NEWSWEEK story about women's infidelity

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2003
NEWSWEEK story about women's infidelity
38
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:11pm
Has anyone seen the new issue( 7/12) of NEWSWEEK with the cover story , "The New Infidelity" about how more wives are cheating, too?

Any reactions? Opinions?

I just got married and I'm not the least bit worried about my DW, but I have to admit it's not welcome news to hear that so many wives are cheating now.

taoist

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-01-2003
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 9:38pm
Tish, you hit the nail on the head with the subject of the article. I read it and (sorry taoist), it wasn't meant to be an article about the pain of infidelity, it was about the rising numbers of women who are keeping up with the men in terms of cheating. The fact that women are working in larger numbers than ever, hence the ability to meet men in professional setttings where we never had the chance to before. It talked about the way we're all on our 'best behavior' at work, looking our best (men too, not just women), using manners, and how mild flirtations can escalate.

Technology has also loosened up a lot of women's inhibitions about sex outside marriage. With IM'ing, chat rooms, emails, text messaging, multiple ways to connect with those that are strangers have developed. Plus, they can be someone a little more outrageous than they really are, because of the anonymity.

And finally, women are taking the chance more because *if* the marriage should end, we are in a better position than ever before - historically speaking - to support ourselves and any children. The article seemed to point to women that feel they can 'have it all', all the things that men have indulged themselves with for generations. Even infidelity. (Not that I think it's a great thing to aspire to.) But there seemed to be a sense of entitlement, of selfishness that they are 'owed' excitement and passion, along with everything else.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2003
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 7:40am
"it was about the rising numbers of women who are keeping up with the men in terms of cheating."

"The article seemed to point to women that feel they can 'have it all', all the things that men have indulged themselves with for generations. Even infidelity. (Not that I think it's a great thing to aspire to.) But there seemed to be a sense of entitlement, of selfishness that they are 'owed' excitement and passion, along with everything else."

That's right, tally , and it was the "You go, girl!" attitude that I objected to. I'm glad you included your parenthetical remarks above because it isn't anything at all to aspire to. Violent crime is increasing among women, too, and that isn't anything for women to feel liberated, proud of, or entitled to.

The one thing I took away from the article was that a lot of this seemed to be because the women weren't getting the attention (or least felt they weren't) they desired from their husbands. My wife has told me that her two previous husbands didn't pay much attention to her, but she never thought that was a good excuse for cheating. Well, I pay a lot of attention to her (why else be together?) so I don't think I'll have anything to worry about.

taoist

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 8:18am
<hiding all factors fo the goings-on from the kids. I cannot stress that enough...>>

bounxh0a-1.gif picture by dillbyrd

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 10:00am
The magizine was "factual" only. It did pretty much sum up why women cheat, however. They dont just cheat just "because they can." They cheat because they are not getting what they need, weather it`s emotional, physical, whatever at home.

People seem to be in denial about the importance of a good healthy sexual relationship in marriage.(not all marriages need or have lots of sex, but thats normally consensual )

Sex provides a bonding that you can`t find anywhere else. Clashing libedos is a major cause of men cheating. Sex or no sex within a relationship may be a barometer as to the health of the relationship. Resentment can cause one or the other to withhold sex from the other, which only causes more ill feelings. When one person wants sex and the other doesnt, it can be a MAJOR,let me say that again,MAJOR distraction to a marriage. Men go looking for sex somewhere else, if night after night, week after week, month after month ,or sometimes year after year they go to bed totally frustrated sexually. Im sure the same may go for women.

It doesn`t have to be about sex, ofcourse, it can be an emotional fix as well. When two people truely pay attention to each other, bond on a daily basis,communicate well, and have that commitment of it`s you and me "no matter what" then you have a successful relationship.

Meeting emotional needs of your spouse on a daily basis is a challenge, at best. I think women may feel why be intimate when he really doesnt care about me or(x y z). They then see that "great" guy at work ,who is so intelligent, cute,and ATTENTIVE as more attractive and more desirable. It does work both ways , however.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2003
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 10:59am
I just want to comment on one theme that keeps cropping up over and over - the idea that you should end a relationship completely before starting another. In an ideal world, that's a great idea, but I think it's extremely unrealistic in the world we actually live in. It often takes years to unwind a long-term relationship even if it's not working well at all, and people are not robots who can automatically put their feelings and passions on hold, especially when they are emotionally hungry.

I was in a 13 year marriage that was unfulfilling in a lot of ways for a long time, and I did most of the "right" things to try to make it work. I tried to communicate with him about what made me unhappy, and we went to couples therapy. Nothing worked because he simply wasn't open or able to change. Now, I did not cheat, but I can't say that I wouldn't have if the opportunity had presented itself. I had forgotten and lost what I was as a passionate person deserving of being loved and desired. I was miserably unhappy, but I held on to the marriage because I had two young kids and because I was afraid to lose the whole social structure we had created as a couple.

Lucky for me, my ex made the first move, telling me he would show me how much I missed him. Well, I didn't and I found another love and have just remarried. I cannot imagine cheating on my new DH, but I'm also a realist. People change, passions die, and life is just too damn hard sometimes.

I guess I'm saying that I understand WHY women cheat, and I think society needs to address the issues that make that happen, rather than just condeming the practice wholesale. Maybe men need to work less, and be more available to the women who want them. Maybe women need to be more independent and tolerant and not expect so much out of men.

Just ideas for discussion and thought.

Susan

Susan

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 12:04pm
>>In an ideal world, that's a great idea, but I think it's extremely unrealistic in the world we actually live in. It often takes years to unwind a long-term relationship even if it's not working well at all, and people are not robots who can automatically put their feelings and passions on hold, especially when they are emotionally hungry.<<

I disagree with that. It doesn't take years to seperate. It takes as long as it does to move your stuff out or to sit down and tell the person it's over. Anything else I feel is self serving.

Leticia

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 2:40pm
I would agree with that. In those cases where a couple goes back and forth, then there is still something to be gained by hanging on. But a lack of love isn't what kills marriages, it's indifference. IF you are indifferent to your spouse, then you don't care to hang on.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 3:15pm
Would one still wish to hang on if there was a lack of love anyway though? (whether indifference was a factor or not)

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I'm not sure I caught on to what you're saying, so maybe you can help me?

:)

:)

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 5:24pm
"Would one still wish to hang on if there was a lack of love anyway though?" Sure. IF there were children to be concerned with and the respect and trust was still intact.

Feelings do die, particularly if the relationship hasn't been a priority, and people do grow apart for whatever reasons but if you still LIKE one another as individuals, then you could could manage to stay together. I know several couples doing just that. They're basically putting their personal lives on hold until the children are more self sufficient. Yes, that requires some selflessness but I would have been willing to do the same for my kids. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable. But when the couples in question finally do divorce, I'm sure it will be very civil and cooperative.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 11:02am
Just to make sure my confusion is clear, this is your quote that kinda confused me a little:

"But a lack of love isn't what kills marriages, it's indifference. IF you are indifferent to your spouse, then you don't care to hang on."

Now, your explanation in #30 that suggests there are couples, for example, who put their lives on hold until the kids become more self-sufficient. I think 'that' is where I'm confused.

Stretching a marriage out "until this" or "until that" isn't IMHO the same as hanging on. In the example you gave, it was still that lack of love that kept the marriage from together. Responsibility for the kids kept it together "until" those kids became self sufficient, BUT genuine love would keep it together regardless, wouldn't it?

Indifferences are situations that can and have been worked out many times not being worked out many times. My wife & I argue and suffer indifferences practically twice per week, LOL, but the marriage isn't based on how little or how often those indifferences occur. Rather, its based on the love we continue to share them and how committed we are to work through them because of that love.

I'm confused, still, by how a marriage can remain permanent without love the lack of indifferences I guess. If I remain confused, then no problem, but at least I respect ya enough to ask. LOL, of course there are many out there who believe that marriage wasn't meant to be permanent anyway, huh? Till death do us part is meaningless now. Thankfully, there's parts of the world left around here that still believes in it I guess...JMHO.

"Till death do you part?" Why do people even that anymore? What does it mean anymore to them? I wonder...

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R