How Long Should A Spouse Be Celibate If Their Mate Is Ill?

Lately people are throwing poison darts at Elizabeth Edwards for supporting her husband's bid for the Presidency even though she knew he was unfaithful. Excuse me?

If a doctor's wife finds out her husband has been unfaithful, should she stop him from performing surgery, something he has done for 20 years. After all, you are supposed to trust your doctor.

Politics is a business too.

Elizabeth Edwards may not have believed in him as a perfect husband after learning about his affair with Rielle Hunter, but I'm willing to bet she believed in him as a candidate. They shared a world view, a sense of justice, and a commitment to public service.

Similarly, John McCain's first wife, Carol, probably knew he was already keeping company with the heiress Cindy Lou Hensley when he and Carol were still married, in 1979. She was said to be "in shock" when he asked for a divorce. But Carol McCain believed in her husband as a good man, and later supported his political career. She said later that the breakup wasn't due to his imprisonment in Vietnam, or a car accident while he was in Vietnam that left her on crutches and four inches shorter than she had been when she was a swimsuit model. She said, "I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else." "Wanting to be 25 again" could almost be wife code for "going out with a younger woman," in this case also a beautiful and rich one.

And so Elizabeth Edwards was backing the good man who was running for president, not the flawed human being who made a mistake. The people who throw around the words "staunch family values" must know that staunch family values means keeping a marriage together.

"'Til death," right? Not "'til one of us makes a mistake."

The Edwardses have spent years together, and many of those years running campaigns. It's what they enjoyed doing, what they shared. Or maybe it was what he enjoyed, and she loved him.
After getting a cancer diagnosis in the last month of her husband's 2004 campaign for vice president, a shock to both of them, maybe she felt that she owed him another campaign. John Edwards's second run for president was supposed to be a legacy for her children.

Maybe she thought that this campaign would have a happier ending.

It didn't.

He withdrew from the race in January. She found out her cancer had returned in March, and was incurable, if not untreatable. And this month, all of the rumors about his affair were confirmed.
And there is something else that may apply. From personal experience I know that, when you are ill, the loved one suffers too. Especially if he has a lot of testosterone running through his veins. When you're going through medical treatment, or even worse, chemotherapy, you are fatigued and stressed. Even in remission, especially after surgery and radiation, the last thing a woman might think about is sex. If you have no desire for it, your mate may still want it.

Dr. Bonnie Eaker Weil, the author of "Adultery: The Forgivable Sin," says that "sometimes men stray to have their needs met, but it doesn't mean that they didn't love their wife." A wife, she says, often may even give tacit approval.

This by no means justifies what John Edwards seems to have done, but it's another theory of explaining why his wife might have tolerated it.

At Firstwivesworld.com,, a question did surface that is worth exploring. If your mate is ill, how long should the spouse be celibate?

For me, I know with certainty that I would never cheat on my husband. That's because of one word: commitment.

It is why my husband's Uncle Sol is still so revered in Rochester, New York. His wife of 50 years has Alzheimer's. Did he abandon her? Make a home with someone else? No. Every day for the past seven years he has arrived at her nursing home at 10 am and stayed there until 4 pm. He has bathed her, talked to her, fed her, put her clothes on, all to insure that she is well taken care of.

When asked by nurses, friends, and colleagues why he does this without complaint, and at the expense of doing other, more "fun" things, he simply explains, "I made a commitment in sickness and health." Yet even my husband, rooted to these values and role models, says he understands how a man may need to relieve the stress through sex.

In a perfect world, everyone would honor that commitment. Our worlds are rarely perfect.

From a political point of view: Where does it say that someone's marital transgressions make him, or her, less effective as a leader, or less capable of making good judgments?

Steve Kalb of The New Haven Independent, wrote: "George Bush has, by his own account, a terrific marriage. Yet this is the same individual who has approved the wholesale gutting of the constitution, paying particular attention to rights of privacy, habeas corpus, separation of powers and the separation of church and state. While he has remained ever faithful to his wife, he has succeeded in alienating just about every other leader in the free and not-so-free world."

Elizabeth Edwards, however, can be blamed for one act of foolishness. No, not that she is sticking with her husband and wants to keep her family intact.

She was foolish to think that rumors about her husband's affair, rumors that surfaced six months after he began his most recent run for president, wouldn't eventually come out, and be proven true, as Huffingtonpost blogger Bonnie Fuller cited. All she needed to do was look at the press clippings on Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer.

But anyone who has had cancer sometimes substitutes hope for facts. Maybe this was one of those cases.

This article was first published in firstwivesworld.com, a website that helps women who are contemplating, navigating or moving on from divorce.

Comments

[WellSpouse]

I want to thank Jill Brooke for raising this issue, when she said: "From personal experience I know that, when you are ill, the loved one suffers too."
Spousal caregivers come in all sorts and conditions. What they have in common is a strong desire to help their partner or spouse with chronic illness (such as cancer) or disability. Along the way intimacy in the relationship cannot help but be affected by the illness/disability.
It is what sets spousal caregiving apart from other family caregiving, and it's hard to talk about. Those who are quick to criticize John Edwards, and place Elizabeth on a pedestal don't understand that the spousal caregiving situation he was in may very well have contributed to his politically-disastrous decision.
It's hard for the Edwards, or for anyone else where one of a couple is ill/disabled to talk about how their health situation affects their intimacy. If this is the case for you, the reader, one place you can do this is at: http://wellspouse.org - The Well Spouse Association.

[lovingkindness]

"Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone"

[Viglet]

OK. I'm without sin on this. I'm weighing in.

First of all, we're not talking about a private individual here. The guy is in the public eye. He invites our comments (and votes) by being there. Second, this is a blog. If casting stones or judgments bothers you, stay away. Thirdly, every single person who excuses Edwards or disparages people who think he's a dirtbag, hear this: the world does not revolve around you and your needs. I know : it's biological, they may have an agreement, it's just a marriage, fidelity is hard.

Grow up!

Men aren't the only people who wrestle with these issues. They are, more often than not, the ones who rely on a caregiver's love and die first. That places them front and center to be on the receiving end of being cheated on while ill.

It's an equal opportunity world out there.

[Brillig]

Thank you for this article and AMEN. Well written and TRUE!
Listen to the hypocrisy:

1. Americans by and large seem to favor murdering human beings in their mother's womb (innocent persons) YET spend millions on HUMAN rights. Who cares? And if you don't care about an innocent child, why care about this person...HUMAN RIGHTS?? What's is that? when you get to define who is human?

2. Americans keep talking about how women in the rest of the world are oppressed. Yet as soon as Mrs America piles on 20 extra pounds, its SERIAL MONOGAMY Time for hubby.

3. People are discriminated against for SMOKING, DRINKING, Being FAT. IF YOU can legislate against someone SMOKING, why the HECK is it undemocratic to legislate against wearing immodest clothing?

The list goes on...WAR is OK to the Average American - just NOT on your soil. To the rest of us, it's pretty bad any where it is...after all, PEOPLE are being killed, not some computer icon in Grand Theft Auto.

Now, this ordinary man - because they ALL use the toilet last time I did an anatomy lesson - has an affair and HIS WIFE - the only person injured by this- FORGIVES HIM. ALL OF A SUDDEN the MORALISTS come out of the woodwork to DENOUNCE and REPUDIATE him....wow

He who is without sin, cast the first stone......this from the only guy who actually understood that all of the sins listed above can be forgiven- if we only ask.

[w8aminute]

I am so sick of people blaming Elizabeth Edwards...and I'm no John Edwards fan. I'm sick of the voyeurism in their marriage, and I'm sick of the subject. It's their marriage, their children, his mistake. It's over. Makes you wish Brett Favre was asking to go back to Green Bay just to get this out of the limelight. Nothing DID happen to the Dems because of it. Leave Elizabeth alone(even though I took umbrage with her article in the Progressive when she disparaged Obama).

[x1soundgarden1x]

what a stupid analogy. If a doctor is found to be unfaithful, it doesn't result in the automatic failing of his practice. People are mad at the Edwards because he was a hair away from being the nominee and had he been when this story came out he would have guaranteed a McCain win in November. His running was entirely selfish and dangerous for the party and ideals he touted and his wife is just as much to blame for not forcing him to drop out as soon as she knew.

[OtayPanky]

Jill Brooke: Lately people are throwing poison darts at Elizabeth Edwards for supporting her husband's bid for the Presidency even though she knew he was unfaithful. Excuse me?

===

Excuse you? Sure.

Excuse both of them for putting political ambition above the good of the party and the country - knowing (as they MUST have known as intelligent politicos) that this would be sniffed out and that it would destroy the dems chances once it had?

Not so fast.

Excuse both of them for putting political ambition above the good of their own family - their own KIDS - knowing (as they MUST have known as intelligent politicos) that this would be sniffed out and that it would make their private problems everyone's gossip fodder, and really wreck their family?

Not so fast.

Forgive them. Sure - if they'd only be 100% honest. We're all human , and subject to all sorts of temptations to do really, really stupid and selfish things for all sorts of reasons.

But excuse them? I don't think so. Sorry. That's not how it works...with or without terminal cancer.

[heal57]

I just want to say that anyone who thinks this is something new for John Edwards; cheating on his wife; I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. The Edwards' are married 30 years and you can bet that Mrs. Edwards for whatever reasons, accepted Mr. Wonderful with all his faults for the entire 30 years. Political spouses just don't get divorced. I'm not going to say anything unkind of Elizabeth Edwards, she's been through hell and she has my sympathy and prayers.
I'd just like to see one of these guys [or women] get bounced out on his/her a*s with divorce papers following; just once. It would be a real upper for a lot of cheated on spouses.

[LightningJoe]

Let's be blunt, shall we? If anyone knows how human a human can be, I do. If anyone can understand a failure of trust, I can.

But.

This sort of situation is exactly why our Lord and Savior made Holy Masturbation. I know the Mormons wear Holy Underwear specifically in order to resist such "weakness," but if we don't start taking advantage of such "weakness," the world will soon have so many people we'll all slide down the sides of it, and pile up twelve-high in Aukland.

The present cultural horror of self-stimulation is part and parcel of the same sentiment that criminalises the consumption of harmless natural substances that have sustained human spirits for-- well, forever, if you count monkeys eating fermented fruit.

If masturbation wasn't viewed and labeled with such approbation, we'd not only have an outlet in sexually-deprived circumstances, but we wouldn't be so driven to both patronise and condemn the free expression of sexuality. A pleasingly topless woman would get an appreciative smile and a cooling breeze, rather than causing a train of vehicle accidents and flustered cops.

As a veteran clothing-optional hot-springer, I can tell you that when you relax and enjoy your body, you discover that it's really not such a big deal.

[SarcasticFringehead]

There is a shrill, self-righteous mob-mentality in most of the internet articles and posts I’ve read lately. There is a sense of vengeance that seems to be way out of proportion to the actual events that occurred.
I voted for John Edwards and contributed money to his campaign. I still feel that Mr. Edwards and his wife Elizabeth were sincere about the themes of his campaign: universal health; ending the war in Iraq; government responding to ordinary people and not just the the corporations and wealthy.
These are all noble and worthwhile ideas on which to make a stand.
I have also wondered if Elizabeth gave consent to the affair. Either way, we are not in Ozzie and Harriet land anymore and most Americans are not mature enough to accept such an open sexual arrangement if this was the case.
If John Edwards had gotten the nomination, it would have been catastrophic to the Democrats hope of gaining the Whitehouse. It was stupid to believe this mess would not have come out eventually. There is no logical defense against this charge. But, love and sex are not logical aspects of human nature. We have the pretension that we are totally rational beings, but we are not. We are most definitely not.
I for one, will not pick up the pitchfork or the torch and join the mob. I still believe John Edwards is a good man, but also a flawed man. And now a tragic man.

[liberalgirl31]

I don't think the Edwardes had an open marriage. Elizabeth Edwards actually had Rielle Hunter fired from her job as Edwards' videographer. Sounds to me like Elizabeth wanted to get rid of Rielle.

[PEACEandTruthLOVEr]

(part 1 of 2) ~ THANX for this article, Ms. Brooke, and to the response of "truthynesslover" !!!
Though I'm a widower of over 13 yrs., who lost his Beloved wife to cancer, leaving me to raise two children by myself, the articles' overriding title and question begs those who have NOT gone through this experience, to ponder the question in what can only be rhetorical in nature. I say this because, until "YOU have walked a mile in my moccasin," do NOT stand in JUDGEMENT of me, Mr. Edwards, or anyone for that matter. Granted that I was young and immature (only in my late 20's when she was diagnosed), I was a DEVOTED husband and father, who after 3-4 years of battling this dreaded disease, in a search for some sense of "normalcy" did "stray" from the "sanctity of our marriage," and did have an "affair." I could digress at this point to discuss the notions of monogamy versus polygamous situations in history which have occurred for the "good" of society's need, based on the ratio of men vs. women, but knowing of the oppressive expressions of Patriarchy / Androcentrism, I shant venture down that "slippery slope." Leave it suffice to say that sometimes choosing the "lesser of two evils" may outweigh or justify the "greater of two evils", ie. Depression versus fulfillment of a Human "Need" (per Maslow's hierarchy of needs)

[PEACEandTruthLOVEr]

(part 2 of 2) ~ I could write a dissertation on the COMPLEXITY of the myraid of issues faced with a terminally ill spouse, but for those "sideline quarterbacks," the "holier than thou" bloggers who would stand in Judgement of my or any others' rationalization for taking certain "SURVIVAL" remedies for one's MENTAL Health (howerever imprudent at the time), I say Unequivocally, "Judge NOT, and be not judged, for what measure YOU judge, YOU also shall be Judged ! " AND "(s)he without 'sin' cast the first stone !!"...as my "blog name" notes, since "losing" my wife, who knew of what I did, and "Forgave" me (in Her LOVING understanding), I too have "forgiven" myself of any "Harm" that was done in the deception, which was the "greater evil," but as "ALL have 'sinned' and come short...," I too have learned from my mistakes, and KNOW that GOD has "forgiven" and does LOVE ME Unconditionally !!! As for those hypocritical, "holier than thou" persons who would stand in "judgement" of me, the Edwards, or anyone, I say several things:
"Don't Tread on Me !! " & in the words of Alexander Pope, "To err is human; to FORGIVE is Divine!!,"
and lastly, I Bless YOU, in the Spirit of Truth, PEACE and LOVE !!!

[AshevilleVoice]

Having an affair during a spouse's illness, forgiveness or not of the indiscretion- that is all for John and Elizabeth to work out in their own way. We cannot, and shouldn't presume to, decide what's right or wrong for them in their marriage.

But lines got crossed that DID cross into deception of the public at large, and that IS our business. People who donated money to Edward's campaign against poverty had their money squandered on a filmmaker with no experience, and THAT is our business. When Elizabeth helped him hide a fact that would jeopardize the Democratic victory in Nov, should John have become our pres or VP candidate, she deceived us in a way that IS our business.

I initially refused to believe the John Edwards affair story because the alleged behavior was so stupid, so reckless, so tied up with misuse of public funds and public trust. I didn't think John and Elizabeth were capable of this level of poor judgment.

Furthermore, having an affair while a spouse is ill may be arguably okay. But doing so without using a condom is beyond defense. It is stupid and irresponsible to the nth degree. I'm sorry, but that is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

[LightningJoe]

Look, I spoke above in favor of letting natural human self-satisfaction play out, so you may think I'm all for compulsive openness, but there are things which are no one's business, and what you do under the covers is your own business, as long as no one is being hurt by it.

The public was in no way involved in the little indiscretion, and has no business even knowing about it. No public trust was violated, and I include the fact that he at first denied the affair.

IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! Of course he denied it. Just like Bush denied doing cocaine in the West Wing -- oh, wait, that WAS our business!

[berrycooda]

Til death do you part.....That is the marriage vow J. Edwards took.

Marriage is not all about sex...He just got attention from some young play around and it not only went
to his head, but went further south....He said it was not love...so it had to be "just sex"

How do you think the spouse feels in any of these situations.....
A lot of loyalty would help. (also in marriage vow....to love and to cherish)

[vs1d12]

For those of you that argue I am a male and I just must have relief no matter where or from whom let me tell you about an experience I had when discussing human drives in Biology 101. The instructor asked the class of 18-20 year olds what was the strongest most powerful of human drives? You won't have to guess SEX !!! won by a landslide.The instructor smiled and asked how long do you think you could maintain an erection if your air supply was cut off.(no pun intended) So much for the "I just have to have it" and the older you get the weaker the arguement and.......

[mwbsf]

The answer is simple. If both parties have agreed to have a monogamous relationship, then there should be no affairs unless the parties agree to change that for whatever reason.

If it's an open relationship from the beginning, there's no question.

That said, it is rather poor form to be having relationships when the lover is ill with terminal anything.

[AshevilleVoice]

Or to pay the mistress with money people donated to a campaign intent on eradicating poverty.