COMMENTS: 69
Is Sleeping With a Married Man Sexist?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.
Written by a feminist academic who had the (dis)pleasure of deliberately being “the other woman” in an ongoing affair, Cheating on the Sisterhood: Infidelity and Feminism explores Lauren Rosewarne’s personal struggles as a willing participant in an illicit relationship that resulted in another woman's devastation, as well as her own. It is a political look at the motivations that fuel situations of betrayal and the justifications one provides oneself from the inside.
Since Rosewarne uses her own life as a jumping off point, the book is tinged with melodrama and a lack of adequate distance for dispassionate observation, which certainly makes Cheating on the Sisterhood a more interesting read. Researchers are often told to strive for objectivity in their work; however, Rosewarne tossed convention aside in an attempt to engage the reader in her meanderings on depictions of infidelity in popular culture, the ways women hurt and compete with other women, feminist rationalizations that allow for denial of culpability, how the role of “the other woman” reinforces traditional gender roles, the impact of consumer culture on relationships, and why infidelity is an exercise in sadism, masochism, and misogyny.
How did you come to write this book, personally and professionally?
In 2007, I was presenting at a conference near where the man I discuss in the book lived. I knew seeing him would be emotionally difficult (he was still living with his partner at that time) and I knew saying goodbye to him would be worse, so I travelled to see him with the idea that I would write about my experiences, that when things were bad, I would have 'work' to fall back on. By nature I am an organizer and I like to -- where possible -- put in place infrastructure which minimizes experiences I can predict will provide horrendously emotional. So I was travelling with books to do preliminary research and the writing of the book became a strategy (albeit a largely unsuccessful one!) of distracting me from the emotional torment of being in a relationship with a man I could never truly be with. I researched and wrote and edited right through to the end of the relationship.
Professionally the case is much simpler. I am an academic. Publish or perish is our mantra!
Was it difficult to divulge personal information that could inculcate negative judgments about your character or politics?
An assumption I made during the writing of the book -- and an assumption that was only validated, repeatedly, afterwards -- was that my experience was very common. While I expected to experience criticism (which I received in spades!) the most common response I received from women was that they had near identical experiences. At books talks and at conferences and through emails, women have told me about how they felt exactly the same set of conflicted emotions and faced the same challenges when attempting to manage their politics.
I'm not ashamed about any of my experiences. I think they're common experiences and experiences that are worth talking about. I not only own those experiences, but I own up to them, and if this gets people talking about topics like sexual politics and feminism, then I happy to take the negative judgments on the chin.
You write this book from a markedly third wave feminist perspective and challenge feminisms that are especially dogmatic, yet you do not always hold third wave feminist ideology in high esteem. What do you see as useful about a third wave approach to infidelity?
On a very cursory level, supporting women's choices on how to use their bodies has united each of the branches of feminisms. Yet, while there might be much agreement on reproductive rights, sexual rights are more complicated. This is demonstrated by second wave critiques of prostitution, for example. Third wave feminism has clutched onto choice really, really tightly -- and I like this. I want choice in everything. I want the choice to make both good and bad decisions. But, as evident in my book, choice on its own is not enough. If we're going to make our own choices we need to take ownership of those choices, and we need to understand the consequences. In order for a feminist to do this with any sense of academic legitimacy, understanding the consequences of our choices needs to be examined by utilizing all that has been offered by earlier waves of feminism.
religion, her work has appeared in various publications, including Marie Claire, Bitch, Make/Shift, and The Women's International
Perspective. Mandy worked for over ten years as a grassroots organizer in New York and Atlanta. She currently lives in Calcutta, India.
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RobinC on Oct 27, 2009 5:24 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The darker side of our taking on the responsibility for their morality is that in our long history of oppression we were not so naïve and powerless as to take it lying down and some of our social and moral conventions were created by us to give us power over men. This attempt at controlling their sexuality has resulted in what I deem to be a weak construct in the emotional structure of many women just as it has resulted in the weak construct of a juvenile conscience in the psyches of men. When any group of people desires to control any of the basic functions of another group of people the result is always a dwarfing in development of both groups. In our case we actually believe we want and need men to be monogamous with us, therefore our bids for control become more and more hysterical (coming from the uterus) the more liberated we, and as a result they, become. As a culture I see more desperate attempts at holding men to monogamy today than I did in the Sixties which seems to me to be a bit of a backward slide.
If we free men to be responsible for their own sexualities as we have asked them to free us to be responsible for our own, we might discover that we really don’t have a strong desire to control them, act as their conscience or separate them from these other women we claim to love and honor. I don't think feminism is about allowing other women to control us or having a desire to control them, even if it does seem honorable, perhaps it's not.
The author of this article wished to spend time with a man. Why should I, or you, get in her way with all this clumsiness about who comes first in our loyalty list, ourselves, other women or men? Occam’s razor folks, the simplest solution is to allow women to be free, free to sleep with whomever they please, if as a result that means we free men too? Wouldn't that be ok?
We really don't have to be afraid they will run amok amok amok if we stop leashing them. Not because they won't necessarily, but because it's not our job.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hmmmm
Posted by: bouyant
» yep, been there
Posted by: aislinnluv
» Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: RobinC
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: RobinC
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Hmmmm... jeebus, this is more intriguing than the article!
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: djnoll on Oct 27, 2009 5:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time in a marriage-based society that we held ourselves within marriage to the standard of fidelity, and only ourselves. What others do is not our business, and never should have been.
Infidelity in fictional works or in movies or television are great entertainment for some, but the fact is that in real life, it is between the married partners if one is unfaithful, not the whole world, or even the third party who is involved in infidelity. Infidelity is often the sign of other problems within a marriage, and if we acted as adults, instead of voyeurs, we would butt out of other people's marriages and let them deal with their problems in private.
Most other women (or men, for that matter) usually at some level understand that the cheating spouse will return to the marriage, and if they are willing to accept that, then the pain is no less, but it is not unexpected. Many times this partner is the one who helps the cheating spouse realize what is really missing in a marriage and then helps them to understand what is needed to improve the marriage. It is when the cheating spouse lies and promises things which they have no intention of delivering just to get laid, and the other party is naive enough to buy it, that pain can occur for the partner.
As for the married spouse who is cheated on (and I have been one)the loss of trust is more devastating than the fact that my husband cheated. I did not condone it, but in the end I realized that I was in part responsible for his actions. Our marriage was in trouble, and I knew it, but I was afraid to confront the matter head on and deal with it. As a result he sought someone who would listen to him moan and groan about how horrible I was and what a failure as a wife I was. In the end, I divorced him, but I later met the other woman. She dumped him shortly after our divorce, and when we met, we talked about what it had been like for both of us with this man. What I learned was that the things that made our marriage not work were exactly the same ones that did not in the end make their relationship work either.
So do not be too quick to condemn the other woman (or man). They are a symptom of a bad marriage, and if you believe the cheating spouse then you have only yourself to blame when you get hurt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I always find articles and books like this interesting...
Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: I always find articles and books like this interesting...
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth on Oct 27, 2009 6:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am NOT talking about men and women who are and plan on always being single and free to date other singles.
~Beth~
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdmsr on Oct 27, 2009 9:33 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the psycho-social jargon aside, you either buy into the legitimacy of partnering, in which case you are a violator, or you don't, which renders the subject moot, at least for you. In either case, you can walk away from any damage you have done or abetted.
Good luck with all that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Oct 28, 2009 12:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because women aren't responsible for their actions so of course it's about masochism and misogyny. Couldn't misandry enter into feminist dialogue? Maybe if you weren't so interested in fucking the captain of the football team you might realize that he is an asshole and you decided to sleep with him. That makes you an idiot as much as it make him a misogynist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 28, 2009 2:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If feminism is a good thing, then what's good for feminism shouldn't be any different from what's good for everybody, including both the wife and the husband in this scenario. And the point where it is different is the point where feminism tends to diverge from women's legitimate claims to equal rights.
The question ought not to be whether sleeping with a married man is sexist, but whether sleeping with a married man is right. Then the answer seems pretty clear.
I think that may be what the article is getting at, intentionally or otherwise.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Not so sure
Posted by: themotie
» Right and wrong are beyond her
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Sleeping... both-and, not either-or
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Louisa on Oct 28, 2009 2:37 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If, big if, sexual fidelity is a foundational principle in a marriage relationship; then...
If person A sleeps with person B who has a spouse in person C, but person A doesn't have a preexisting relationship to C; then the only person betraying anyone is person B who is betraying person C. If C was never friends with A then that lack of a relationship continues - C owes nothing to A and A owes nothing to C. If person A does have an existing relationship to person C then A is also betraying C and they may have to renegotiate any continuing relationship as they see fit. More importantly, C will have to decide whether it is worth it to forgive B. Forgiving B, who has sworn to love C under certain conditions and then betrayed that trust, is not going to be an easy thing for C to do. On what basis can C rebuild trust when B has already proven untrustworthy? Many factors will weigh heavily in that decision.
Everything else is navel gazing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eality Check
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: eality Check
Posted by: DaBear
» Morality check
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: eality Check you left out the final variable expression
Posted by: DaBear
» So, if your wife doesn't put out, you can take it on the road?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: So, if your wife doesn't put out, you can take it on the road?
Posted by: RobinC
» RE: So, if your wife doesn't put out, you can take it on the road?
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: speedboy49 on Oct 28, 2009 3:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew I was being cuckholded, but if I bailed out, the pain would only have only been worse---loss of the kids, loss of property, and onerous child support payments for kids now taken from me. Anyone who has been a cheating victim does not need an explanation of why it happened. We need someone to write about the injustices left in the wake of infidelity, with hopes that it might lead meaningful reforms. But, of course, a book like that would never sell!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cuckholded
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Cuckholded
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smartcookie on Oct 28, 2009 3:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human beings, being the imperfect beings they are, needed some kind of boundaries to keep other peoples emotions (jealousy, etc) at bay. Especially when raising children it doesn't pay to have many men and women coming and going because a) Most men and women aren't that mature. b) It creates divided loyalties among the family and those with whom they are getting emotionall and sexually attached to.
Now in the "ideal world" everyone would have an "open marriage" but lets be frank, it's not the ideal world, peoples alliances and emotions shift and they spend disproportinate amount of time with those they favor over those they do not. They have other motivations like sadism, greed, malice and their own ignorance.
The real issue is that human beings biology evolved in small knit group tribes and clans, and our biology is not used to having so many people who set off our sexual and emotional instincts, since the population of available parnters has become so large and technology of cars, communications and the internet has enabled "trade up" partner phenomenon.
Don't like your partner? too lazy and immature to work it out? Trade it in, dump it, or trade it up!
We increasingly live in a society of disposable people and relationships, and a significant chunk of it has to do with financial insecurity, lack of time to spend with one another and stress.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cheating is just uncontrolled Biology
Posted by: jfkeeler
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Oct 28, 2009 7:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» All's fair in love and war?
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: All's fair in love and war? sheesh, judge much?
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robba29 on Oct 28, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What?
Posted by: Mich
» RE: What? It's often a bit more than merely "acting out"
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: QQOblivion on Oct 28, 2009 7:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a man who would NEVER knowingly sleep with a married woman or with a woman who is in any kind of preexisting committed relationship.
Hey, there are plenty of SINGLE people out there to bang. Use a little common sense and ethical judgement, would you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's Biological
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» It's Economical
Posted by: eddie torres
» My condolences to the women in your life
Posted by: maddy
» RE: It's Biological
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cwjanack on Oct 28, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: humans are not monogamous....
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: humans are not monogamous....
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: humans are not monogamous....
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: logansafi on Oct 28, 2009 8:37 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MTguy on Oct 28, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That sure calls for a little affirmation and congratulations, doesn't it?
It's hard for me to invest much thought into an author who left her credibility and integrity on the bedroom floor.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pawprints on Oct 28, 2009 10:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a good one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Quit with the euphemisms, you academics
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maddy on Oct 28, 2009 10:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me feminism is about equity and equanimity. Simply put, rigid gender roles harm men, women, and children. Women should be able to own property, marshal their talents beyond being domestic servants, and should have legal protections for such things. And I would say, all of those freedoms apply equally to men.
I do not, however, understand why any academic would conclude that to be a feminist one must feel some sort of emotional bond or obligation with any woman just because she is also a woman. That strikes me as, frankly, idiotic. It implies that feminism is "opposed" to all men, which is should not be. It also doesn't acknowledge that loyalty and solidarity are built through more complex and intimate interactions, and, hence are never assumed at the outset based on surface characteristics. I mean, give me a break--I have to be "in line" with 3 million women on the planet? Please.
Further, why complicate the most tawdry commonplace b.s. with some sort of would-be concern over political clout? To put it more simply, what in the blazes does an extramarital affair have to do with one's feminist credentials? We're talking about issues of empathy, compassion, decency--*those* are the issues involved in marital infidelity, and they don't in any way only victimize woman/villainize men.
Next, I also do not understand some feminists who refuse to acknowledge biological reality--that we are instinctively competitive in the pursuit of mates. That doesn't mean that we cannot build more equitable families, relationships, and institutions, but it does mean that, yes, you will on occasion feel threatened by women who are after the same dudes you are. Big friggin' whoop.
Seriously, I'm trying to see the author's point of view here, but this seems like narcissistic drivel with delusions of scholarly relevance. And, ugh, such writing is among the reasons I'm happy to have left academia.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I have to admit...
Posted by: jfkeeler
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Oct 28, 2009 11:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought how the hell can his poor wife put up with such an appalling noise?
It was at Lasham Gliding Club in the 70's.
I didn't have sex with him, and I wasn't in the same bed. I'm not that kind of guy.
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MT512 on Oct 28, 2009 12:09 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine how you would be hurt if you discovered your committed partner was cheating, and imagine how hurt s/he would be if you cheated. How difficult is that? Maybe I'm stupid for thinking that the Golden Rule is easy to understand, or for assuming that people's caring for others (especially for ones they "love") would outweigh their own short-sighted selfishness.
So I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who cheats on a committed relationship and then gets their greedy little fingers burned. Boo-hoo. I want you to cry me a river. I want you to wallow in your feelings of worthlessness, for you deserve them richly. I only feel sympathy for the cheated, the victim(s). What amazes me is that so many people cheat constantly no matter how many times they get caught and regret it when they find they've thrown away something truly valuable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Zero sympathy
Posted by: tony_opmoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 28, 2009 12:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 28, 2009 1:59 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: IT DOESN'T SQUARE WITH ANYTHING
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: IT DOESN'T SQUARE WITH ANYTHING
Posted by: MT512
» RE: IT DOESN'T SQUARE WITH ANYTHING
Posted by: tony_opmoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Oct 28, 2009 3:11 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mind body problems
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Red State Gal on Oct 28, 2009 6:09 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is apparently one academic that has lost her basic human decency.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: planet doomed on Oct 29, 2009 4:37 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexism, racism, etc, means that there are systematic power imbalances. Being a racist/sexist means to hold an opinion exclusive to the dominant group, or to enact behavior which is exclusive to the dominant group.
So it isn't possible for a member of an oppressed group to be sexist or racist, though they could be biased.
Using the word incorrectly only minimizes the power imbalance, which is a very bad thing for a feminist to do. Which is why Mandy fails feminism 101. And as another comment highlighted, a more appropriate question would be "Is it ethical to sleep with a married person?" I don't think feminism has anything to do with the answer, frankly.
If alternet wants a feminist viewpoint, then get a real feminist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mandy is not a feminist because
Posted by: RobinC
» This is Mandy Bursting Your Bubble
Posted by: mandyvandeven
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Oct 30, 2009 9:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RobinC on Oct 27, 2009 5:24 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The darker side of our taking on the responsibility for their morality is that in our long history of oppression we were not so naïve and powerless as to take it lying down and some of our social and moral conventions were created by us to give us power over men. This attempt at controlling their sexuality has resulted in what I deem to be a weak construct in the emotional structure of many women just as it has resulted in the weak construct of a juvenile conscience in the psyches of men. When any group of people desires to control any of the basic functions of another group of people the result is always a dwarfing in development of both groups. In our case we actually believe we want and need men to be monogamous with us, therefore our bids for control become more and more hysterical (coming from the uterus) the more liberated we, and as a result they, become. As a culture I see more desperate attempts at holding men to monogamy today than I did in the Sixties which seems to me to be a bit of a backward slide.
If we free men to be responsible for their own sexualities as we have asked them to free us to be responsible for our own, we might discover that we really don’t have a strong desire to control them, act as their conscience or separate them from these other women we claim to love and honor. I don't think feminism is about allowing other women to control us or having a desire to control them, even if it does seem honorable, perhaps it's not.
The author of this article wished to spend time with a man. Why should I, or you, get in her way with all this clumsiness about who comes first in our loyalty list, ourselves, other women or men? Occam’s razor folks, the simplest solution is to allow women to be free, free to sleep with whomever they please, if as a result that means we free men too? Wouldn't that be ok?
We really don't have to be afraid they will run amok amok amok if we stop leashing them. Not because they won't necessarily, but because it's not our job.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hmmmm
Posted by: bouyant
» yep, been there
Posted by: aislinnluv
» Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: RobinC
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: RobinC
» RE: Men, Women....and children?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Hmmmm... jeebus, this is more intriguing than the article!
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: djnoll on Oct 27, 2009 5:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time in a marriage-based society that we held ourselves within marriage to the standard of fidelity, and only ourselves. What others do is not our business, and never should have been.
Infidelity in fictional works or in movies or television are great entertainment for some, but the fact is that in real life, it is between the married partners if one is unfaithful, not the whole world, or even the third party who is involved in infidelity. Infidelity is often the sign of other problems within a marriage, and if we acted as adults, instead of voyeurs, we would butt out of other people's marriages and let them deal with their problems in private.
Most other women (or men, for that matter) usually at some level understand that the cheating spouse will return to the marriage, and if they are willing to accept that, then the pain is no less, but it is not unexpected. Many times this partner is the one who helps the cheating spouse realize what is really missing in a marriage and then helps them to understand what is needed to improve the marriage. It is when the cheating spouse lies and promises things which they have no intention of delivering just to get laid, and the other party is naive enough to buy it, that pain can occur for the partner.
As for the married spouse who is cheated on (and I have been one)the loss of trust is more devastating than the fact that my husband cheated. I did not condone it, but in the end I realized that I was in part responsible for his actions. Our marriage was in trouble, and I knew it, but I was afraid to confront the matter head on and deal with it. As a result he sought someone who would listen to him moan and groan about how horrible I was and what a failure as a wife I was. In the end, I divorced him, but I later met the other woman. She dumped him shortly after our divorce, and when we met, we talked about what it had been like for both of us with this man. What I learned was that the things that made our marriage not work were exactly the same ones that did not in the end make their relationship work either.
So do not be too quick to condemn the other woman (or man). They are a symptom of a bad marriage, and if you believe the cheating spouse then you have only yourself to blame when you get hurt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I always find articles and books like this interesting...
Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: I always find articles and books like this interesting...
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth on Oct 27, 2009 6:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am NOT talking about men and women who are and plan on always being single and free to date other singles.
~Beth~
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdmsr on Oct 27, 2009 9:33 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the psycho-social jargon aside, you either buy into the legitimacy of partnering, in which case you are a violator, or you don't, which renders the subject moot, at least for you. In either case, you can walk away from any damage you have done or abetted.
Good luck with all that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Oct 28, 2009 12:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because women aren't responsible for their actions so of course it's about masochism and misogyny. Couldn't misandry enter into feminist dialogue? Maybe if you weren't so interested in fucking the captain of the football team you might realize that he is an asshole and you decided to sleep with him. That makes you an idiot as much as it make him a misogynist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 28, 2009 2:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If feminism is a good thing, then what's good for feminism shouldn't be any different from what's good for everybody, including both the wife and the husband in this scenario. And the point where it is different is the point where feminism tends to diverge from women's legitimate claims to equal rights.
The question ought not to be whether sleeping with a married man is sexist, but whether sleeping with a married man is right. Then the answer seems pretty clear.
I think that may be what the article is getting at, intentionally or otherwise.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Not so sure
Posted by: themotie
» Right and wrong are beyond her
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Sleeping... both-and, not either-or
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Louisa on Oct 28, 2009 2:37 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If, big if, sexual fidelity is a foundational principle in a marriage relationship; then...
If person A sleeps with person B who has a spouse in person C, but person A doesn't have a preexisting relationship to C; then the only person betraying anyone is person B who is betraying person C. If C was never friends with A then that lack of a relationship continues - C owes nothing to A and A owes nothing to C. If person A does have an existing relationship to person C then A is also betraying C and they may have to renegotiate any continuing relationship as they see fit. More importantly, C will have to decide whether it is worth it to forgive B. Forgiving B, who has sworn to love C under certain conditions and then betrayed that trust, is not going to be an easy thing for C to do. On what basis can C rebuild trust when B has already proven untrustworthy? Many factors will weigh heavily in that decision.
Everything else is navel gazing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eality Check
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: eality Check
Posted by: DaBear
» Morality check
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: eality Check you left out the final variable expression
Posted by: DaBear
» So, if your wife doesn't put out, you can take it on the road?
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: So, if your wife doesn't put out, you can take it on the road?
Posted by: RobinC
» RE: So, if your wife doesn't put out, you can take it on the road?
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: speedboy49 on Oct 28, 2009 3:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew I was being cuckholded, but if I bailed out, the pain would only have only been worse---loss of the kids, loss of property, and onerous child support payments for kids now taken from me. Anyone who has been a cheating victim does not need an explanation of why it happened. We need someone to write about the injustices left in the wake of infidelity, with hopes that it might lead meaningful reforms. But, of course, a book like that would never sell!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cuckholded
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Cuckholded
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smartcookie on Oct 28, 2009 3:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human beings, being the imperfect beings they are, needed some kind of boundaries to keep other peoples emotions (jealousy, etc) at bay. Especially when raising children it doesn't pay to have many men and women coming and going because a) Most men and women aren't that mature. b) It creates divided loyalties among the family and those with whom they are getting emotionall and sexually attached to.
Now in the "ideal world" everyone would have an "open marriage" but lets be frank, it's not the ideal world, peoples alliances and emotions shift and they spend disproportinate amount of time with those they favor over those they do not. They have other motivations like sadism, greed, malice and their own ignorance.
The real issue is that human beings biology evolved in small knit group tribes and clans, and our biology is not used to having so many people who set off our sexual and emotional instincts, since the population of available parnters has become so large and technology of cars, communications and the internet has enabled "trade up" partner phenomenon.
Don't like your partner? too lazy and immature to work it out? Trade it in, dump it, or trade it up!
We increasingly live in a society of disposable people and relationships, and a significant chunk of it has to do with financial insecurity, lack of time to spend with one another and stress.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cheating is just uncontrolled Biology
Posted by: jfkeeler
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Oct 28, 2009 7:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» All's fair in love and war?
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: All's fair in love and war? sheesh, judge much?
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robba29 on Oct 28, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What?
Posted by: Mich
» RE: What? It's often a bit more than merely "acting out"
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: QQOblivion on Oct 28, 2009 7:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a man who would NEVER knowingly sleep with a married woman or with a woman who is in any kind of preexisting committed relationship.
Hey, there are plenty of SINGLE people out there to bang. Use a little common sense and ethical judgement, would you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's Biological
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» It's Economical
Posted by: eddie torres
» My condolences to the women in your life
Posted by: maddy
» RE: It's Biological
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cwjanack on Oct 28, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: humans are not monogamous....
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: humans are not monogamous....
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: humans are not monogamous....
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: logansafi on Oct 28, 2009 8:37 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MTguy on Oct 28, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That sure calls for a little affirmation and congratulations, doesn't it?
It's hard for me to invest much thought into an author who left her credibility and integrity on the bedroom floor.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pawprints on Oct 28, 2009 10:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a good one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Quit with the euphemisms, you academics
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maddy on Oct 28, 2009 10:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me feminism is about equity and equanimity. Simply put, rigid gender roles harm men, women, and children. Women should be able to own property, marshal their talents beyond being domestic servants, and should have legal protections for such things. And I would say, all of those freedoms apply equally to men.
I do not, however, understand why any academic would conclude that to be a feminist one must feel some sort of emotional bond or obligation with any woman just because she is also a woman. That strikes me as, frankly, idiotic. It implies that feminism is "opposed" to all men, which is should not be. It also doesn't acknowledge that loyalty and solidarity are built through more complex and intimate interactions, and, hence are never assumed at the outset based on surface characteristics. I mean, give me a break--I have to be "in line" with 3 million women on the planet? Please.
Further, why complicate the most tawdry commonplace b.s. with some sort of would-be concern over political clout? To put it more simply, what in the blazes does an extramarital affair have to do with one's feminist credentials? We're talking about issues of empathy, compassion, decency--*those* are the issues involved in marital infidelity, and they don't in any way only victimize woman/villainize men.
Next, I also do not understand some feminists who refuse to acknowledge biological reality--that we are instinctively competitive in the pursuit of mates. That doesn't mean that we cannot build more equitable families, relationships, and institutions, but it does mean that, yes, you will on occasion feel threatened by women who are after the same dudes you are. Big friggin' whoop.
Seriously, I'm trying to see the author's point of view here, but this seems like narcissistic drivel with delusions of scholarly relevance. And, ugh, such writing is among the reasons I'm happy to have left academia.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I have to admit...
Posted by: jfkeeler
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Oct 28, 2009 11:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought how the hell can his poor wife put up with such an appalling noise?
It was at Lasham Gliding Club in the 70's.
I didn't have sex with him, and I wasn't in the same bed. I'm not that kind of guy.
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MT512 on Oct 28, 2009 12:09 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine how you would be hurt if you discovered your committed partner was cheating, and imagine how hurt s/he would be if you cheated. How difficult is that? Maybe I'm stupid for thinking that the Golden Rule is easy to understand, or for assuming that people's caring for others (especially for ones they "love") would outweigh their own short-sighted selfishness.
So I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who cheats on a committed relationship and then gets their greedy little fingers burned. Boo-hoo. I want you to cry me a river. I want you to wallow in your feelings of worthlessness, for you deserve them richly. I only feel sympathy for the cheated, the victim(s). What amazes me is that so many people cheat constantly no matter how many times they get caught and regret it when they find they've thrown away something truly valuable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Zero sympathy
Posted by: tony_opmoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 28, 2009 12:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 28, 2009 1:59 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: IT DOESN'T SQUARE WITH ANYTHING
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: IT DOESN'T SQUARE WITH ANYTHING
Posted by: MT512
» RE: IT DOESN'T SQUARE WITH ANYTHING
Posted by: tony_opmoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Oct 28, 2009 3:11 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mind body problems
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Red State Gal on Oct 28, 2009 6:09 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is apparently one academic that has lost her basic human decency.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: planet doomed on Oct 29, 2009 4:37 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexism, racism, etc, means that there are systematic power imbalances. Being a racist/sexist means to hold an opinion exclusive to the dominant group, or to enact behavior which is exclusive to the dominant group.
So it isn't possible for a member of an oppressed group to be sexist or racist, though they could be biased.
Using the word incorrectly only minimizes the power imbalance, which is a very bad thing for a feminist to do. Which is why Mandy fails feminism 101. And as another comment highlighted, a more appropriate question would be "Is it ethical to sleep with a married person?" I don't think feminism has anything to do with the answer, frankly.
If alternet wants a feminist viewpoint, then get a real feminist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mandy is not a feminist because
Posted by: RobinC
» This is Mandy Bursting Your Bubble
Posted by: mandyvandeven
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Oct 30, 2009 9:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
'Reality' Show Lets You Decide If Women Get Abortions?
Sex Addiction: A B.S. Excuse for Not Thinking
Why Do People Want to Have Sex with the 9-Foot Tall Natives in 'Avatar'?





