Is it ever OK to have an affair with a married woman?

Remove all ads!

That sounds reasonable, to me. Infact, most armies of countries which usually stationed their soldiers abroad and far away did prohibit marriage for low-ranking staff anyway, and the higher-ranking could take their family with them. And I think it's usual, that wherever there's a military camp, the amusement business isn't far.

 

Why shouldn't marriage be taken seroiusly? Look at it a little differently. It's not marriage as an institution that should be taken seriously, it's the promise you made to your partner that needs to be respected. Telling someone else that you love him/her so deeply that you want to spend the rest of your lives together is not something that should be done lightly, or abused in the aftermath. Most people aren't grown up enough to get married as early as they do.

As far as your friend's situation, I'd step back from the whole thing. Neither one of them is about to listen to reason. Let it run its course, and pray that there won't be any permanent damage (physical or otherwise) when it's over.

 

Sojourner, I'm afraid you don't understand what I wrote:

You in fact promote my points. If you yourself use the adjective 'future' to denominate spouses to be, why would I mean spouses to be when referring to them as present spouses?

The hope of a spouse to be reforming in future is a big mistake, and most probably it's not even a matter of blind love but of convinience. You know, the easy solution. However, the hope is valid in marriages already existent. What will you do with the other person, the affair partner, if your spouse comes back to the norm? That's why it all needs to be clear: if it's a dissoluble marriage, be faithul, period. You knew what you were doing - this is essentially what you said about removing the glasses. I don't know if you read the 'ie the poor spouse weren't informed of the circumstance beforehand' part or just skimmed through it, but it refers to the possibility of annulment, that is declaring the marriage invalid and void from the beginning - and, consequently, totally nonexistent, rendering you a 'free' man or woman, not owing marital faithfulness to anyone. This institution is very different from divorce and it's present in practically all legal systems. If divorce is possible and you want to have sex with someone else, divorce prior to having sex with someone else, period. There's no justification for conscious and willing betrayal in marriage, no matter how you put it. Abuse of trust and perjury is also what follows in moral (but not in legal) sense.

Yes, that's true. Again, you're essentially arguing my points. Should it, however, so happen that the spouse is a clinical case, or in some case even for moral reasons, incapable of taking marital vows and keeping them, annulment is a valid option except in situations where the other party was fully aware and consenting to the marriage nonetheless

I, somehow, have the impression that you missed the 'no matter how small' part.

Finally,

Again, just what I said. Annul the marriage if it's invalid, divorce if you can (and if you know that the marriage is dead, you can no longer live with your spouse and will have sex with another anyway and there's no return etc), but don't get yourself a lover and screw the papers and your own oath. I am against divorce myself, but for various social reasons it's better than continual outside affair or constant one-night adventures.

Of course, care whom you marry. There's no discussion here. I make an exception for marriages invalid ab initio, though, as they aren't marriages in the real sense. Still, the idea itself matches my belief in dissoluble marriage as the ideal form. But the topic actually is about already married persons, not about premarital carefulness.

 

The way I see it, it might be forgiveable to breach a few provisions of the marriage contract but to repudiate the entire "only death can part us" vow is unthinkable. When you're married, you have merged two families into one family. To break that family apart into two or more families is as serious a step as disowning your child or your parents. If you are not willing to permanently bind yourself to another you should not get married - it's as irrevocable a step as getting pregnant.

I don't shock easily but I've been really shocked by this thread. I can't believe how many people think adultery is worse than divorce. I just cannot wrap my mind around that worldview. Sleeping with someone else's spouse is like breaking into their house to read their books. Persuading their spouse to get a divorce and run off with you is like stealing the books and then burning their house to the ground.

Maybe we need a thread on "what is the nature of marriage?" because I think that's where we're really all disagreeing. To me, sexual exclusiveness is just not an important feature of marriage (or important at all, really). The defining features of marriage in my mind are permanence and shared responsibility for both partners' lives.

That was just a great post. Thanks for that breath of fresh air.

Also - unrelated note - what's with the babysitter factor? I really don't get why that seems to make it worse for some people. Would it be better if the woman's husband was home with the kids and pining for his wife? Or is hiring a babysitter instead of dutifully staying home with the kids while her husband is off getting drunk just an evil unwomanly act in itself?

 

Well Sprite, I think most of us have the same opinion about your views as you do about ours. As you say we might need a thread about the meaning of marriage cause your views sounds very alien to me and I would like to hear them better explained.

 

If you subscribe to the Christian religion (and probably others, but I'm not certain), both are unacceptable behaviors and both are a cardinal sin.

Personally, I'm against divorce as well, but I do see it as being preferential to adultery. At least when you're divorced, you're not committed to an oath that was taken, so any promiscuity is more forgivable.

That's where your views differ from most of the others here. I do view marriage as being a promise of care, support, and sexual exclusivity. Essentially, the things you said, in addition to complete faithfulness, froom both parties.

She was neglecting her motherly duties to give into carnal lusts. Once or twice, it's excusible, but not when that incident is constant.

It's already been stated that the man works at night. I'd rather see the woman home than having the children neglected by both parents.

 

It certainly depends on your individual perceptions.
For me, I would nothave a problem with it simply because I am prepared to deal with being on the other end (being cheated on) and I believe that the sanctity of marriage supersedes evrything else in the relationship. A lot of times it keeps the spice in the life of the 'adulterer' and helps keep families together. Though admittedly it would most likely only keep the family together if an open marriage is agreed upon before entering into matrimony, or if the adulterer in question is supremely careful about his/her dalliances and keeps it all very quiet.

If I may pose a question for you all to think about, it may be treated as a rhetorical one of course because while answers may be interesting, I don't want to risk side-tracking the discussion: would a married person visiting a prostitute amount to the same thing?

 

@chevalier - No, I was not arguing your points, nor did I miss your point on no matter how small (which is irrelevent). I am arguing from a practical viewpoint, that marriages, once made, are not that easy to undo - nor should they be. This is a major step you're taking in your life - you should take time to get to know your potential spouse. Anyone who leaps blindly into marriage as though it were another date is a fool and cheapens the concept.

That appears to take the view that one of the spouses is property. This is how I see it: divorce ends a lie (failed marriage), whereas adultery maintains a lie (breach of marriage vows).

 

@Rallymama and everyone else who commented on me saying:

What I meant to say was
"What amazes me is just how many people don't take their marriage vows seriously today."

[ September 24, 2003, 10:40: Message edited by: Elios ]

 

You forgot, seriously.