Thursday, July 22, 2010

Things They Should Invent: penance for cheaters

This post was inspired by this David Eddie column, where a woman who has been in a committed relationship for years finds herself thinking that perhaps she might like to try being with a man.

David Eddie says:

In other words, if you plan on having an affair with someone, you should first break things off with the person with whom you are in love, and have, by your testimonial, a committed relationship.

You could do it nicely, of course. Tell her (a compassionate version of) the truth. Something like: “Listen, I have a little matter I need to get out of my system, this kooky kink called heterosexuality, and unless I do it I’m afraid I’ll always be curious and could not in good faith go through with marrying you. Of course, I understand if you say no. But do you think you could see your way clear to waiting for me while I work this out?”


It occurred to me while reading this that one of the many possible outcomes is that, while Girlfriend doesn't specifically offer to wait, maybe Ms. Bicurious discovers rather quickly that having a male partner doesn't live up to her fantasy and goes crawling back to Girlfriend while Girlfriend still loves her (because you don't just stop loving someone like flicking a switch).

And it occurred to me that if it played out this way, Girlfriend should get some kind of credit or compensation or something. After all, she was a good girl, devoted to her partner, secure in her sexuality. Shouldn't that count for something?

So what they should do is when a couple is trying to save their relationship after an affair, the marriage counsellor should impose a penance on the cheater. It could be something intended to put the wronged party's mind at ease (e.g. they're allowed to snoop in the cheater's email for six months), or it could be punitive (e.g. the cheater has to do the dishes for a year). Both parties agree on what seems reasonable, sign a contract, and when the penance is completed the cheater is deemed to have paid their debt.

This way, the wronged party gets a sense of vindication, but the debt is also considered paid off once the penance is done, so the affair isn't looming over their head to be dredged up in arguments for the rest of their lives.

5 comments:

laura k said...

I wish more people would consider polyamory. Give each other space to explore, with the security to come home to. Both people get it, so no compensation is needed.

impudent strumpet said...

That assumes both people want it. And are okay with their partner having it. And that the emotional aspect would respond to such a coldly logical arrangement.

Analogy: if my partner's feelings are hurt because I didn't do anything for his birthday, they aren't going to be unhurt by my giving him permission to ignore my birthday.

laura k said...

That assumes both people want it. And are okay with their partner having it. And that the emotional aspect would respond to such a coldly logical arrangement.

It doesn't actually assume either of those things, and polyamory is anything but coldly logical.

It's a recognition that people's needs are complicated and two people can and often do have different needs.

One person can give the other permission to explore without using the same permission themselves. They might find their relationship deepens and grows from such trust and understanding.

impudent strumpet said...

The premise that no compensation is required because it's available to both people assumes that both people want it. If one person doesn't want it (or find the idea of their partner being poly vastly more unappealing than the idea of being monogamous themselves), the fact that it's available is at best irrelevant and at worst adds insult to injury.

To me polyamory seems coldly logical because it makes perfect sense on paper, and I find it a complete, total, visceral turn-off. To me personally, there is nothing even remotely appealing about it and quite a few things repulsive, but if it were an academic subject I could write a very convincing thesis on why it's a good idea.

laura k said...

The premise that no compensation is required because it's available to both people assumes that both people want it.

Not necessarily. It can be a recognition of the partner's needs being different than one's own needs. The concept of cheating disappears.

But that's a basic difference, not reasoned away. As you say, the idea repulses you, and monogamy presumably is much more appealing. I'm not repulsed by monogamy, but lifelong monogamy seems like magical thinking to me, akin to religious beliefs or Santa Claus - completely unrealistic and undesirable.

But there you go.