Ruth Institute Blog

As for myself, I prefer the safety & comfort of my own monogamous marriage. Nothing trumps inner peace in marriage. Nothing.

Sexual infidelity leads to a lot of problems such as heartache, jealousy, sexually transmitted diseases, and divorce, not to mention the occasional murder. One of the characteristics of traditional marriage is sexual exclusivity. Breaking that breaks the marriage. The German word for adultery is Ehebruch. Literally marriage-break.

It is so sad.
Marriage is so beautiful.
Instead of seeking and finding beauty within marriage where it is, people search for it in sex where it can’t be found. They drive themselves mad looking for what is right in front of them.

I’d like to point out (As one who regularly reads Savage Love) GGG doesn’t require infidelity or multiple partners. Plenty of kinks and fetishes can be just between monogamous partners, and everyone is allowed personal preference and limits. Monogamy can be one of those limits.

Also, it sounds like the man in question’s real problem isn’t so much the infidelity, but about his own lack of prowess. This couple obviously needs counseling, but the husband might have some deep seated issues he never considered before.

“but the husband might have some deep seated issues he never considered before.”

Yeah, like wanting to watch his wife have sex with another man.

“Plenty of kinks and fetishes can be just between monogamous partners, and everyone is allowed personal preference and limits.”

What if the woman won’t set the limits she wants for fear of losing her husband? Let’s say they have three kids, 2 jobs and a mortgage and she knows if he leaves her she will be financial and emotionally strapped.

@Deb
Well, the snarky answer is, they should have discussed sex and any kinks before marriage. In fact, pre-martial sex could have solved that issue.
Let’s be realistic here, if a marriage would end over that, if the couple can not work out an agreeable compromise over a particular kink or sex in general, it wasn’t a healthy marriage to begin with.
Maybe the husband should have been honest with what he wanted and expected upfront, before the ring, the mortgage and the kids. Maybe the wife should have been honest with what her limits and expectations are before the ring, the mortgage and the kids. Discussing sex and expectations of sex before marriage is the responsible thing to do.

@Ari
Thats a matter of opinion. Keep in mind that *some* people find the idea/concept of loss of control, powerlessness very appealing/ total turn on. What could be more out of your control, or leave one more powerless then watching their partner have sex with another? Given the vastness of the human race, if generally accepted variants of kink, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac” for example exist, it stands to reason that the inverse, loss of power/control, exists as well. And both are needed to keep a sort of balance to society.

Now, all that said, I don’t think the majority of people can handle non-monogamy. Biologically we’re wired for it, but emotionally the majority can’t handle it. I know I couldn’t personally. The idea that we should be accepting, willing to try and experiment in bed to please our partner isn’t bad advice. That doesn’t mean we accept it blindly, but it does mean we have to talk with our partners, be reasonable, compromise, etc, just like any other aspect of a relationship. So, yeah, this guy did it wrong. Maybe he didn’t think it through, maybe he did and just underestimated his emotions, maybe he’s afraid he doesn’t measure up. But he’s got no one to blame but himself.

What if he developed the “kinks and fetishes” after 10 years of marriage? What if the wife finds them distasteful and he then threatens to leave her? Let’s say after the kids are born, wife decides the “kinks” no longer her thing. These things can develop after the ring, mortgage and kids, you know.

“In fact, pre-martial sex could have solved that issue.”

Please read the Anthony Esolen article, in its entirety, on the first page of this blog. This is some of what he says the language of pre-marital sex says: ““I feel no love for you, but am using your body as a convenient receptacle, for the sake of the pleasure. Afterwards I dearly hope you will not trouble me with your continued presence.” Is that too strong? What about this? “I like you very much, and yet I have no intention of spending the rest of my life with you, or even the rest of this year.” Or this? “Let’s pretend we are married, but let’s not actually get married, because I might change my mind about you.” Or this? “I am bored, and you are here.””

“Maybe the husband should have been honest with what he wanted and expected upfront, before the ring, the mortgage and the kids. Maybe the wife should have been honest with what her limits and expectations are before the ring, the mortgage and the kids. ”

That’s the thing. Pre-marital sex isn’t honest (again, read Esolen). Kinks and fetishes are using people and therefore is not an honest use of the human body.

@Ari

“Masculinity, being a word means things and has certain implications.”

Yes, and we could include another implication of the word masculine: to protect. Nothing about allowing another man to have sex with his wife is protective.

@Ari
Masculinity also has the implication promiscuity, stubbornness, and aggression. What it means to be a “man” has different meanings to different people. Obviously he doesn’t fit your definition of a man, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a “man” or that others don’t perceive him as a man. Different strokes for different folks and what not.

@Deb
“What if he developed the “kinks and fetishes” after 10 years of marriage? What if the wife finds them distasteful and he then threatens to leave her?”

A sign of an unhealthy marriage. Yes, people change, but change and compromise are part of the course for relationships.

“Let’s say after the kids are born, wife decides the “kinks” no longer her thing. These things can develop after the ring, mortgage and kids, you know.”

Yeah, but I’ve never met someone whose into any particular kink and then one day wakes up and doesn’t care for it anymore. Usually in that case, the person in question was faking the kink, and that is dishonest.

Anthony Esolsen can’t handle pre-martial sex. Thats cool, it’s not for everyone. But, if you he or yourself feel you have some sort of hidden insight to what everyone who has sex before their wedding night thinks about it, you have a very limited worldview.

“Kinks and fetishes are using people and therefore is not an honest use of the human body.”

Limited worldview. Plenty of people marry who have the same kinks. Plenty of happy married people have kinky sex. (I mean, come on, this blog’s posted those studies that show traditional couples have “better” sex, it’s not all vanilla, it couldn’t be.) Just because you find something “distasteful” doesn’t mean everyone does.

“A sign of an unhealthy marriage. Yes, people change, but change and compromise are part of the course for relationships.”

But what if the husband, after 10 years of marriage, decides that know he is into watching his wife have sex with another man. but she is very opposed. What if he sees this as grounds for divorce? How unfair to just cast the marriage as “unhealthy” and throw out platitudes like “compromise”.

Did you even read Esolen’s article or did you just make assumptions? What do you mean Esolen can’t “handle” pre-marital sex? As in, it scares him? As in, it makes his cheeks red? Seriously, NG, he is an adult and a philosopher who is looking at it through that lens.

You have limited view about sex if you think it is required before marriage to determine if the couple is “sexually compatible”.

nerdygirl :
Limited worldview. Plenty of people marry who have the same kinks. Plenty of happy married people have kinky sex. (I mean, come on, this blog’s posted those studies that show traditional couples have “better” sex, it’s not all vanilla, it couldn’t be.) Just because you find something “distasteful” doesn’t mean everyone does.

You know, NG, when I first read “vanilla” I admit to going “huh?”. But then I realized that you and I are coming from two entirely different perspectives. When a man and a woman have sex only when they are married (and don’t take part in porn) they have no idea whether their sex life is “vanilla” or not. Your view of sex is restricted by the need to compare to other experiences (either actual or played out on film). The couple that waits until marriage learns how to have sex together. It is an experience unique to only them and they have nothing to compare it to- that is liberating, not limiting. If a man or women have many experiences in which to compare their spouse, then they can start using the term “vanilla” vs. “kinky” .

@Deb
I read it. Thanks.

“But what if the husband, after 10 years of marriage, decides that know he is into watching his wife have sex with another man. but she is very opposed. What if he sees this as grounds for divorce? How unfair to just cast the marriage as “unhealthy” and throw out platitudes like “compromise”.”

But, that is an unhealthy marriage. I don’t see how you can claim otherwise. Say, husband (after 10 years of marriage) wants to take control of the wife’s salary if she works outside the home. He’ll divorce her if she doesn’t give him her paycheck every week. If husband isn’t willing the compromise on this matter, who in their right mind would want to stay with them? Not all unhealthy marriages start out unhealthy, and there’s a difference between workable differences and unworkable differences. If husband has a kink or fetish, and neither he or wife are willing to make some kind of compromise, they are going to have an unhappy marriage. If husband wants to be a controlling troll about it, wife is better off without him. And yes, non-monogamous situations and pairings are reasonable things to have limits about and not agree to.

“As in, it scares him? As in, it makes his cheeks red? Seriously, NG, he is an adult and a philosopher who is looking at it through that lens.”

Well, yes, it does seem to scare him. Thats fine. Everyone is allowed to have individual reactions to sex. He seems to realize it has an emotional and physical risk he wouldn’t be willing (and doesn’t believe others as well) to take. And sex can be “scary”, relationships are scary, not usually thankfully in a non abusive way, but they are all risks. A person can take no risks regarding either and never get hurt, but also never really “love” ((And no, I am not saying people who don’t have pre-marital sex can’t love, afterall, if they still have relationships of any kind, thats a risk))
Being an adult doesn’t make life any less scary.

“You have limited view about sex if you think it is required before marriage to determine if the couple is “sexually compatible”.”

For some it is. For some it isn’t. If someone doesn’t want to have sex before marriage, more power to them. But I’m not going to tell a married couple that discussed and experimented with kinks and fetishes before getting married that they’re doing it wrong.

“You know, NG, when I first read “vanilla” I admit to going “huh?”. But then I realized that you and I are coming from two entirely different perspectives. ”

And I still think you are confused on what vanilla means. My bad, I should have defined it. Vanilla would be sex without toys, kinks or props. Vanilla is normal. But some people like a little extra and this is where we get kink. Sometimes that extra is too much for any reasonable person. Usually it’s not. And sometimes people get lucky and find someone with the same kinks. It’s kinda like being athletic and looking for partner whose into playing sports, or liking chess and looking for someone else who likes chess. There’s nothing wrong with what you described, thats great and I’m glad that you think of it so beautifully. But it’s not for everyone, just like whips and floggers aren’t for everyone.

@Ari
“Millions of men throughout history would have been willing to die in a duel with a man who did such a thing or even hinted that he wanted to.”

There’s certainly a “romantic” notion to be willing to risk ones life in an effort to avenge or protect their beloveds honor. In practice though, it’s both impractical and detrimental to society. And being dead hardly provides for a wife and family.

I get what your saying. I just don’t quite agree.

I don’t think Anthony Esolen is scared of sex. He is married with several children. He is looking at the fact that the body speaks a language and that pre-marital sex is lying with the body. You don’t see it, I get that. But to call him scared, that’s just silly.

Marrying someone because they like to jog is a whole lot different then marrying someone because they like to be whipped and the other enjoys doing the whipping. That said, both are weak grounds on which to base a life-long marriage. Marriage is so much more than sex (or jogging) and to make “toys, kinks, or props” such a high priority is to ask for marital trouble. Sex is also so much more than just fun or “kinks”: it has the power to create a once-in-a-lifetime human being. I dare say to approach every sexual embrace as such with your spouse is to experience a profound change in how you view him/her and the act itself. Your spouse is a precious gift that you use your own body in turn as a gift to him/her; now and through eternity (through the means of a new human person).

@Ari

I’m sure it is, as you have posted items that I agree with and have enjoyed (recently I enjoyed the “most men are average and that’s why we need monogamy”). But I am curious about what in my last post makes you say that.

@Deb
Well, yeah, I wouldn’t marry a guy just because we shared a love of running or whips, but finding someone with common interests is preferable, and to an extent necessary. The interests (and kinks) are not the big deal, but they make a nice package deal.

@Ari
I’m pretty sure this sort of act existed back then as well, people just didn’t advertise as much. Anonymity through pen names and such helps.
And there are still people today who would, and do duel/kill over that act.

The majority of men today would still not want to see their wife/S.O/etc with another man (with another woman is a whole other can of worms.) The majority of people are still going to have monogamous relationships, or at least non-monogamous relationships the old-fashioned way of cheating.

@Ari

Naomi is a beautiful, biblical name. Congratulations!

I really don’t own “my attitude” on marriage and sexuality. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that I believe and follow.

Your book looks great. Keep fighting the good fight, Ari!

nerdygirl :
@Deb
There’s nothing wrong with what you described, thats great and I’m glad that you think of it so beautifully. But it’s not for everyone, just like whips and floggers aren’t for everyone.

This line has stayed with me. Do you not think of sex in terms of beauty? If not, what’s holding you back? And wouldn’t we want this beauty for everyone?