Adultery Is Good. But Only When Women Do it, Of Course.

Well, now. Look at what's on the cover of the latest edition of Newsweek? The content really makes one's jaw drop when you think about its deeper meanings.

"The New Infidelity". Why more wives are finding comfort in the arms of other men. Cheating on your husband is, in fact, a valid lifestyle choice.

Gee, but when a man cheats on his wife, isn't that grounds for a divorce? Hm.

This piece also nicely illustrates how American females, having gained some amount of power (although they always assure us that they don't have nearly enough and they still have a long way to go), have become that which they profess to despise.

This funkadelic article was just so choked and twisted and addled with 'matter-of-fact' hypocrisies and moral cowardice, I could barely make it to the end. The stew of sexism was just so thick and rich and galling and varied that we could sample its flavors for hours. It's hard to pick what irritated me the most.

Perhaps it's because women who cheat on their husbands are portrayed with so much sympathy? Oh, they're in pain. They need love and understanding! They're overburdened! Horror! Pathos! Misery! Women have it so bad! Don't you feel sorry for the poor little angels? Woe is the betrayer! Sympathy for the betrayer! Life is so unfair to women! Boo hoo hoo!

Of course if a married man cheats on his wife, the scummy bastard ought to be run-over with a car.

Maybe another irritant was the tone of the article? It was all "RAH-RAH! GO TEAM! PUSSY POWER! YOU GO GIRL! IN YOUR FACE, MEN!" The authors could scarcely disguise their glee. Tacitus once wryly observed that crime once exposed has no refuge but in audacity. The Newsweek authors would appear to be substantiating Tacitus in spades.

In fact, the authors inform us that female infidelity is only "logical"! Gee, in that case, who can blame them? It's just "logic" and "logic" must prevail. It's not selfishness, it's not irresponsibility, it's not betrayal. Infidelity is a result of logic and is therefore a totally immutable outcome as predictable as a math equation.

And this is all such a no-brainer that "it's no wonder" women cheat!

And why is it logical? Why is it no wonder? Because being an inattentive or uninteresting husband is a crime, punishable by philandering. Didn't you know that? Oh yes, husbands are just so boring and icky. Fat and balding, flaccid-dicked, reeking of gin and sweat. They're around when you don't want them and they're never around when you do want them (which is never). And aren't they just useless? Stinking-up the couch, watching football, getting uglier and greasier by the minute. And modern life is just so stressful for a woman. And the Internet makes it so temptingly easy to find a handy stud for a quickie. And the consequences? Ha! The divorce courts are on a woman's side, baby. Why, it's practically a miracle that more women don't have affairs! You have a rich husband providing you with financial security on top of the financial security that you provide for yourself and you also have a handsome fella providing you with hot sex on the side. It's win-win-win! Yay!

You know, one could also just as easily justify modern male infidelity by saying it's merely a "logical" result of wives spending too much time at the office. Or wives simply becoming too dumpy and wrinkly and dull. And modern life is so stressful, it turns the wife into a bitter old nag. And the Internet makes it so temptingly easy to find a handy little hottie for a quickie. I suppose it makes perfect "logical" sense for husbands to cheat on their wives, right? "No wonder", right?

Oh, but wait.

I forgot.

That would be wrong.

Men have always cheated on their wives without consequence. Incidentally, we've always been at war with EastAsia too.

To justify female infidelity, we are reminded that men have supposedly always been allowed to cheat on their wives. In fact, we are assured, men are free to commit adultery as much as they like and society is totally permissive to it, never batting an eyelash. Meanwhile the long-suffering wives always remain silently and stoically oppressed in the background, helplessly watching the whole thing unfold.

Oh really?

What the hell type of fantasy-land are the authors living in?

Perhaps the authors slept-through the Clinton impeachment? And that whole thing with Gary Hart? Call me silly, but doesn't an adulterous husband usually create a groundswell of sympathy for the wife and not the other way around? If a high-ranking politician can't cheat on his wife, how can a less-powerful man possibly expect to get away with it unscathed? Hm. Oh well. Lay that aside, for it would interrupt the pity-party that we ought to feel for poor women and their constantly-frustrated aspirations to get their jollies by nullifying their marriage vows.

Even though it's totally at variance with reality, it's very important to insist that men have always been allowed to cheat on their wives without consequences. And by the way, men's chocolate rations have always gone up.

Yes, women never tire of pointing-out double-standards about how adulterous wives in the past were punished extra-harshly. Men had everything good and women had everything bad. All the better to offer more proof of victimhood so they might act with the impunity of moral underdogs today (more on that later).

Talking of obsolete double-standards from fifty or a hundred years ago in order to rationalize the adoption of new double-standards is simply evasion. And it's cowardly evasion to boot. Furthermore, this evasion is all the more disingenuous insofar that it only mentions one facet of the traditional 'male-centered' love triangle...

The shadow part of the traditional love triangle that you never hear about was the underlying economic transaction. An adulterous man traditionally provided financial security for his wife, and (if he had anything left over) would provide a little bit of financial security for his mistress as well. This was a good deal for mistresses because they didn't have to be married in order to access a man's income. So this arrangement provided economic benefits for two women, and men who couldn't afford a mistress couldn't really get away with this quite so well. But today, only the sexual double-standard ever gets mentioned because that's the part which is doctrinally useful for women to harp-on about endlessly. The economic double-standard (only women being able to access other people's incomes by spreading their legs) must always remain in the dark because it cuts too close to the bone.

By contrast, the Newsweek article on the "new" adultery offers a different explanation for the role of financial security. Having money is supposedly 'power' that allows one to cheat on one's spouse. So cheating is merely a logical concomitant of 'power' and sleeping with people of lower status is indicative of 'power'. Men had all the power, and now women are finally starting to get their fair share (but don't forget-- the poor darlings still have a long way to go!) so women are "allowed" to cheat the same way that their husbands supposedly have "always" felt entitled to cheat. But the anecdotes in the article don't strictly describe adulterous wives who provide financial security to their male lovers. No, some of the anecdotes portray something else...

Some of the economic transactions in the "new" infidelity involve a flow of gifts going from males to females like just in the old "traditional" infidelity. Jewelry, trips, romantic evenings, et cetera. The adulterous woman who already has a surplus of financial security is getting more luxuries delivered to her in addition to everything else she's already got. So in effect, there is a totally new sexual double-standard riding on top of the same old economic double-standard. And of course, the wife is the true victim throughout the whole thing.

Ahh, "it's no wonder" American chicks love Ekwalitee so much...

The Tyranny of the Underdog

But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

According to the authors, women have accumulated so much Ekwalitee (but the poor darlings still have a long way to go!) that they are entitled to the same type of behavior that the authors would consider reprehensible if men were to do it. For women, adultery is almost a right. In the topsy-turvy bizarro-world of female-designed Ekwalitee, adultery among men makes men immoral pigs while giving women a rationale to behave the same way. And adultery among women turns them not into immoral pigs, but into empowered and highly-evolved Ekwals who nonetheless behave like the immoral pigs that they once decried.

Two wrongs, apparently, make a right. Er... only when a woman can inflict the second wrong, of course. And in the event that a woman is dishing-out the second wrong, two wrongs not only make a right but the second wrong becomes something wonderful and chic!

And not only are adulterous women empowered Ekwals who are making the playing-field even, they are also victims. Victims of packed schedules and dull sex. Victims of being objectified too much back when they didn't want it. Victims of being objectified too little now that they do want it. Victims of hurt feelings and disappointments. Victims of unfulfilled dreams and broken copy machines. Victims of boredom and aging. Victims of wrinkles and greying hair. Victims of flavorless diet sodas and uncomfortable shoes. Victims of VCR timers which are hard to program and long lines at the supermarket. Victims of coffee stains on the rug and Guatemalan nannies who don't speak English very well. Victims of the stresses and sacrifices necessitated by the careers that they were demanding thirty years ago when they were victims of not having stressful careers. Victims of mildly irritating double-standards which largely don't exist anymore...

Pardon me while I go barf-up my liver.

The core fallacy lying at the center of this nonsense is what I like to call the 'tyranny of the underdog'. (Or perhaps one might call it 'Victim Power'.)

The tyranny of the underdog is a conceptual trap that is very deeply-rooted in our culture wherever women are concerned. The trap is dishonest and cowardly and it goes a little like this: I am so horribly oppressed and powerless that normal rules no longer apply to me and any attempt to put limits on my behavior is more proof of my oppression.

In fact, I have a license to carry-out however many wrongdoings I wish because I am righteously 'fighting back' against intolerable grievances... grievances that only I am qualified to describe.

True, after many years of hard-fought and bitter stuggle I have accumulated quite a bit of power... but I still have a long way to go before I can say that I have enough.

Until then, my wrongdoings are born out of my excessive innocence.

I am without guilt when I am the perpetrator.

My every act is an act of self defense.

I am the helpless victim as I betray you and boot you in the face.

The extreme level of moral cowardice bound-up in this Orwellian puzzle would be pretty stunning if it weren't such common coin among American chicks.

Men cheat, men's fault, men bad. Women cheat, men's fault, men bad.

The tyranny of the underdog manifests itself in many ways. For example, if a man sleeps with an underage girl, he's a monster and a sicko. But if a woman sleeps with an underage boy, she's only trying to fill an emotional void caused by oppression. If a man hits a woman, he's the worst villain since Theodoric the Vandal. But if a woman punches a man in the balls, it's good fun because she's fighting back against oppression. If man fails to reach orgasm, he has a sexual dysfunction. If a woman fails to reach orgasm, her lover is no damned good. And, uh, maybe there's some oppression there too. (The sheer volume of examples would detain us far too long, and I've talked about them at length elsewhere...)

Naturally, any female writer who wasn't a sexist asshole would have attempted to approach this topic objectively. If they were to state disapproval of men who cheat, then they ought to state disapproval of women who cheat. If something isn't right for men to do, it's not right for women to do. Very simple. But the authors of this article can't be bothered with such quaint niceties as even-handedness. No, they seem to have a rather stark preference for rubbing men's noses in it.

Let us imagine a dialogue between me and the authors of this article. What would it be like?

I would start by saying: So would you agree that I should never cheat on my wife?

Yes, it is immoral for men to cheat on their wives.

Good, I agree. Absolutely. But is it also immoral for a wife to cheat on her husband?

Well, that is a little more understandable. She's just making things even.

Er, come again? 'Making things even'? She's equalizing things by lowering her bar for acceptable conduct? Is that really a good thing?

Well no, but men do it all the time so women are justified in doing it too.

So basically you're envious of the privileges you suppose that men have? Envy isn't the same thing as wanting equality, you know.

No, I'm interested in Ekwalitee for women.

But hold on, you just said that it's wrong when men do it. And in your article, you say that 80% of all people also say that adultery is wrong for any reason.

That's correct. It is.

But if a woman cheats on her husband, isn't that wrong, too?

It's making things even. It's an innocent act of rebellion.

Your attitude is nothing but petty vindictiveness. Isn't it ultimately destructive to the social fabric to have a childish race to the bottom because of some kind of gender-based jealousy that your opinions are clearly being guided by?

No, adultery is a form of empowerment. So it's grrrrrrrreat!

Well, doesn't it also mean that women lose the moral authority to accuse men of being sex-addled pigs if women are aspiring to behave just as badly?

No, because men are far worse and always have been. Aren't women entitled to do what they want?

Not if you'd deny men the same liberties that you demand for women. And isn't it rather pathetic to use the very worst examples of male behavior to justify bad behavior among females? A shoplifter doesn't steal as much loot as a big jewel thief, but does that justify the act of shoplifting? Saddam Hussein didn't kill as many people as Stalin, but does that get Saddam off the hook? I'm trying to apply an equal standard to both sexes here. I'm trying to judge men and women equally. I know equal responsibility pains you immensely, but just bear with me. Shouldn't a cheating wife be considered equally wrong as a cheating husband?

No, no, a cheating wife is reacting to loneliness and stress. So she feels entitled to cheat because she's finally standing-up and demanding more from life. We women have gained a lot of power, but-

But you poor darlings still have a long way to go?

Right.

But you consider it wrong when men cheat on their wives.

It is, but society traditionally hasn't. Boys will be boys, remember? So, women are gonna be women.

Uh, time-out. No. You're completely wrong on this. It's the realm of fantasy that you're describing. A cheating husband today is likely to get condemned, not congratulated.

So how does it feel, huh? Women had to put-up with that treatment for centuries!

Oh you've been walking-down a really hard road all your life, haven't you? It's some very well-nurtured bitterness that you might have, but we're not living a hundred years ago! You are not being oppressed by double-standards that no longer exist!

Well, you're going to have to get used to it, bub.

So you're brazenly and openly sexist? How can there be justice if you ape the same behavior that you once said was unjust? Wouldn't this sort of thing make you a male chauvinist pig if you were a man?

It's a good kind of sexism. It's justice, you see..

'Getting even' isn't the same thing as justice. If we were to force whites to pick cotton for free, would that be justice for black people? Of course not. If something isn't right for men to do, it's not right for women to do.

You men can dish it out but you can't take it.

What kind of simplistic immaturity is that? Maintaining a marriage isn't a zero-sum game! No matter who dishes it out, it's not right. And although you don't condone male adultery, it seems to me that you're basically inferring that men ought to be cheating. This imaginary license to violate marital vows that you've dreamed-up is a result of women gaining 'power'? And loneliness and stress are exacerbated by an accumulation of power. Right?

That's right.

But, according to you, men supposedly have a full share of 'power'. So is a cheating man also reacting to this loneliness and stress? Having more power presumably means more stress and more isolation, right? A man traditionally would've had more stress since he had 'all the power', right? Doesn't that perfectly justify the old types of sexual double-standards that you're presently decrying?

No! A man doesn't cheat for the same reasons! He is also cheating on his wife to gratify his male ego and his needs for conquest!

Er, but you just said that an entitlement to infidelity is a concomitant of 'power'. So a man isn't reacting to stress and pressure when he has an affair? It's 'ego gratification'?

It's both.

Okay let's say you're right. Let's say that men are, in part, driven by a lust for conquest. But am I really supposed to believe that having an affair because you feel entitled to constant thrills is better than cheating due to a desire for ego gratification?

Yes. Honey, you should just accept that women become adulterous due to morally superior reasons.

Like spicing-up a dull sex life? Or being overcome by the stress of a busy schedule? Or because of boredom? These are morally superior justifications to anything that would ever cause a man to cheat on his wife? Do men not have stressful schedules or something? Men don't ever have dull sex lives and they never experience boredom? They don't experience a range of human emotions anywhere as rich and complex as yours? Is a man always expected to find his wife appealing but not vice-versa? Aren't you basically saying that a man's cheating isn't justifiable, but women "logically" ought to be able to cheat if they say their husbands are boring?

Look, women cheat because they don't feel LOVED! Men ABUSE their POWER and JUST WANT SEX!

So, it's just that simple. Women don't have a need for conquest and control and are just less capable of abusing power?

Right. Women are naturally more nurturing and less bent on control and domination. And they have so little power that they hardly have any to abuse.

Isn't this hooey being based on a bunch of shopworn stereotypes? Look, if you're correct, aren't you also suggesting that women are naturally unqualified for working in demanding corporate jobs? If women don't have the same needs for conquest, then it suggests that they don't belong in competitive environments, right?

Shut up.

But really now, how does this logic make sense? Isn't it totally sexist to condemn men for infidelity but rationalize it when women do the same thing? Isn't that fundamentally the same as paying a man more for doing identical work and rationalizing it by saying that men are more deserving?

Shut up!

And if my wife cheats on me, then I am responsible because I've been neglecting her needs? Isn't that a throwback to the days when women were supposedly considered passive and mindless pieces of property? Doesn't it suggest that a woman doesn't have enough brains to act from her own volition? Can a woman even be considered a real adult if she not going be held responsible for what she does?

Shut up!

And if my wife does something commendable, should I be the one who gets credit for it? If I get blamed for her bad behavior, then it's only logical that I should get praised for her accomplishments too, right? According to you, she only mindlessly reacts to what I force her to do.

Shut up!

And what about the consequences on the kids? Can a woman who has an affair be considered a devoted and responsible mother? Would you be sympathetic to a cheating father who risks negatively affecting the lives of his children like that?

Shut up!

And what if the adulterous woman gets pregnant in the affair? You never seem to mention that possibility in the article. Don't you think it should be criminal for the woman to commit paternity fraud in order to trick her husband into financially supporting that child? Shouldn't kids have the right to know who their biological fathers are?

Shut up!

Do you realize how totally freakin' bonkers you are?

We're just oppressed so we can do whatever we want, okay?!

And 'round and 'round we'd go.

Well maybe it wouldn't have gone exactly like that. But I suspect that the dialogue would've been just about as incoherent as the article itself.

Anyway, the lesson I've learned today is: If I cheat on my wife, I'm a bastard who did it for no good reason and can never again be considered trustworthy.

But if my wife cheats on me, it's my fault for being boring and not meeting her needs. And it's logical and it's no wonder.

And by extension, if my wife decides to cheat on me by sleeping with an underage boy, I guess I created her emotional void and that's my fault too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why would a woman want to do a man's job, like a fireman? Well, I guess they want to prove that they're just as good as the minimum requirements allow." -- Jimmy Kimmel, "The Man Show".

Back to Home