Anonymous
Post 03/25/2014 08:44     Subject: Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think it could. If my husband cheated on me even once a year and I never knew about it, no harm done. Ideally it would be someone he had an agreement with. If it's not affecting our home life and I had no idea it's happening, it's not hurting me.


Me: absolutely not. I'd want to be free to find someone else. BTW, it IS affecting home life because he's spending time away from the kids, leaving that burden to you. He's also spending $$$ on the other women, depriving the house of vital $$ when you both should be saving for college and retirement. That's a direct impact of both time and money.

He's also lying and liars are much less likely to use protection to prevent pregnancy (thus having to pay for abortion or child support = $$$) and risking your health due to STDs like AIDS and herpes. Being flip with a partner's health is NEVER O.K. It's abusive.


If he was simply out having sex with someone, it is possible he could do it without it affecting our home life. He goes to the gym after work. One day he could have sex with someone else and I would never be the wiser. I am the one with the money, so he would not be depriving the house of anything. I am very lucky and we will not have to worry about college or retirement for our kids. It's already taken care of. If he is just having sex with someone else once or twice a year and I don't know about it, no harm done. If he is having a full blown affair, that is a whole other story. If I found out that he was having a relationship with someone else, we would have to take a good hard look at our marriage and I don't think I would be able to continue to be married to him. However, if it's just sex every so often, that is not enough for me to just end my marriage.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 13:36     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For anyone who views marital vows as being sacrosanct, what is it that you don't understand about staying married the rest of the couple's lives? What makes that part negotiable and flexible?


Then negotiate like adults, i.e., honestly. Cheating involves lying. Open, monogamish marriages involve negotiation before opening up a marriage so that the other partner is fully informed. Have you heard of informed consent? That's acting like a grownup. Cheating, lying, sneaking around -- that's dishonest and childish.


Ha - so much for spontaneity, mutual chemistry and just letting passion take over. No none of that stuff with "monogamish" relationships - you must get your spouse's approval (preferably in triplicate) first. Bleh.

Why bother getting married if you don't want to be exclusive? Staying single is sooooo much less complicated and much more fun....if variety is what you crave.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 13:22     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:



Someone I know well married in her twenties and in her thirties her husband had what he calls an "awakening" and joined a Christian cult - but she did not follow him in joining this group. The cult he belongs to does not permit divorce and permits only minimal interaction with anyone who is not part of the cult. So they live in the same house, interact to a minimal level, have not had sex in over a decade since he joined the cult and they essentially just share a house.

He has cut himself off from his parents, siblings and just about everyone else.

She will not seek a divorce because she believes in her marriage vows and that her marriage was for the rest of their lives. She said that she married him for "better or for worse" and this just happens to be the "worse" part. I feel sorry for her at one level but I also admire her because unlike most people she actually believes in her marriage vows.

Her husband, who I knew well before his conversion, is a fine, decent man who loves his wife and family but he just happens to have taken a path that has made her life a living hell. I view what has happened to her as emotional abuse and she would likely agree but she does not see that as grounds for disavowing her marriage vows. Needless to say, she will not even consider having sex with anyone other than her husband.

So PP, I would submit you are the one indulging in rationalizations.


What rationalization do you think I am "indulging" in? And what does cheating have to do with your friend's situation? Her DH joined a cult, and frankly, I wouldn't leave either in that situation.


You are rationalizing that "for worse" does not include infidelity of any kind, so that it justifies you breaking your vow. You are rationalizing that the two things you can't tolerate, abuse and infidelity, are the only things not covered by "for worse." Oddly, "for worse" does apparently include JOINING A CULT and icing you out of everyday life even though you live in the same house, like the couple described above. The point is that you are deciding what you can and can't live with and are not as governed by your vows as you would like to believe. Interestingly, traditional marriage vows don't explicitly include monogamy. But they do explicitly say til death do us part.


Marriage is a contract. And you misunderstand who is at fault when someone is abusive. Not the victim who decides quite rightfully that his or her abuser broke the contract. The abuser is the one who broke the contract. If your husband cheats, you may choose to file for divorce. That doesn't make the end of the marriage your fault. That's not rationalization.




I am all for people leaving someone abusive, or leaving for any reason they feel they need to leave. I would not leave my dh for cheating, but there are a lot of things that I would leave him for that you may not think rise to the level. I would definitely leave if he joined a cult that required him to interact minimally with me. That is an easy one. However, if you choose to be a stickler for the vows, it is a rationalization to say that cheating is breaking the marriage vow and leaving for cheating is not. The "for worse" is obviously meant to include even when the other person is really messing up. Ultimately, the vows are aspirational, and on a good day, everyone is doing what they can to balance the vows against what they are willing to live with.


Vows aren't aspirational. Jesus. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? you don't get to balance them against what you "are willing" to live with. You do that BEFORE taking the vows.

Cheating is abuse of your partner. Period. Abuse is breaking the marital contract. At that point, the marriage is already broken. If the abused partner chooses to stay, good luck to them. But if they choose to leave, they are not the ones who broke the contract. Once the vows are broken, filing a document that puts that in writing is hardly breaking the vows.


Of course vows are aspirational. Which is why you sometimes don't respect your spouse, and you sometimes forget to cherish your spouse. Which is why if your spouse became terribly drug addicted or mentally unstable, you might eventually leave despite your vow to stay through sickness and health. Or if he decided to take a vow of poverty because if his new-found religious beliefs, you might decide at some point, that you could not handle living off the kindness of strangers, or in the church basement. You hope to honor all of those vows, but because you are imperfect you fall short.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 13:15     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Cheating is a betrayal of trust; it is not abuse.

Now does a betrayal of trust constitute a reason break the marriage vows and seek a dissolution of marriage? If so, what other forms of betrayal of trust would also merit ending a marriage?
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 13:08     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:



Someone I know well married in her twenties and in her thirties her husband had what he calls an "awakening" and joined a Christian cult - but she did not follow him in joining this group. The cult he belongs to does not permit divorce and permits only minimal interaction with anyone who is not part of the cult. So they live in the same house, interact to a minimal level, have not had sex in over a decade since he joined the cult and they essentially just share a house.

He has cut himself off from his parents, siblings and just about everyone else.

She will not seek a divorce because she believes in her marriage vows and that her marriage was for the rest of their lives. She said that she married him for "better or for worse" and this just happens to be the "worse" part. I feel sorry for her at one level but I also admire her because unlike most people she actually believes in her marriage vows.

Her husband, who I knew well before his conversion, is a fine, decent man who loves his wife and family but he just happens to have taken a path that has made her life a living hell. I view what has happened to her as emotional abuse and she would likely agree but she does not see that as grounds for disavowing her marriage vows. Needless to say, she will not even consider having sex with anyone other than her husband.

So PP, I would submit you are the one indulging in rationalizations.


What rationalization do you think I am "indulging" in? And what does cheating have to do with your friend's situation? Her DH joined a cult, and frankly, I wouldn't leave either in that situation.


You are rationalizing that "for worse" does not include infidelity of any kind, so that it justifies you breaking your vow. You are rationalizing that the two things you can't tolerate, abuse and infidelity, are the only things not covered by "for worse." Oddly, "for worse" does apparently include JOINING A CULT and icing you out of everyday life even though you live in the same house, like the couple described above. The point is that you are deciding what you can and can't live with and are not as governed by your vows as you would like to believe. Interestingly, traditional marriage vows don't explicitly include monogamy. But they do explicitly say til death do us part.


Marriage is a contract. And you misunderstand who is at fault when someone is abusive. Not the victim who decides quite rightfully that his or her abuser broke the contract. The abuser is the one who broke the contract. If your husband cheats, you may choose to file for divorce. That doesn't make the end of the marriage your fault. That's not rationalization.




I am all for people leaving someone abusive, or leaving for any reason they feel they need to leave. I would not leave my dh for cheating, but there are a lot of things that I would leave him for that you may not think rise to the level. I would definitely leave if he joined a cult that required him to interact minimally with me. That is an easy one. However, if you choose to be a stickler for the vows, it is a rationalization to say that cheating is breaking the marriage vow and leaving for cheating is not. The "for worse" is obviously meant to include even when the other person is really messing up. Ultimately, the vows are aspirational, and on a good day, everyone is doing what they can to balance the vows against what they are willing to live with.


Vows aren't aspirational. Jesus. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? you don't get to balance them against what you "are willing" to live with. You do that BEFORE taking the vows.

Cheating is abuse of your partner. Period. Abuse is breaking the marital contract. At that point, the marriage is already broken. If the abused partner chooses to stay, good luck to them. But if they choose to leave, they are not the ones who broke the contract. Once the vows are broken, filing a document that puts that in writing is hardly breaking the vows.


I hope you realize how absurd, pedantic and contradictory your line of argument is because essentially you are choosing to define what the marriage vows really mean and should mean.

What, pray tell, is your authoritative source for stating that cheating constitutes abuse and abuse is breaking the marital contract? Even assuming that abuse are grounds for breaking the marital contract, what else would constitute abuse besides cheating?

It is your opinion of those terms and actions and all power to you for feeling the way you do but you step over the mark when you deem that your viewpoint is the only one that makes sense and represents the norm.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 11:45     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:



Someone I know well married in her twenties and in her thirties her husband had what he calls an "awakening" and joined a Christian cult - but she did not follow him in joining this group. The cult he belongs to does not permit divorce and permits only minimal interaction with anyone who is not part of the cult. So they live in the same house, interact to a minimal level, have not had sex in over a decade since he joined the cult and they essentially just share a house.

He has cut himself off from his parents, siblings and just about everyone else.

She will not seek a divorce because she believes in her marriage vows and that her marriage was for the rest of their lives. She said that she married him for "better or for worse" and this just happens to be the "worse" part. I feel sorry for her at one level but I also admire her because unlike most people she actually believes in her marriage vows.

Her husband, who I knew well before his conversion, is a fine, decent man who loves his wife and family but he just happens to have taken a path that has made her life a living hell. I view what has happened to her as emotional abuse and she would likely agree but she does not see that as grounds for disavowing her marriage vows. Needless to say, she will not even consider having sex with anyone other than her husband.

So PP, I would submit you are the one indulging in rationalizations.


What rationalization do you think I am "indulging" in? And what does cheating have to do with your friend's situation? Her DH joined a cult, and frankly, I wouldn't leave either in that situation.


You are rationalizing that "for worse" does not include infidelity of any kind, so that it justifies you breaking your vow. You are rationalizing that the two things you can't tolerate, abuse and infidelity, are the only things not covered by "for worse." Oddly, "for worse" does apparently include JOINING A CULT and icing you out of everyday life even though you live in the same house, like the couple described above. The point is that you are deciding what you can and can't live with and are not as governed by your vows as you would like to believe. Interestingly, traditional marriage vows don't explicitly include monogamy. But they do explicitly say til death do us part.


Marriage is a contract. And you misunderstand who is at fault when someone is abusive. Not the victim who decides quite rightfully that his or her abuser broke the contract. The abuser is the one who broke the contract. If your husband cheats, you may choose to file for divorce. That doesn't make the end of the marriage your fault. That's not rationalization.




I am all for people leaving someone abusive, or leaving for any reason they feel they need to leave. I would not leave my dh for cheating, but there are a lot of things that I would leave him for that you may not think rise to the level. I would definitely leave if he joined a cult that required him to interact minimally with me. That is an easy one. However, if you choose to be a stickler for the vows, it is a rationalization to say that cheating is breaking the marriage vow and leaving for cheating is not. The "for worse" is obviously meant to include even when the other person is really messing up. Ultimately, the vows are aspirational, and on a good day, everyone is doing what they can to balance the vows against what they are willing to live with.


Vows aren't aspirational. Jesus. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? you don't get to balance them against what you "are willing" to live with. You do that BEFORE taking the vows.

Cheating is abuse of your partner. Period. Abuse is breaking the marital contract. At that point, the marriage is already broken. If the abused partner chooses to stay, good luck to them. But if they choose to leave, they are not the ones who broke the contract. Once the vows are broken, filing a document that puts that in writing is hardly breaking the vows.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 11:29     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?




Someone I know well married in her twenties and in her thirties her husband had what he calls an "awakening" and joined a Christian cult - but she did not follow him in joining this group. The cult he belongs to does not permit divorce and permits only minimal interaction with anyone who is not part of the cult. So they live in the same house, interact to a minimal level, have not had sex in over a decade since he joined the cult and they essentially just share a house.

He has cut himself off from his parents, siblings and just about everyone else.

She will not seek a divorce because she believes in her marriage vows and that her marriage was for the rest of their lives. She said that she married him for "better or for worse" and this just happens to be the "worse" part. I feel sorry for her at one level but I also admire her because unlike most people she actually believes in her marriage vows.

Her husband, who I knew well before his conversion, is a fine, decent man who loves his wife and family but he just happens to have taken a path that has made her life a living hell. I view what has happened to her as emotional abuse and she would likely agree but she does not see that as grounds for disavowing her marriage vows. Needless to say, she will not even consider having sex with anyone other than her husband.

So PP, I would submit you are the one indulging in rationalizations.


What rationalization do you think I am "indulging" in? And what does cheating have to do with your friend's situation? Her DH joined a cult, and frankly, I wouldn't leave either in that situation.


You are rationalizing that "for worse" does not include infidelity of any kind, so that it justifies you breaking your vow. You are rationalizing that the two things you can't tolerate, abuse and infidelity, are the only things not covered by "for worse." Oddly, "for worse" does apparently include JOINING A CULT and icing you out of everyday life even though you live in the same house, like the couple described above. The point is that you are deciding what you can and can't live with and are not as governed by your vows as you would like to believe. Interestingly, traditional marriage vows don't explicitly include monogamy. But they do explicitly say til death do us part.


Marriage is a contract. And you misunderstand who is at fault when someone is abusive. Not the victim who decides quite rightfully that his or her abuser broke the contract. The abuser is the one who broke the contract. If your husband cheats, you may choose to file for divorce. That doesn't make the end of the marriage your fault. That's not rationalization.




I am all for people leaving someone abusive, or leaving for any reason they feel they need to leave. I would not leave my dh for cheating, but there are a lot of things that I would leave him for that you may not think rise to the level. I would definitely leave if he joined a cult that required him to interact minimally with me. That is an easy one. However, if you choose to be a stickler for the vows, it is a rationalization to say that cheating is breaking the marriage vow and leaving for cheating is not. The "for worse" is obviously meant to include even when the other person is really messing up. Ultimately, the vows are aspirational, and on a good day, everyone is doing what they can to balance the vows against what they are willing to live with.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 08:09     Subject: Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:Each situation is unique, and unless there are saints on DCUM I would not judge. As someone over 50, I have seen many marriages fall apart for other reasons besides infidelity, and I have seen many basically good marriages stay together despite it being known. And I have seen marriages fall apart that probably should have stayed together for the sake of family/children needs -- and may have stayed together had a spouse with either unmet emotional or physical needs had brief respites. By loose analogy, when adults are caregivers to ill parents or have children with extraordinary needs, we all accept the concept of taking a break -- respite care so to speak -- allowing another adult to care for the parent, the child, etc. We don't permit that of ourselves. Over a long marriage of many ups and downs, statistics show that some infidelity at some point is probably more common than not, and I would guess it is probably disclosed less often than it is disclosed. Are we all so knowledgeable, morally superior, etc. that we can make the sweeping pronouncements of some of the posters in this thread? My one advice for OP is this -- next time you post something provocative like this -- if it is a serious question -- offer more details. As OP posed the question it does sound a bit flip, and in that sense it is not surprising to draw criticism. But if this thread were to have more value, it would be also valuable for posters to post their age, as I believe views may vary for both many men and women on this issue over time.


I'm 47 and DH is 51. We talk to each other about our feelings about commitment and honesty. We've been together nearly a quarter century now and we've seen lots of other couples break up. Yes, there are a variety of serious reasons, but tops on everybody's list is infidelity and lying.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 08:07     Subject: Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:I think it could. If my husband cheated on me even once a year and I never knew about it, no harm done. Ideally it would be someone he had an agreement with. If it's not affecting our home life and I had no idea it's happening, it's not hurting me.


Me: absolutely not. I'd want to be free to find someone else. BTW, it IS affecting home life because he's spending time away from the kids, leaving that burden to you. He's also spending $$$ on the other women, depriving the house of vital $$ when you both should be saving for college and retirement. That's a direct impact of both time and money.

He's also lying and liars are much less likely to use protection to prevent pregnancy (thus having to pay for abortion or child support = $$$) and risking your health due to STDs like AIDS and herpes. Being flip with a partner's health is NEVER O.K. It's abusive.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 08:04     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:For anyone who views marital vows as being sacrosanct, what is it that you don't understand about staying married the rest of the couple's lives? What makes that part negotiable and flexible?


Then negotiate like adults, i.e., honestly. Cheating involves lying. Open, monogamish marriages involve negotiation before opening up a marriage so that the other partner is fully informed. Have you heard of informed consent? That's acting like a grownup. Cheating, lying, sneaking around -- that's dishonest and childish.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 07:55     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For those who say that having an affair is breaking one's marriage vows, isn't the very act of getting a divorce also breaking the vows?

A couple marries for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer ....... as long as they shall live. So what justification is there for getting divorce assuming that one's marriage vows are sacrosanct?


You win.



Classic straw man. So no, you still lose.

Ending a marriage is very sad, especially when there are kids involved. And I absolutely do not advocate ending a marriage for anything other than abuse or infidelity (which is in fact emotionally abusive). I would never leave my DH if he were ill or lost all his money, etc. But your comparison is farcical, so no logical person has bothered to weigh in to point that outuntil now.

Look, people divorce. But you can end a marriage honorably and respectfully. Cheating is dishonorable and disrespectful. And the people who need a straw man to bolster their rationalizations are just pathetic.



Someone I know well married in her twenties and in her thirties her husband had what he calls an "awakening" and joined a Christian cult - but she did not follow him in joining this group. The cult he belongs to does not permit divorce and permits only minimal interaction with anyone who is not part of the cult. So they live in the same house, interact to a minimal level, have not had sex in over a decade since he joined the cult and they essentially just share a house.

He has cut himself off from his parents, siblings and just about everyone else.

She will not seek a divorce because she believes in her marriage vows and that her marriage was for the rest of their lives. She said that she married him for "better or for worse" and this just happens to be the "worse" part. I feel sorry for her at one level but I also admire her because unlike most people she actually believes in her marriage vows.

Her husband, who I knew well before his conversion, is a fine, decent man who loves his wife and family but he just happens to have taken a path that has made her life a living hell. I view what has happened to her as emotional abuse and she would likely agree but she does not see that as grounds for disavowing her marriage vows. Needless to say, she will not even consider having sex with anyone other than her husband.

So PP, I would submit you are the one indulging in rationalizations.


What rationalization do you think I am "indulging" in? And what does cheating have to do with your friend's situation? Her DH joined a cult, and frankly, I wouldn't leave either in that situation.


You are rationalizing that "for worse" does not include infidelity of any kind, so that it justifies you breaking your vow. You are rationalizing that the two things you can't tolerate, abuse and infidelity, are the only things not covered by "for worse." Oddly, "for worse" does apparently include JOINING A CULT and icing you out of everyday life even though you live in the same house, like the couple described above. The point is that you are deciding what you can and can't live with and are not as governed by your vows as you would like to believe. Interestingly, traditional marriage vows don't explicitly include monogamy. But they do explicitly say til death do us part.


Actually, traditional vows include some form of "forsaking all others". Forsaking means to give up or pass by.
Anonymous
Post 03/24/2014 07:49     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For those who say that having an affair is breaking one's marriage vows, isn't the very act of getting a divorce also breaking the vows?

A couple marries for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer ....... as long as they shall live. So what justification is there for getting divorce assuming that one's marriage vows are sacrosanct?


You win.



Classic straw man. So no, you still lose.

Ending a marriage is very sad, especially when there are kids involved. And I absolutely do not advocate ending a marriage for anything other than abuse or infidelity (which is in fact emotionally abusive). I would never leave my DH if he were ill or lost all his money, etc. But your comparison is farcical, so no logical person has bothered to weigh in to point that outuntil now.

Look, people divorce. But you can end a marriage honorably and respectfully. Cheating is dishonorable and disrespectful. And the people who need a straw man to bolster their rationalizations are just pathetic.



Someone I know well married in her twenties and in her thirties her husband had what he calls an "awakening" and joined a Christian cult - but she did not follow him in joining this group. The cult he belongs to does not permit divorce and permits only minimal interaction with anyone who is not part of the cult. So they live in the same house, interact to a minimal level, have not had sex in over a decade since he joined the cult and they essentially just share a house.

He has cut himself off from his parents, siblings and just about everyone else.

She will not seek a divorce because she believes in her marriage vows and that her marriage was for the rest of their lives. She said that she married him for "better or for worse" and this just happens to be the "worse" part. I feel sorry for her at one level but I also admire her because unlike most people she actually believes in her marriage vows.

Her husband, who I knew well before his conversion, is a fine, decent man who loves his wife and family but he just happens to have taken a path that has made her life a living hell. I view what has happened to her as emotional abuse and she would likely agree but she does not see that as grounds for disavowing her marriage vows. Needless to say, she will not even consider having sex with anyone other than her husband.

So PP, I would submit you are the one indulging in rationalizations.


What rationalization do you think I am "indulging" in? And what does cheating have to do with your friend's situation? Her DH joined a cult, and frankly, I wouldn't leave either in that situation.


You are rationalizing that "for worse" does not include infidelity of any kind, so that it justifies you breaking your vow. You are rationalizing that the two things you can't tolerate, abuse and infidelity, are the only things not covered by "for worse." Oddly, "for worse" does apparently include JOINING A CULT and icing you out of everyday life even though you live in the same house, like the couple described above. The point is that you are deciding what you can and can't live with and are not as governed by your vows as you would like to believe. Interestingly, traditional marriage vows don't explicitly include monogamy. But they do explicitly say til death do us part.


Marriage is a contract. And you misunderstand who is at fault when someone is abusive. Not the victim who decides quite rightfully that his or her abuser broke the contract. The abuser is the one who broke the contract. If your husband cheats, you may choose to file for divorce. That doesn't make the end of the marriage your fault. That's not rationalization.


Anonymous
Post 03/23/2014 22:30     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
For anyone who views marital vows as being sacrosanct, what is it that you don't understand about staying married the rest of the couple's lives? What makes that part negotiable and flexible?
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2014 21:43     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For those who say that having an affair is breaking one's marriage vows, isn't the very act of getting a divorce also breaking the vows?

A couple marries for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer ....... as long as they shall live. So what justification is there for getting divorce assuming that one's marriage vows are sacrosanct?


You win.



Classic straw man. So no, you still lose.

Ending a marriage is very sad, especially when there are kids involved. And I absolutely do not advocate ending a marriage for anything other than abuse or infidelity (which is in fact emotionally abusive). I would never leave my DH if he were ill or lost all his money, etc. But your comparison is farcical, so no logical person has bothered to weigh in to point that outuntil now.

Look, people divorce. But you can end a marriage honorably and respectfully. Cheating is dishonorable and disrespectful. And the people who need a straw man to bolster their rationalizations are just pathetic.



Someone I know well married in her twenties and in her thirties her husband had what he calls an "awakening" and joined a Christian cult - but she did not follow him in joining this group. The cult he belongs to does not permit divorce and permits only minimal interaction with anyone who is not part of the cult. So they live in the same house, interact to a minimal level, have not had sex in over a decade since he joined the cult and they essentially just share a house.

He has cut himself off from his parents, siblings and just about everyone else.

She will not seek a divorce because she believes in her marriage vows and that her marriage was for the rest of their lives. She said that she married him for "better or for worse" and this just happens to be the "worse" part. I feel sorry for her at one level but I also admire her because unlike most people she actually believes in her marriage vows.

Her husband, who I knew well before his conversion, is a fine, decent man who loves his wife and family but he just happens to have taken a path that has made her life a living hell. I view what has happened to her as emotional abuse and she would likely agree but she does not see that as grounds for disavowing her marriage vows. Needless to say, she will not even consider having sex with anyone other than her husband.

So PP, I would submit you are the one indulging in rationalizations.


What rationalization do you think I am "indulging" in? And what does cheating have to do with your friend's situation? Her DH joined a cult, and frankly, I wouldn't leave either in that situation.


You are rationalizing that "for worse" does not include infidelity of any kind, so that it justifies you breaking your vow. You are rationalizing that the two things you can't tolerate, abuse and infidelity, are the only things not covered by "for worse." Oddly, "for worse" does apparently include JOINING A CULT and icing you out of everyday life even though you live in the same house, like the couple described above. The point is that you are deciding what you can and can't live with and are not as governed by your vows as you would like to believe. Interestingly, traditional marriage vows don't explicitly include monogamy. But they do explicitly say til death do us part.
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2014 21:32     Subject: Re:Can a little cheating actually SAVE a marriage?
Anonymous wrote:I do and DW will never find out. It has worked wonders for our relationship.


Being deceitful is never helpful long-term in either business or personal relationships. May work for awhile, but no relationship with a dishonest partner will survive.