Infidelity: As It Was, Is, And Always Will Be

Infidelity and the institution it demolishes -- marriage -- are all the rage (again). This time it's thanks to Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford, and civilian Jon Gosselin. Despite these recent scandals and ever sobering divorce rates, the New York Times offers an optimistic analysis: "Marriage Stands Up for Itself." Meanwhile the cover of Time ominously states "Unfaithfully Yours: Infidelity Is Eroding Our Most Sacred Institution. How to Make Marriage Matter Again." I invite everyone to relax and take a deep breath. I have news--I'm not sure if it's good or bad: adultery has always and will always exist.

"If prostitution is the world's oldest profession, then the finer art of being a mistress must be the second oldest," opens the book Sex with Kings by Eleanor Herman. This book is a scintillating chronicle of the many mistresses had and had again by the rulers of France, England, Russia, and Poland to name a few. In France they even had a title for the king's head mistress--because the king usually had more than one--Maitresse-en-titre (official royal mistress). Little did Princess Diana know, that Charles was acting very much like every monarch before him by having a side salad.

Herman's book is a testament to the fact that adultery has been around for a very long time. [Note: she followed up with another book called Sex with the Queen, so the kings weren't the only ones misbehaving.] But we knew this already because of a much older book. When the Bible says NOT to do something (such as coveting your neighbor's wife) it's because people tend to do it--a lot. For the record: I'm not justifying infidelity. I think it's an unfortunate circumstance that negatively affects many lives. I do, however, know for a fact that it's not going to shake the moral foundation of the nation nor is it going to destroy the institution of marriage. If it were going to do that, it would have done it already.

I'm willing to argue that it's not marriage, but divorce rather, that's changed over the past sixty years. Up until roughly the 1950s, divorce was so socially unacceptable that it rarely happened. Not only was divorce a stigma, but life for a woman after divorce was a death sentence. Prior to the 1900s, children from a divorced family would automatically go to the father (no contest), along with any property the couple owned. Job options for a woman were pretty much non-existent until the early-mid twentieth century. In post World War II America, the image of the ideal housewife and her handsome working husband was projected in advertisements and on televisions shows. It was an image that people were afraid to taint. It was all about keeping up appearances--even more so than it is today. Rest assured it's not that they had better marriages way back when--void of lying and cheating--it's that they had no way out. In the home, that circumstance is no more desirable than divorce. It's only out of the home--when collective divorce rates are down--that it appears to be better.

Actor Spencer Tracey had a twenty-six year affair with Katherine Hepburn, but refused to get divorced from his wife, Louise Treadwell, because he was Catholic and divorce was highly frowned upon. The hypocrisy is astounding, isn't it? Interestingly enough, the Bible cites adultery as the only acceptable reason for getting divorced. Even with that holy clause, I don't think every couple who faces infidelity should get divorced necessarily. If they want to work it out then that's their business. The rest of us should stop talking about it and cease to be continually fascinated by affairs. They happen. Even mighty philanthropist and master marriage man Paul Newman had an affair. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you.

I do think Mark Sanford is doing right by not resigning. (I didn't think Eliot Spitzer should have resigned either.) Can you imagine if every man or woman who's had an affair had to give up his or her job? Then something besides the economy would be causing an employment crisis. We must honor the separation of home and workplace.

I would love to see a politician do as Jesus did and say to a crowd hungry for a (figurative) stoning, "He who has not sinned, cast the first stone." If the crowd were in an honest mood, then at least half of them would walk away. Subsequently, half of the viewers at home would turn off their television sets in solidarity.

Follow Samara O'Shea on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamaraOShea

Comments

[Libertine58]

Monogamy is not natural for human beings.

We must ask ourselves, what was the original point in mandating monogamous marriage in the first place?

In ancient times, when hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies, ideas of private property and inheritance were established. To reliably name heirs, a man had to know which children were his. To do this, the sexuality of women had to be controlled. Monogamous marriage was established, with polygyny for the rich(where women were still monogamous, even if men weren't). This is also why women are usually punished more harshly than men for adultery and why virginity was required for brides.

Religion put its stamp of approval on this, which gave it the force of law in societies where religion was the law.

Yet people have committed adultery all through the centuries, as it's impossible to completely thwart human nature.

We see more adultery now, as the valid reasons for monogamy no longer exist:

Marriage is no longer primarily about reproduction, DNA tests prove paternity, non-marital children enjoy the same rights as marital children, women are no longer legally dependent on men for survival, etc.

However, cultural sensibilities have not caught up to current practical realities, especially considering that few people know the real reasons why monogamy was originally mandated.

It's time our society stopped insisting that every marriage be monogamous. Only then will the hypocrisy end, as human nature will surely not change.

[Ben Spoont]

You really think that Spitzer should NOT have resigned? Not only did he cheat on his wife, he did so in a prostitution ring which is highly illegal.

[LetterLover]

Unfortunately, Spitzer's crime appeared to be worse because prostitution is illegal. But really, what did he do that all the other cheating politicians didn't do? Nothing. Prostitution being illegal is a waste of law enforcement time and money. It should be decriminalized. Click on the Spitzer sentence that's hyperlinked—you'll read my case for legalizing prostitution.

Of course, Spitzer was a hypocrite. As was Sanford. As was Henry VIII. Then again, I don't know any human beings who have the luxury of not being hypocrites at one point or another. We spend so much time pointing fingers at other people for the things we do.

Samara

[KKojei]

Correction: The hypocrites are those folks who take the information of a man's dalliances and use it to ruin him politically. First, a man who is cheating on his wife is very much likely to have be cheated on by his wife long before he steps out. Why? Simple! Having committed his freedom of sexuality to the marriage, she too often puts it and him on a shelf like one of her dolls from childhood while she goes about living the married life, doing the things women do once they have their stallion finally gelded.

We make a commitment to take care of each others' needs for companionship, nurturing, sexuality and security. Be it man or woman who forgets this and stops cherishing their spouse [if they ever did], the consequences are well deserved. Ultimately, the truth is we own our own bodies and our own decisions. No law, no contract can interfere with what our natures demand of us. While religions swear up and down that "GOD" created the institution of marriage, that big lie can be proven. Marriage was designed so kings and politicians could effectively collect the tax and so the "good shepherds" [Yea right] of the church could collect the tithe. Neither love nor lust is a matter of logical decision. These matters are built into our very DNA. So all you folk laying out dying because a marriage didn't work...take responsibility, get a life and stop trying to contain the galaxy in a saucepan.

[markysgirl5]

Ok I get it. Infidelity whether it be in the form of affairs or patronizing a prostitute has been around ever since cultures collectively decided that fidelity was socially important. However, I do think the politicians discussed in this post should step down not because they were fallible, they were hypocrites! These men built their careers and derived their power by taking public positions against the very types of behavior they were engaging in themselves. How many of them got elected with the aid of campaign advertisements featuring their lovely dedicated wives and adorable children? Most, I would venture to say. Had they not been caught they would no doubt trot out the same strategy the next time re-election time rolled around. If you're going to tout yourself as the poster boy (or girl) for family values to achieve political power then you better walk the walk. If you don't then you deserve to lose the political career you've built under false pretenses regardless of what happens to your personal life. Yes elected officials do need to live up to higher standards than the rest of us because they tell us that they do in order to get elected.

[LetterLover]

I agree that politicians have to lose the Holier than Thou act, but I'm not exactly sure how they can do it. The public wouldn't exactly support a man who stood on the soapbox and openly admitted he was a womanizer. Part of their image is what we project onto them and, after a while, we're fools for falling for the picture perfect political family. Politicians and priests fall short of the glory just like the rest of us. If we focus more on their leadership abilities and their record of promises / actual policies then we might not be as disappointed.

Samara

[KKojei]

What has to be done is that we have to create relationships that accomodate our natures instead of challenging it constantly with ideas that force hypocrisy in the first place. I promise you there is not one human being on planet Earth who is not susceptible, given the right set of circumstances, to falling in love or lust even when they married the love of their life. Growth, changing personal, career and other priorities cause stress on marriages. Neglect of these stressors is the first crime against the marriage. The second is the refusal to take responsibility for the consequences, the third is the dishonesty and greed associated with pretending you believe in the values which produce the marriage in the first place while secretly or overtly, longing for something else.

Until we stop projecting our choices and values on on others, we remain busybodies who use social main force to thwart the workings of a much greater spirit than our own. Nobody gets up in the morning and decides to go "fall in love". That is the workings of spirit. Yet we remain, as a whole, a planet where the concept of owning and controlling other human beings, [as if we even knew how to create a single cell of them] follows us right into our bedrooms. If possession is nine tenths of the law, then what anybody does with their bodies is their own business. Just tell the damn truth about it and deal with the consequences.

[Maerwynn]

Affair aside, Sanford should resign for disappearing and neglecting to inform his office, his Lt. Gov. and his security detail.

Taking time off for a mini-vacation is one thing but to abdicate his duties with no notice is inexcusable.