you appreciate/are attracted to her while the other guy does make her feel that way.

Or, also just as with guys, sometimes they're just incapable of monogamy. Though I do feel like that's more common with men than women in my, admittedly biased, opinion.

I think you're right that there isn't much difference.

And as to the reason? Selfishness is the reason.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I think you're right that there isn't much difference.

And as to the reason? Selfishness is the reason.

I think that you are correct that selfishness is a factor. The impetus is personal desire (which I don't think is necessarily intrinsically selfish) but the willingness to pursue that desire in spite of the potentially negative consequences for others is selfish.

But in line with some of Policywank's comments I think that there is sometimes a spurious inclination to see this selfishness as some sort of absolute wrong. It isn't right. But neither are the acts of selfishness that most people engage in regularly. And it seems like every time I hear someone make blanket assertions about the inherent evil of someone else's selfishness they seem to have their own selfish behaviour for which they have a ready excuse.

What it really seems to come down to is a hierarchy or distinction of selfishness wherein there is an arbitrary threshold beyond which it becomes unacceptable. And where that threshold is established by any give person is conveniently based upon their degree of selfishness so that they fall on the right side of the line.

I am assuming that at least some of the Litsters here have seen the movie Thelma and Louise? Do you remember how Thelma having endured a shitty marriage finally found sexual fulfillment with a young Brad Pitt?

Now step back. Her husband could legitimately say that she was cheating. And most people could see selfishness in her actions. But does that really exist independent of all other factors? As I recall we as the viewers don't even know what motivated her actions. But we empathized.

To me this is one of those extreme narratives which isn't realistic. But it makes an important point. It identified an extreme scenario in which we empathized with the cheater, not to justify her actions but to illustrate the grey area between there and the point at which people wish to assert the alternative absolute.