Home of the Muppet Imperial Moderator Corps

extra marital affair

Do you think it could last?
A loves his wife. B loves her husband.
but A and B are also in love with each other.
Permalink Anon for this 
September 4th, 2006 1:44am
So when you say "extra" - you mean "one too many"? Or more like a spare?
Permalink Send private email Philo 
September 4th, 2006 1:45am
Depends on whether or not A or B

a) care enough about their spouses
b) can deal with not living with the other
Permalink [A] x [B] = ? 
September 4th, 2006 1:48am
absolutely it will last, and both of the people involved get the satisfaction of knowing that they have as much personal integrity as the asshole who robbed them last winter.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 4th, 2006 1:48am
The problem is that B is married too, otherwise you might try the polygamous route.
Permalink Patrick 
September 4th, 2006 2:08am
Well, the OP doesn't explicitly state that A and B aren't married to each other.
Permalink  
September 4th, 2006 2:08am
see, now that *would* be a problem.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
September 4th, 2006 2:23am
It could work. As long as the real marriage ALWAYS takes higher priority, and both parties agree with this arrangement. If the relationship is long-distance is even better.
Permalink  
September 4th, 2006 4:15am
It could work. As long as the real marriage ALWAYS takes higher priority, and both parties agree with this arrangement. With long-distance relationship it's even more workable.
Permalink  
September 4th, 2006 4:18am
Could it work? Possibly - but I wouldn't recommend it. High risk is an understatement.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
September 4th, 2006 4:53am
I think everyone should live in a commune and fuck eachother and no one should have this "couple" thing.
Permalink  
September 4th, 2006 5:45am
this notion that "Couples" are the way to go is just dumb.

+1 for going at it like rabbits with whomever one chooses.
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 4th, 2006 6:45am
What do you do when the little rabbits come out? They all need your attention at the same time. How are you going to handle it?
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 4th, 2006 7:04am
Fortunately, we have advanced sufficiently to allow both sex for purely recreational purposes, as well as procreation with no pentrative sex.
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 4th, 2006 8:22am
No, it is unlikely to work.  It's a 'meta-stable' condition, that depends on the attachments and good-will of way too many people.

Shoot, 50% of 2-person marriages break up.  Add another couple to the mix, and the chances should go down to what, 25%?
Permalink Somebody 
September 4th, 2006 9:20am
> we have advanced sufficiently to allow both sex for purely recreational purposes

The pill and wide-spread use of rubbers are less than a couple generations old. We haven't had time evolve to accommodate them. Not that high birth control rates are something evolution accomodates easily.
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 4th, 2006 10:54am
Changes in social attitudes are easier than waiting for evolution to kick in ... no?

The fact that male sperm has soldiers whose sole role is to kill other male's sperm in a woman suggests that out evolution did acknowledge the presence of hankie pankie through the ages.
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 4th, 2006 11:11am
Vagina wars?
Permalink Lustiges Häschen 
September 4th, 2006 11:20am
Shoot, it's the cultural reaction to "loose morals" (birth control, "free love" in the '70's, availability of abortions, sexuality in movies and advertising) that created the Christian Coalition and Biblical Literalists.

Not that it's a large group -- but their alliance with the Republican Party has made them pivotal.
Permalink Somebody 
September 4th, 2006 11:26am
> Changes in social attitudes are easier than waiting for evolution to kick in

That assumes extensive pliability of the human condition. I think non-socially mediated biology puts limits on behavior. Not on every single individual's behavior (you are relatively unfettered in your quest for maximum pussy conquests), but the group as whole, the human group, is unlikely to turn into bonobos just because someone imagines it can.

Basically, it's been tried. Free love and communal sexual relations have been tried (there are experiments over the couple thousand years at least). And it has yet to survive a generation.
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 4th, 2006 11:39am
Look, I am all for free love. Not so for sex communes.

History have many examples of societies that have thrived, despite the absence of the stereotypical western monogamy.

I suppose the crux of my argument is that "cheating is bad" is predicated on the assumption that "monogamy is good".

I think if adults were more honest about what they want in a relationship  (ie. do not promise to never want another woman/man besides your spouse) if deep down you know you want extra marital hankie pankie.

Be honest, and have an open marriage for crying out loud.
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 4th, 2006 11:55am
mmm...I have my doubts. I suspect a lot of people are in favour of their half of the marriage being open.

Anyway it can work - but probably won't.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
September 4th, 2006 12:17pm
> History have many examples of societies that have
> thrived, despite the absence of the stereotypical western > monogamy.

I'm going to need those examples to get this across to the wife.
Permalink  
September 4th, 2006 12:33pm
Certainly strict monogamy isn't the only option. But do you want to live in a society that favors polygamy? Is the burkha an expression of free love? Are young men projecting their sexual frustrations into violence a good thing?

In fact, monogamy was *the* selling point in the spread of Christianity. In polygamous societies, who are at the most disadvantage? Not the rich men - they buy as much pussy as they can afford. Not the women, rich or poor - a poor woman can after all join a married couple and be provided for. It's the poor man. If rich men can legally have more than one wife/mistress, there aren't enough women to go around for the men at the bottom.

Enter Christianity, which unlike Judaism or Islam started as a pauper's religion, and its praise of monogamy. To whom did outlawing polygamy have the most advantage? To the poor man of course. It was effectively redistribution of wealth. The poor man was able to afford a wife because of market externalities, ie, law.

For me, the benefits of a monogamous relationship are worth the costs of giving up sleeping with others (it is a real cost, an opportunity cost). I wouldn't want a gf/wife who would cheat on me. Or one who wouldn't promise not to. From talking to others about their feelings and their stories, I believe this is more true than not, and so I can say monogamy's a 'good' thing. But it's not an absolute. I think circumstances (especially demographics) can change behavior. I'm happy with no-fault divorce laws and the non-illegality of adultery in the West. You're free to be a Casanova as far as I'm concerned.

But I do think that dismantling monogamy completely is likely to lead to great class inequities and violence like we see/have seen in polygamous societies.
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 4th, 2006 12:34pm
"dismantling monogamy completely is likely to lead to great class inequities and violence like we see/have seen in polygamous societies."

vs.

" History have many examples of societies that have
thrived, despite the absence of the stereotypical western monogamy. "


OK. Which is it?
Permalink  
September 4th, 2006 12:45pm
A society can be violent and thrive. No contradiction there. :-P

Going to war to kill of excess young men (or have them kill off each other) is just a cost of keeping the old men in pussy power. Whether they be Osama bin Laden with his wives or Bush and his (hi, Condi, hi!).

But it does require a low birth control rate. :)
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 4th, 2006 12:54pm
http://www.polygamy.com/
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 4th, 2006 1:38pm
"It could work. As long as the real marriage ALWAYS takes higher priority, and both parties agree with this arrangement"

I knew a woman who called herself "poly" - she *said* she'd be content to be the A or B in that situation. However, she had these rules for her relationships, and one rule was that she would never be made to feel "lesser" than the other person - no "I have to get home to my wife" or "I can't see you Saturday, it's our anniversary". She was very arrogant about it.

...and apparently a lot of her "poly" friends rah-rah'd her for having this rule.

IOW, I think a situation like this is doomed to failure. Most people who would be willing to enter such an arrangement with an open mind (i.e. not the standard "let's fool around until I leave my wife, which will be real soon now, I promise") would probably be strong-willed enough to eventually resent being "the other woman" (or man). Whether they go softly into the night or cause a train wreck is the toss of a coin.

Philo
Permalink Send private email Philo 
September 4th, 2006 1:47pm
Much as society frowns on these non-standard relationships, you would be amazed at the levels of honesty and trust involved.

A lot of swinging or polyamorous people are brutally honest about what works or doesn't for them. And the rules are different from one individual to the next.

There is something to be said for going into something eyes-wide-open than some goo goo romantic shit as dictated by people who are themselves playing on the side.
Permalink Send private email Tapiwa 
September 4th, 2006 1:53pm
Can it work?  Will it work?  Absolutely.  100% guaranteed to work.

It's gonna work to make at minimum four lives a complete misery with an excessive share of jealousy and hatred.  If there are kids you can add those to the list of lives that are going to be miserable.  There are probably friends and extended family that you can throw into that mix that are going to receive a lesser helping of the misery, but will be touched by it.  This is probably just my middle class white guy Christian self projecting onto it though, and I clearly couldn't understand your situation because of it.

The better question to ask yourself, rather than "can it work" is "what will this relationship give me that my marriage can't?"  What's so special about this relationship that makes it preferable to the two existing marriages?  You're a damned fool if you think you can have both, so you better be prepared to choose, and you better be prepared for the fact that the choice might be made for you.  A whole lot of stuff could be taken out of your hands, like your home, your children, your retirement, your business and most certainly several years of your life which are going to be lost to acrimony.

Go ahead and boff the neighbor to your heart's delight.  I won't stop you.  But don't be a blind fool as to what can happen.  And don't fool yourself into thinking that a relationship begun in deceit will survive when it's forced to stand on it's own.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
September 4th, 2006 3:05pm
And, unfortunately Clay, even if all parties go in to the relationship "with eyes wide open", so there IS no 'deceit', there's still going to be all those unintended consequences of jealousy, and attachments that become 'too strong'.

As I said, incredibly unstable over time, even if it seems to start out well.  And you're right -- for what?  For that "new relationship" excitement?  For that "new sex could be better" thrill?  I agree, that way lies disappointment and betrayal.
Permalink Somebody 
September 4th, 2006 3:14pm
I can see just randomly humping people who seem attractive and easy. That's always fun until someone gets hurt.

However the whole "poly" thing or trying to keep up with more than one LTR makes no sense. It is a pain in the ass to try to deal with one LTR, why would you want to multiply the pain?
Permalink Joojeh 
September 4th, 2006 4:09pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: September, 2006 Other topics: September, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics