Terrence, after reading your last post to me I find that we may be arguing over semantics, and have more in common in our belief systems than I previously thought, if you are being honest about yours.
First, in my terminology a mistress is usually the kept sexual companion of a married man. I therefore assumed you were married at the time. If you weren't married I would probably use a different word--lover comes to mind--but the implication in mistress that there is essentially money for sex changing hands is still troubling to me. Of course, this is also the underlying contract in many marriages, another sad aspect of relationships which tends to deaden joy, but that is a subject for another time I suppose.
I am not a Puritan or a prude by any means. You obviously haven't read much that I've written at SI, or you would know that I am very open about sexuality, and consider it life's best pleasure. What I was saying is that I believe an incredibly hot, uninhibited and passionate sexual relationship is the very core of a marriage. When that dies, for me the marriage has ended. All the other needs--for friendship, intellectual discourse, whatever else you need--can be met outside the marriage relationship without any infidelity, and make the marriage richer by enhancing your vibrance for life. It's very healthy to have friends and hobbies and interests!! I don't believe it's healthy or ethical to stay in a lonely marriage. Not just selfishly speaking, but what does settling for not very much teach our children about striving for happiness in their own lives? We are their models, and need to teach them to keep trying for the richest, warmest lives they can have.
I also believe that a sexual relationship by its very nature is so close that huge bonds of love and trust are broken if a marriage is nonmonogamous. Definitely as we grow and change through life, the partners we picked in our twenties may grow in different ways, and perhaps we did not have the maturity to choose someone we were truly compatible with at that age. Much of the self is undeveloped then, and the rigors of bearing children and rearing them together often obscure underlying incompatibilities until the children reach teenagehood, at which time the house starts feeling empty although it is still full, because the closeness in the marriage relationship has somehow evaporated.
It is very painful for everyone involved to watch love die. But I would argue that serial monogamy--going on and choosing a different mate who does satisfy the deep need for as much passion, sex and love as we need--is a more ethical choice than going outside a marriage, or staying in a dead relationship and dying inside at the same time, and perhaps taking on new sex partners. This doesn't really feel honest, and the bonds sex create are so intimate that I think it would be very guilt-ridden and confusing. I actually think two couples who are close friends experimenting with group sex is more ethical than going outside of the marriage for variety, although then your best friends have become a lot more than nice people to hang out with on Saturday nights. It seems to get quite confusing, since then even more emotional bonds are formed, but ethically I believe all sexual relationships should have both people in the relationship present when sex is happening. See, I told you I wasn't a prude, but I guess this is another topic for a different time. Perhaps some things are best left to a rich fantasy life!!!!
Anyway, I believe everyone has the right to pursue ecstatic happiness, and that if you operate ethically and straightforwardly in that pursuit, in the long run everyone involved in these sadly lonely, emotionally empty relationships has a better chance to be happy in the future.
Have a lovely time in Europe!!
Christine |
