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

Pages

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 07-18-2004 - 1:45pm
I guess we disagree about what "indifference" means then. My DH and I are never indifferent to one another, even in the most heated moments. Webster's definition of the word is " a lack of interest, feeling or concern."

One can still be concerned and CARE about their spouse, even if a passionate love is gone. There are many kinds of love.

I know I would still love my DH, even if we divorced for some reason....but it would be a different kind of love. After 28 yrs. together, how could I not?

When one is indifferent, you don't feel enough for your partner to bother arguing, much less try and make it work, even for the children. And even when you hate someone, you still FEEL something toward them. Both emotions are the result of passion. That's why counselors are hopeful when a couple comes in with, at least, hostility toward one another! LOL!


Edited 7/18/2004 1:52 pm ET ET by katmandoo2001

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 07-18-2004 - 5:32pm
Your definition of indifference seems correct, but my of it is what confused me I guess. Like I said, she & I probably argue about something on an average of twice a week. Obviously we've developed enough trust/respect for one another through that.

Indifference to me was not a permanent one as the way you appear to be describing it, so I see where I've misunderstood you there. However, I'm still not quite sure how divorce occurs with love still involved. If you could divorce someone while still loving him, how? Seperation, I understand that, but why permanent divorce?

Each person or couple has its own reasons as always, but she & I still believe in till death do us part I guess more than any excuse to split. I suppose we just haven't reached that part in our lives yet to consider such a move, but we're still growing older and growing older together, so we'll see what happens I suppose.

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 07-19-2004 - 5:30pm
If you have any doubts about the definition, then you'll have to take it up with William Webster, Para but it's not MY definition.

And people fall out of love all the time. I'm not defining love as sexual love. A couple may continue to care for one another very much, much as one does a family member, but not have passionate feelings anymore. And because you typically want a sexual relationship with your spouse, why WOULD you stay married if the desire and attraction are gone...UNLESS there are mitigating circumstances, like the care and support of young children?

And I never said that my DH and I don't believe in "death do us part." I said that it doesn't work out that way for too many people with, IMO, unrealistic expectations about marriage and love.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 07-19-2004 - 7:12pm
>>If you have any doubts about the definition, then you'll have to take it up with William Webster, Para but it's not MY definition.<<

Never said I doubted NOR did I say it was YOUR own definition, so please settle down. I already cleared up this confusion when I concluded that I was referring to temporary indifferences whereas you were referring to permanent ones...don't you remember???? Please take it easy.

>>And because you typically want a sexual relationship with your spouse, why WOULD you stay married if the desire and attraction are gone...UNLESS there are mitigating circumstances, like the care and support of young children?<<

Now with all of the older and everlasting marriages out there that have endured more than we could possibly imagine, my previous example of marriages such as Christopher Reeve's marriage on top of all that, we still have people saying statements like this one, huh?

My own marriage, like the examples previously stated, just ISN'T based upon how much sex I get to have from it nor based upon how much passion is left after a certain time. I made a God covenant to be with her till death do us part and THAT is what my marriage is based on.

Now...if others are NOT based upon that, then that is perfectly fine, as I ALREADY stated allllllllll along, in case you somehow forgot that part . I can't help it anymore if you, for whatever reason, still can't understand that.

>>And I never said that my DH and I don't believe in "death do us part."<<

I posted a very simple opinion that was obviously referring to who don't view marriage as a permanent covenant, but rather view marriage as a "convenience" until the going gets rough, but I can't prevent you from feeling its a "Kat"-hunt instead of what it ACTUALLY is. So, please check this link:

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-rlinterracia&msg=3104.1

You'll learn from it what I have to go through everyday, and thats just the tip of the iceberg. I welcome you to chime in on that string with any advice you may have, BTW. Until then, let that single string alone be a reminder that I have much more serious issues in my life than you thinking I'm out to argue with you.

HUSBAND Para


Edited 7/19/2004 7:49 pm ET ET by para1995

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 12:40am
Chris Reeves' wife says that they still engage in sexual activity, so theirs isn't a valid example for your argument at all. As long as a man can move his tongue or hands, then they can still have sex. But she says that he still gets spontaneous erections periodically so they manage intercourse as well.

And while I'm sympathetic to your issues, Para, we ALL have our trials and tribulations. We just don't necessarily post them on a message board. I would suggest that you start your OWN mentoring program, for children of mixed marriages.








Edited 7/20/2004 1:33 am ET ET by katmandoo2001

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:45am
Kat! Wow!!!

There was NO reason for you AT ALL to attempt snuffing out anyone's by OFFENSIVELY claiming that its because they can still have 'some' sex anyway, especially since she, just like the other committed marriages out there, indicated it wouldn't matter "anyway."

There ARE life-long everlasting marriages out there that endure so much more than we'll ever know. I truly honour commitments like that and am very thankful to be in one myself, SEX OR NOT. Nobody has to agree with it cause not every marriage is like that, but it doesn't mean they don't and cannot exist.

I guess my expectations were too high when hoping that you'd at least by these types of 'very real' marriages that DO exist out there than hunting for loopholes in search of invalidity. If having the last bite was that important enough for you to make such a statement...


Edited 7/20/2004 10:02 am ET ET by para1995

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 11:56am
OMDG Para! What planet are YOU from? Apparently, some "decaf" would be a good idea for YOU today! Let's just tone down the drama a bit.

Mrs. Reeves is younger than he is and yes, I'm sure sex IS an important consideration for her, like it or not. I'm quite sure she's very grateful that they can still share physical intimacy of ANY kind.

And just because SOME people can live sexless lives with their partner, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are more noble or committed to their vows. It may just mean that they don't consider sex THAT important in general. And I know of many people who hang onto a marriage just for convenience or comfort but the real marriage died years ago.

If my DH or I became disabled, or unable to perform sexually, or worse, then we have a HISTORY to fall back on and sustain us. Many people don't though.

So, sorry, I'll never dishonor anyone by speaking the truth. Yes, sex is important but it's not everything.

I'm looking at this whole subject from within a 28 yr. marriage! So, what point of view do you THINK I would have about marriage and sex? My very situation indicates my belief in dedication, monogamy and commitment. So, please, keep the self serving comments to yourself.

But I want to get back to the MAIN topic.

Personally, I think anyone who insists on staying in a marriage, just to say "I honored my vows", where their partner is blatantly cheating and dishonoring theirs, is a complete and utter fool. But hey, to each his own. That's just not what the vows mean to me or my DH. Vows broken....commitment ended.

Okay, now I totally give up on this subject. I'm quite sure we'll never agree so why bother beating this dead horse.










Edited 7/20/2004 12:41 pm ET ET by katmandoo2001

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:55pm
Its about CLARIFYING my message from your interpretation...NOT about disagreeing on anything at all. Get it NOW??

I merely stated that lifelong marriages do exist, THATS IT, and then I included examples of their existences, not just one example.

That was it and it was totally innocent.

PLEASE stop turning it into an issue all the time, Kat, cause that was at all; no need for that extra thinking whatsoever.

, its just 'INNOCENT' CLARIFICATION. You can either admit that you innocently misunderstood this all along, just like we all do from time to time, and "peacefully" leave it at that, or you can email me as I've always invited you to, or you can simply leave it alone, or you can remain bitter over me innocently clarifying my true intended wording and keep enjoying "OMDG Para"--your choice. This is as peaceful and simple as it gets, no shed blood, no right or wrong, no problem.

hubby para 4 life!


Edited 7/20/2004 2:57 pm ET ET by para1995

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R

Pages