At post 1693 Her Highness Lynn took great exception to the article, and I take specific exceptions to her comment.
Lynn says: “No way on earth would I ever agree to an outlandish notion that I could tolerate unfaithfulness as long as his emotional dedication remains. By very nature of being unfaithful a spouse cannot be emotionally dedicated to the marriage! You cannot have the two, (physical infidelity and emotional fidelity), and have a stable marriage. It is virtually impossible! It breeds contempt. Revenge. Self loathing. Deceit. Harm to her. Lack of understanding on his part. Harm to the children as innocent by-standers who will never understand the psychological warfare the infidelity wreaked on the family. It is psychologically impossible for a woman to rationalize unfaithfulness and remain confident that she has a good marriage. It breeds doubt and insecurity! It chips away at the very foundation of a good marriage based on trust, love and respect for each other. She wonders if she is becoming paranoid if he is cheating again. Wonders when it will happen again. Compartmentalizing to put up with husband’s infidelities deadens the spirit, the soul of a woman. Everything a woman hopes for, dream about for their future and for their children is jeopardized when a spouse is unfaithful. It’s an insult to all that they have built together and cracks the very foundation of a strong marriage.”
First, post 1693 is founded on principles and results expected from the basic nature of men and women. That is, how men and women act and react before their emotions, beliefs, values, and expectations come into play or when they lack conscious thought to react otherwise. So, Lynn is oranges to my apples, but welcome anyway and especially for her clarity of writing.
Second, Lynn claims that “By very nature of being unfaithful a spouse cannot be emotionally dedicated to the marriage!” And yet, thousands of times both sexes can, do, and have remain dedicated, or else far fewer marriages would survive. Cognitive dissonance forces women to choose, and usually they find that emotional faithfulness can outweigh physical infidelity.
Third, Lynn presents one side, that of cheated-on wives. We are left to ponder as if unfaithful wives don’t cause family turmoil. As shown below, such finger pointing makes home and society worse for women.
Fourth, with much less antipathy, I can agree with Lynn’s spirit. However, the indirect consequences can be worse than the direct personal benefits that come from unloading one’s heartfelt fears and negative opinions about others. That’s the case here.
I discourage preaching what Lynn verbalizes. Having the right to say it doesn’t make it right to say it. Feminists have propagandized and their acolytes have ‘screamed’ the same thing since Feminism came into the culture a half-century ago. The result is that far more marriages fall apart than back in the day. Such one-sided expressions offend the other gender. Many women don’t mind offending men, but that’s exactly the problem Feminism brings to women.
Feminism takes cooperation out of the gender interface and generates strong and offensive-to-men competition within family and home. Men offended by women resent, resist, and retaliate. As the end result, men care less about fulfilling female hopes and dreams. Men abandon women and families and forego personal responsibility as their way of rejecting negative stereotyping of the male gender.
The feelings Lynn expresses put women in face-to-face competition, where male dominance says wives likely won’t win. Usually, women end up on the losing end of the competition, because the male desire to save face invokes male dominance. If women are unlikely to win, most wives know to take a different strategy and tactics.
I know. Back in the day, divorce was more difficult and women had less freedom and fewer options. At the same time, the male gender expressed a much greater sense of personal responsibility about home, family, and fidelity. Men were nowhere near perfect. But in ways that women appreciate, they far outshine the personal responsibility so characteristic of men today.
I think Lynn’s attitude misguides women and especially wives. Being so emotionally charged, they can’t keep from unloading it on themselves and to others. We all become like others expect, and when women expect men to be faulty and fault-ridden, men become what women make them think about. As women go, so goes society.
A wife can be as emotionally determined as Lynn describes. However, things change dramatically when she actually faces the crisis of unfaithfulness and has to figure out her newly revised self-interest and way of life. When her convictions face reality, it’s a different world for her. Her Highness Lauren describes it better in her comment at post 1693.
The more a wife verbalizes convictions such as Lynn’s, and especially if expressed to her husband, the more committed she makes herself to live it exactly that way. Her words commit her not to deviate from her convictions. In other words, by expressing deep beliefs to herself and others, she removes options from whatever situation she finds herself in. With fewer options, odds favor her husband achieving personal goals rather than her achieving relationship objectives.