Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
According to Savage then it would have been so much easier to keep slavery legal.
And yes, that means what you think it does, not a Dressage fixation.
Christ.
posting the exact same quote from the exact same woman repeatedly to "prove" that women ought to tolerate infidelity in long-term relationships.
Not only is the "such a bore," attitude one that signals a deep dislike with dealing with emotions (her mother's journal entry story about her own birth might be eccentric and amusing now, but would you want to be reared by someone who thought it in poor taste to allude, even in her own diary, to your birth?), it also is an attitude born of a class of people for whom divorce is not a frequently-employed option because there are titles and gigantic estates involved--"all this," as one of the Duchess' sister's literary creations said to describe fabulous wealth and prestige. It's not just the "photograph" books that Debo would have had to give up, had she divorced her husband. And there's no knowing how much pain her husband's "discreet" affairs might have caused her. To admit as much would also be classified as "a bore."
Pick a model we can actually emulate.
There always seems to be such an undercurrent of misogyny in these types of posts. We women are to grin and bear it because it's the way it's supposed to be.
My experience across three continents is that it's not heterosexual/bisexual women married to men that are the problem. We've been "tolerating" infidelity since time began. The men? Not so much.
I know a lot of heterosexual women who would LOVE to have an honest open marriage. The problem is that their husbands are either dead set against it or they are "cakemen" (i.e., have your cake and eat it too). Too emasculating. They'd be cuckholded.
That, and the slutshaming that is still pervasive in our society.
It's simple: combat sexism, particularly slut-shaming, and make casual sex safer for women (wrt to costs of unwanted pregnancy and potential rapes). Would also care if women could be guaranteed to come close to having the same type of pleasure-payoff than men do (e.g., having an orgasm most of the time). Until then, the game isn't worth the candle for most het women.
Divorce as a means to deal with infidelity is often a good thing as infidelity so often involves a double standard. If it was not what the person who was cheated on signed up for they do not need to tolerate it.
I sometimes wonder if people might make sweeping, exaggerated claims about a society they know little about, and then I think, no. It couldn't be.
I wish you joy. And, I'm sorry for the pain you have suffered. I'm sending you encouraging thoughts. Take care of yourself and do your best to try and keep your chin up.
Kind regards,
k
The way you say: "We are still married -- we have kids" makes it sound as if the only reason you are still there is because of the kids. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong in this case, but I believe it's often better for the kids to see you and your husband each happy and confident in different homes, than to see both of you miserable for years on end.
I think his point is: infidelity is common; people make mistakes. Some people can see the infidelity as Not-a-Big-Deal, especially if someone reassures them that it's okay for it to be Not-a-Big-Deal. Other people end up seeing the infidelity as a symptom of other problems -- then they can deal with those underlying problems, and, if successful, the marriage emerges a better, stronger relationship.
But for some people, the betrayal is too much, or the underlying problems are too much.
Dan's not saying to stay together if you're miserable. He's just saying divorce shouldn't be the default reaction to infidelity. A year later, you are allowed to move on and seek happiness in your life.
You and your husband have my sympathy and best wishes. Somethings some of us can get over. Some of us, no matter how much we want to, can't forgive and forget some things. Or we can forgive, but not forget, and the memory gets in the way of forging a renewed or the old closeness. What you're trying is admirable. You both are to be commended if rebuilding is possible. And if it is not, that doesn't mean you were weak or a failure. It just means that one or both of you found what was at this point in time, a hard limit. There is life after divorce. There is sometimes the possibility of strong friendship and mutual parenthood and good shared parenting/child rearing after divorce. Divorce isn't synonymous with failure.
Miserably sticking it out forever, becoming bitter is not the solution anyone advocates.
Are you getting professional counseling? Do you have a support system both individually and as a couple? Is your support system doing more than saying, "he's an asshole!"?
There are a lot of monogamous marriages I would not want to emulate. Happens there are a lot of nonmonogamous ones I would also not want to emulate. The duchess seems to have one of those. (Questions that arose: this doesn't sound like the statement of someone who didn't mind her husband's affairs. And if they were discreet, how come we all know about them?)
I also conclude the book is about nonmonogamous marriages. Confession: the nonmonogamous series of letters was depressing, where I wanted to nod supportingly and feel all open-minded, but instead kept thinking 'Why do you go along with this when you don't seem happy?' Or in the case of the other woman, 'Would you not blither on about how great your older supervisor was to worry about your professional reputation before bonking you anyhow? Or about how he announced that his less experienced wife--who doesn't seem to, um, have a lover in your telling of things--needed to have an open marriage so she could experience sleeping with more people, which by great karma meant he could now bonk the interns?'
To others: note that the pain of infidelity is often the betrayal. Those of us in agreed upon relationships that can become open don't experience this, we will know ahead of time what's coming and, while it isn't always easy (what is in life?) there will be no betrayal, no breaking of trust.
That is what Dan is suggesting with people *considering* monogamish relationships, i.e. the possibility (not requirement) of being non-monogamous in the future -- and if the desire / opportunity does become strong, you can pre-talk and pre-plan what to do and handle it together.
Even joke about it. Or have dinner with your partner's lover. Or have three ways. Or don't ask don't tell. Or go to sex parties together. There are many permutations of monogamish -- none involve betrayal.
Do you want to make it through? Do you like him?
While I hope, Ms Sad, that you get what you truly want, whatever that may be, I could never sleep without highlighting that last sentence and a half and pointing out that, however good your intentions, such provision is beyond the capacity of one person. Best of luck to you.
Actually *stopping* the cheating helped though. If he hadn't I know we wouldn't still be together. We're sort of monogamish (threesomes are okay) and always were (which was a BIG part of what pissed me off and hurt so much) but his affairs had more to do with mental health issues which he finally worked on than anything else. Best of luck.
He says he is passionately in love with me. My feelings are a lot more complicated. Your time horizon seems realistic ... And that's what I wish Dan would acknowledge.
2. Dan's position (as usual) isn't gender-driven, but fairly simple: infidelity shouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker in a relationship, i.e. it shouldn't inevitable, merely an option.
3. Mischaracterization of thread as only about women tolerating infidelity. (keshmeshi @22)
4. Accusation of misogyny (ABW@29). Sorry, but if we're going to go into "mis" words, isn't assuming that men said things they didn't say and saying that they are advocating things they didn't misandrist, not misogynist?
PS, keshmeshi: You might want to learn the difference between an illustrative example (which Ms. Mitford is) and a single example advanced as proof (which Savage didn't do).
@58. Thank you.
One thing is clear. Tolerating the differences in another person and not freaking out about how their behavior reflects on YOU all the time is an interesting relationship saver. I'm not talking to people getting their asses beaten or compromising their own core values (neither was Dan, btw).
Perhaps less about affluence, misogyny, or "the changing times" and more a question of "is marriage a contract and if so could you keep the contract simple and balanced enough that it works for the people engaging it?"
I wasn't talking about history, I was talking about this discussion. keshmeshi's comment was in the context of this discussion, and so was a mischaracterization. Pointing out that if we'd been having a different, wider discussion then it wouldn't have been a mischaracterization means exactly zilch.