Infidelity if necessary but not necessarily infidelity
Cats: Ilona's Take, marriage etc.|Monogamy and infidelity. Just like the old song says about love and marriage, “you can’t have one without the other”. Well, you can’t have infidelity without the assumption of monogamy, at any rate. Can you have monogamy without infidelity?
Stats on the rates of infidelity vary widely. (Because people lie about this, don’t they?) Men stray more than women; well-educated, financially independent women stray more than their poorer sisters. Can you have faithful monogamy? The short answer is yes, you can. But can you reasonably expect it?
I have a friend who has decided, not without a smidge of regret, that, no, you can’t. Not for men, at any rate. In her marriage, they deal with this by bringing an “other” into their (lively and satisfying) bedroom virtually, through role-play. Will they one day bring in a real, live third party? It’s a possibility, maybe, perhaps, one day they could.
I’ve been cheated on. Though we went into the marriage pledging life-long monogamy, infidelity, I discovered, was not a deal-breaker for me. However, if one of us could get some outside goodies… I suggested an open relationship. Sauce for the goose, and all that. That did not fly. (Double standard, anyone? One of the many reasons we’re no longer married.)
So I did a little cheating of my own. Obviously.
That’s why most women step out, apparently. Retaliation, anger, revenge, dissatisfaction. Loneliness is in there, too. And men? I think my friend might be right: they’re just wired that way. Sexual opportunists. Even when they’re not actively seeking opportunity, when it knocks they’re unlikely to shut the door on it.
I know a woman who was in a non-mongamous relationship for a couple of years. They didn’t slide into it unawares, in some state of (deliberate, semi-deliberate) denial. They talked about it for a couple of months first, they set out some ground rules, and when they entered into it, it was always with the understanding that this was an “experiment”. The agreement also included a sunset clause: when one wanted to stop, they would both stop.
That sort of thing takes a lot of confidence in the home relationship, in each other, in your own sexuality. It’s also hugely risky. In this case, after a couple of years, they called it off and returned to monogamy. Several years later, they are still together, still monogamous, and, to all appearances, happy.
Infidelity destroys marriages. But why?
It isn’t inevitable. If infidelity is an automatic deal-breaker, then yes, the marriage will end. If both parties knew that going in, then the party who stepped out is a fool — or wants the marriage to end.
But why would you set yourselves up for that? Why make it a deal-breaker?
I have come to the conclusion that monogamy is not essential. In fact, I’m rapidly reaching the point where I think it’s a little bizarre that we, societally, adhere to it as a standard expectation.
Me, I think that monogamy as a laudable goal. It’s certainly the safest course, for all manner of reasons, physically, emotionally, relationally. Still, what if we could hold to that idea, while recognizing that occasional infidelity happens? You could see it as part of normal relationships, or perhaps a regrettable example of human frailty, but not a moral evil so repugnant that the marital relationship must cease, forthwith. If we could make this mental shift fewer relationships would founder on the rocks of a fling.
I know that won’t work. People are not so clear-thinking when sex and emotions are involved. People are inconsistent and unpredictable. Objectivity and fair-mindedness are hard to achieve and maintain.
So. Monogamy as the expectation, with infidelity kept firmly illicit and a tightly-guarded secret, is probably the only viable way to go.
But some days, I think that’s a shame.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think it’s the betrayal that cuts most deeply, and many people (men and women) can’t get past that. The sexual aspect is, in many ways, a front to direct the anger and jealousy, but at the end of the day, I think most of the aftermath of infidelity has to do with breaking trust.
It’s a bit of a catch-22 because to tell your partner that you’re attracted to other people or are craving some kind of connection outside the relationship requires such a deep level of trust, and most people who stray, I think, do so because that level of communication isn’t open to them–either because they don’t think their partner will be receptive or they themselves can’t be honest enough to express their needs.
Even in an open relationship, honesty and trust are key to keeping the primary relationship healthy, so I tend to see infidelity (the non-mutual kind) as a symptom rather than a cause. I don’t see that most people are opportunists, though. Some are, certainly, but there are usually a lot of steps to get to the point where opportunity presents itself, so I don’t buy that as an excuse.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
This post has been making me think, and if I included everything it’s making me think about, my comment would be much too long. But here’s one thing:
“If infidelity is an automatic deal-breaker, then yes, the marriage will end. If both parties knew that going in, then the party who stepped out is a fool — or wants the marriage to end.
But why would you set yourselves up for that? Why make it a deal-breaker?”
In the case of my first marriage, it was stated very early on in the relationship by my (then) boyfriend that as far as he was concerned, it WOULD indeed be a deal-breaker for him. Hence, the irony when after 15 years of marriage, HE was the one who “broke” it.
My understanding of our terms was that if he was straying, it was because he wanted out. The complication was that he wasn’t so clear on that, and it was a very painful couple of years of unraveling from that point on.
The thing is, I still do believe the infidelity was a response to other issues we had (but clearly weren’t dealing with), and in itself I don’t think it WAS a deal-breaker. It just stirred up too many other things we couldn’t - or perhaps by then didn’t want to - resolve in ways that would keep the marriage together.
He’s now married to the woman he strayed with, and if I were her I’d never be sure he wouldn’t do it again. And having been there once, I do believe it WOULD be a deal-breaker in my second marriage. (And my husband is well aware of that.)
But I don’t think people who haven’t been there, one way or another, realize just how much this isn’t a black-and-white question, and that’s why I keep thinking about what you’ve said here.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Kat: …infidelity (of the non-mutual kind) as a symptom rather than a cause
Exactly. (Now, why didn’t I put that in the post, because those are precisely the terms I’ve always used?)
Though I would say that “mutual infidelity” is not infidelity, because there is not the breaking of the promises. When it’s mutually agreed upon, I term it “non-monogamy”.
I completely agree that it’s the betrayal that’s the root issue in the other person’s response. Which only supports my argument that perhaps what we need to do is acknowledge up front it can happen. You can decide how you deal with it should it happen — do you want to know? can you agree on parameters on the outside activities (as the couple I know who experimented with non-monogamy did)?
And you’re quite right: the initial conversation itself could be almost a deal-breaker, and undermine trust to a dangerous degree.
I don’t agree that opportunism requires many preliminary steps, however. I heard a tale (through a mutual friend who knew her) of a woman who sat beside an attractive fellow on a four-hour train trip and ended up having sex with him before she went home. (A female opportunist! They do exist!) There was no planning, no set-up, no follow-up, either. This can happen — the only prerequisite being you having a mind to let it.
I’m not claiming this issue is simple, and I’ve certainly not thought it out to a point that fully satisfies me, but the issue does roll around in my brain from time to time!
Florinda: You describe your ex-h’s affair and the subsequent fall-out so well. So much I can relate to is contained in those few lines.
You’re right: it’s not simple, it’s not black-and-white.
I do think that the male approach to this is, generally, less weighted than the female. If women responded to opportunity the way men did, we would (perhaps) be less threatened/hurt/betrayed by outside activity when he did it — because we’d understand the pull of it, and understand what it isn’t.
‘Course, there is the stepping out that’s simple opportunism, a fleeting attraction followed by a pleasurable event, and then there’s the stepping out that’s the symtom of a root issue in the relationship.
If you don’t deal with the root issues, then the relationship will almost certainly founder.
The irony here, I think, is that arranging total fidelity, and arranging mutually-satisfactory non-monogamy BOTH require commitment to the home relationship, communication, trust, and integrity.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am
A few thoughts.
I’ve been on my own, by my choice, for a long time. I’ve had my emotional and physical needs go unmet for a long time. I have a close friend who is married in a near loveless marriage. Almost none of her needs are met. She is frustrated emotionally and sexually. She is strongly attracted to me. We’ve talked about it. If I wanted to, I don’t think I would have to work hard to seduce her. I have not and I will not despite feeling the desire to do so. I am also a man.
I think infidelity is like managing a temper. People tell themselves that they “can’t” control it when they can, so they don’t try.
Maybe because they have a belief that they [b]need[/b] what they want….as in dieing if they don’t get it. Maybe that inner child can’t accept that there are some things that they want that they can’t have. Who knows.