Why do some men cheat on their pregnant wife?

There you are, finally pregnant, getting the nursery ready and looking forward to your new role as Mom and — bam, your husband cheats on you.

Wonderful.

At least that’s what happened to Katie Price, one of the stars of the British daytime TV show Loose Women. pregnant_cheating

Not only did hubby Kieran Hayler cheat on her, but he cheated on her with her best friend.

Former Congress-
man Anthony Weiner was sexting (the first time) while wife Huma Abedin was secretly pregnant, back in 2011. Whether you consider that cheating or not, Abedin finally did — filing for divorce after the third sexting scandal.

They weren’t the first poorly behaved dads-to-be.

The concept of a husband who cheats while his wife is pregnant is “probably more common than people suspect,” says Scott Haltzman, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and author of The Secrets of Happily Married Women.

In fact, a 2012 study indicted that men are at a slightly higher risk of cheating when their wife is pregnant.

Why?

Find out more here.

Hillary Clinton, affairs and marriage

The conventions are over and there were a few speeches that will never be forgotten, Melania Trump‘s for one and Michelle Obama‘s for another. And then there was Bill Clinton’s about his wife and Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Of course Bill praised his wife. But as he did, many couldn’t help but wonder about their marriage, given his many public scandals over his indiscretions (and who knows how many private ones), and the fact that Hillary has continually stood by her man. Bill and Hillary Clinton

In fact, Bill addressed that directly: “She’ll never quit on you.”

Which, of course, perplexed and irritated many from the beginning, and it was even a topic in the primaries when Hillary was accused of enabling Bill’s infidelities by Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Then GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina questioned if the Clintons have a real marriage, stating, “If my husband had done some of the things Bill Clinton had done, I would have left him long ago.”

Making many of us once again wonder, what is a “real marriage“?

Writing in the Washington Post,

The harder the Clintons have worked to preserve their marriage, the less easily that marriage has fit into easy stories about what true love should look like. … If I hated the choices Clinton’s husband, other politicians, the media and the American public forced her to make in the 1990s, the Clintons’ marriage also taught me that marriage is a mystery — not merely in that it’s perplexing, but that its power lies in part in the fact that any given marriage is not comprehensible to outsiders.

Thank you! Because it’s true — not every marriage fits into what we think, or have been told, “true love should look like” and, yes, relationships are often incomprehensible to those outside them. The problem isn’t with marriage and relationships per se; it’s more about the collective belief that there’s any “should” when it comes to love and marriage. Love is complicated and hard to define, so how can it look like one thing for all of us? And that means living with a partner’s sexual transgressions isn’t all that bad for some people as long as they’re getting other things from the marriage.

Read more here.

What’s holding couples back from having an egalitarian marriage?

There’s an image we have about marriage, about “two becoming one.”

Anyone who’s been married for length of time realizes that’s a bit of a lie. We’re still people with our own needs. In fact, many believe what hetero men and women experience is a “his” and a “her” marriage.

Some 50 years ago, sociologist Jessie Bernard noted that marriage is not a single entity; how marriage was experienced depended a lot on whether you’re the wife or the husband. In general, she noted, marriage generally benefits the guys more than the gals. His and her marriage

True, marriage was a lot different in the early 1970s, when women had fewer options (although Bernard herself bucked a lot of trends back then). It’s now 2016, the age of stay-at-home dads and breadwinning moms, the age of equal partnerships.

Well, not quite.

Heterosexual marriage, especially among white, educated and well-off couples, is still a gendered social reality and a gendered institution, or so argue sociologists Karyn Loscocco and Susan Walzer in Gender and the Culture of Heterosexual Marriage in the United States. The two explore the work of Andrew Cherlin in his book The Marriage-Go-Round, which attempts to  explain the high rate of divorce in the U.S. While he does not take gender into account, Loscocco and Walzer argue we must:

“The role expectations  associated with being a husband or wife intersect with those to which men and women may more generally be accountable. … people tend to be accountable to dominant gender beliefs whether or not they act on them and to treat them as shared cultural knowledge whether or not they endorse them.”

Which means even in the most equal of marriages, there’s an incredible awareness of gender and how a wife and a husband “should” act. And that continues to drive “contemporary heterosexual marriage and its discontents.”

And boy, are we discontented.

What does that look like? They cite studies pointing out that:

So, what’s making women so miserable in their marriages? For one, women are still in charge of the emotional caretaking:

“Typical studies of the household division of labor do not begin to capture all the unpaid caring work — for friends, extended family, schools, and religious and other community organizations — that women disproportionately do. Nor do they capture wives’ planning, organizing, and structuring of family life.”

It’s exhausting being the one who always has to be on top of the emotional temperature of a relationship, and keep the ties to family and community going. Plus, that kind of work often goes unnoticed or undervalued — and sometimes even resented — which, they note, “can lead to marital tension.”

What about in so-called equal marriages? Nope; the wives still “tended to be the ones who monitored their own and their partners’ contributions to their relationships.” Even when the imbalance was duly acknowledged, nothing changed, “leading to feelings of resentment and frustration.”

Of course, self-help books and relationship “experts” — from Steve Harvey (Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man) to John Gray (Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus) and others — tend to encourage women to “accept imbalances in their relationships with men to attract and keep them.”

The message is always the same; if a wife just worked hard enough she could save her marriage, if not from unhappiness than at least from divorce. Yet studies show that when husbands take greater ownership of the emotional work — beyond just household chores and child care — wives are happier and healthier. So by continuing to advise women to “act like ladies or girls and to accept their ‘cavemen’” sets couples up for “reproducing the very patterns that are implicated in marital stress.” There’s a bit of craziness to that!

Why can’t men and women have an “our marriage”? Clearly, there’s some huge disconnect in what a husband and wife know how each is experiencing the marriage. Can that change? Maybe; their paper cites studies that indicate ‘‘unrealistic expectations’’ and ‘‘inadequate preparation’’ for marriage are keeping many couples from having an “our” marriage (which is why we believe our book is so important because it raises essential questions couples need to address).

Poet Jill Bialosky once wrote, ‘‘I had wanted to get married, but I realized now that I had never wanted to be ‘a wife.’’’ Oprah Winfrey doesn’t want to be a wife, either. What about you?

Want to have an “our” marriage? Learn how by ordering The New I Do:Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels on Amazon, and, while you’re at it, follow TNID on Twitter and Facebook.

Why women may want a monogamish marriage

We all “know” that women aren’t good at casual sex, “only” have affairs for love, are biologically disinterested in sex, and that, more so than men, “need” and thrive in a monogamous relationship.

Maybe that’s been your experience, maybe not. Maybe you believe it, maybe you don’t. But have you ever questioned if this is just what women are told to believe is the truth, and thus internalize that message?

There’s really nothing about monogamy that works well for women sexually (although having a partner around to help raise the kids may be desirable), according to a recent study, “Does Monogamy Harm Women? Deconstructing Monogamy with a Feminist Lens.”

According to the study:

  • For a large number of women diagnosed with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder, the loss of desire and sexual fantasies is often the result of mismatched sexual desire between monogamous partners, not just her problem
  • Womens desire fades faster than men’s in long-term monogamous romantic relationships
  • Women have a greater need than men for novelty in order to maintain sexual arousal; without it, their sexual arousal is likely to diminish
  • Women are more likely to suffer for their male partner’s jealousy, including domestic violence and sexual assault

Despite that, the study authors — who suggest polyamory may provide more benefits for women, including sexual satisfaction, agency and gender role flexibility — illustrate why many women still opt for monogamy:

From a sociocultural perspective, women are lead to believe that their successes are a result of their romances, and thus can only be accessed through their relations with men. … Not only are women socialized to believe that marriage is an important lifetime achievement, but we argue that women are also taught that their identity as a woman is dependent on their ability to fulfill these relational roles. Thus, by not engaging in traditional monogamous relationships, women fail to fulfill essential components of their womanly role.

In an entertaining and provocatively titled TEDx talk, “Your Mother is Not a Whore” (watch it below) economics professor Marina Adshade, author of Dollars and Sex: How Economics Influences Sex, debunks the myth that women can’t have sex just for pleasure, or because they want something in exchange, and bemoans the fact that women are “shamed for behaving in a way that society believes is contrary to their nature.”

Which sounds a lot like what Daniel Bergner writes about in his book What Do Women Want? (read this book. Really!) Women are not better suited to monogamy than men are, he says. Except society has long repressed female sexuality — after all, who had to wear chastity belts? — which has twisted the way we view women’s desires and sexuality. Sadly, many women have bought into that myth as well.

In an article Vicki wrote for the Washington Post’s Solo-ish section, she spoke to a few sexuality experts about what happens to a middle-aged woman’s sexuality once she divorces. Their answers were quite revealing, but nothing that many divorcees haven’t experienced for themselves — quite honestly, their sexuality gets kick-started.

Sex therapist and author Tammy Nelson said that of the “sexless marriage” couples who see her, she questions if it’s “really low desire or relationship issues.”

Married couples often stop being flirty and playful with each other, says Stella Resnick, a clinical psychologist, sex therapist and author; that is a sexual killer for women.

“In a lot of middle-aged marriages, sex has become victim to whatever the relationship’s issues are,” says sexologist and author Pepper Schwartz, AARP’s relationship expert. “They’re not necessarily tumultuous, but often they’ve lost their vitality and the sexual urge is lost.”

Long-term monogamy is good for women? Perhaps not …

Many women actually enjoy sex, so perhaps it’s time for us to question whether lifelong monogamy — or monogamy at all — is really what we want.

What about you?

Want to explore an open marriage? Learn how by ordering The New I Do:Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels on Amazon, and, while you’re at it, follow TNID on Twitter and Facebook.

Yes, you can write your own marital contract

The idea of a marital contract sounds new, but it actually isn’t.

The debut issue of Ms. magazine, in 1971, which was an insert in New York magazine, included an article on “How to Write Your Own Marriage Contract” by Susan Edmiston, who interviews two couples who created their own marriage contracts.

Why? Despite the cries of today’s men’s rights movement, marriage was not so great for women in the 1960s:

Margaret Sanger and second husband J. Noah H. Slee in 1927. The couple had a marriage contract in which they agreed to live apart.

Margaret Sanger and second husband J. Noah H. Slee had a marriage contract in which they agreed to live apart.

  • We could be fired if we got pregnant (until 1978)
  • Sexually harassed at work? Too bad (until 1977)
  • We couldn’t get our own credit card (until 1972)
  • We couldn’t refuse to have sex with our husband (until the mid-’70s in some states, in all 50 states in 1993)
  • We couldn’t get a divorce without having to prove fault (until 1969)

 

Not surprisingly, it was the wives who insisted on the contracts to deal with what clearly were marital inequities.

One couple, the Shulmans, created a marital contract after they had kids, when their previously egalitarian partnership fell into old gendered patterns, which despite how far we’ve come, baby, since then, still occurs today. (It also was a way to salvage a marriage doomed for divorce, and was roundly mocked by Norman Mailer, Joan Didion and Russell Baker.)

The other couple started off with a contract, one that dealt with chores, cooking and finances. When their daughter was born, they renegotiated their contract again to include childcare, which the wife, psychologist Barbara Koltuv, admits was a struggle — one that I’ll bet most women can relate to:

The hardest thing was being willing to give up control. What we call responsibility is often control, power, being the boss. When I was really able to recognize that my husband’s relationship with Hannah is his and mine is mine, everything was all right. He’s going to do it differently but he’s going to do it all right. We’ve been teaching her all along that different people are different.”

But marriage contracts between spouses date back farther than the ’60s and ’70s.

Social critic Mary Wollstonecraft was philosophically against marriage but married William Godwin in 1796 after they discovered she was pregnant (she died in childbirth six months later), yet they had a “highly unconventional marriage during which they lived far enough apart to permit the continuing exchange of letters.”

Abolitionist and suffragist Lucy Stone and activist Henry Blackwell created a contract when they wed in 1855, mostly in protest of coverture, in which women lost their legal existence to their husband once they married.

So did birth-control pioneer Margaret Sanger and her second husband, oil billionaire J. Noah H. Slee, whom she married in 1922. She wanted autonomy so they had a LAT, living apart together, arrangement, first in separate homes and then in separate parts of the same house.

Finally, Jackie Kennedy allegedly had a contract when she wed Aristotle Onassis in 1968, in which she declared her independence as well as separate homes and separate bedrooms within their shared homes. (It was also a safety marriage).

OK, we no longer have coverture and we have more egalitarian marriages than ever before, and thankfully women have financial independence. So do we really need individualized marital contracts?

Before you say yes or no, let’s look at what Edmiston includes in her article’s “utopian marriage contract” — agreements about birth control, having/adopting children, how children will be brought up, whose job will determine where and how the couple lives (including separate bedrooms or homes), how child care and housework will be divvied up, how they will handle finances, and sexual rights and freedoms.

Given how many of those are things couples still argue about today, and as women debate if they can have it all or just lean in, why would anyone, especially women, be hesitant to create a plan that honored both spouses’ needs and expectations?

Unless perhaps the dirty secret is that we really don’t want marital equality. As Alix Kates Shulman, profiled in that 1971 Ms. article, wrote just recently:

The idea’s limited success is hardly surprising, given the economic, social, and psychological arrangements that continue to impede equality, in marriage and out. Such strains doomed my own marriage, along with half the marriages in America. Probably not until the polity is more child- and woman-friendly, not until men and women are equally valued — economically and otherwise — not until free or low-cost quality childcare is universally available, will the ideal of equality in marriage be other than radical.”

Could it be that we women don’t really want an equal partnership? Many married moms have said they’d prefer to work part time, echoing what the rest of society believes is ideal for kids, while the majority of men would just prefer to work outside the home. And maybe, as Koltuv discovered, it’s just too hard for women to give up control.

Can we have egalitarian marriages when one spouse works full time and the other works part time, when one spouse is unable or unwilling to give up control? Or does equality even matter as long as both spouses are happy with the arrangement?

Want to individualize your marriage? Learn how by ordering The New I Do on Amazon, and, while you’re at it, follow TNID on Twitter and Facebook.

What makes someone ‘wife material’?

Recently, Angelina Jolie said marriage to Brad Pitt has changed her for the better, inspiring her to “be a better wife. I’m going to learn to cook.”

It was a curious thing to say — is being a cook what “good wives” do? Maybe, for Angelina anyway. But I’m not sure it answers the question for the rest of us — what exactly makes a “good wife”?  Good_wife

Thought Catalog recently listed 25 Things Girls Do That Make Guys Realize They’re Wife Material. Sure enough, along with bringing others happiness, being likeable, going with the flow, being the guy’s biggest fan and being low-maintenance, “they can cook.”

Obviously wives need a few more skills than that, and when it comes to divorce, those desirable wifely attributes often have no monetary worth in court of public sentiment — just ask newly divorced multimillionaire Jamie Cooper-Hohn).

The Telegraph’s Daisy Buchanan, about to become a wife herself, has some thoughts on society’s expectations of wives:

The problem that persists (and my problem with the Thought Catalog piece) is that we place an enormous weight of expectation on women and their behaviour within a marriage — but culturally, that pressure is not forced on men in the same way. We’re still suffering from a hangover of hundreds of years of seeing ourselves as desperate, wannabe wives, hoping to be picked out from the crowd by a choosy potential husband.

Although marriage is a contract between two people, we still cling to the convention in which we wait for someone to ask us to be their wife and then take their name. … Of course, being a good wife shouldn’t be any different from being a good husband. But men aren’t targeted with the same stream of ‘make her marry you!’ articles.

She is wrong in believing that “being a good wife shouldn’t be any different than being a good husband,” however; an overwhelming number of never-married women want a husband who has a steady job (while men say they favor someone who shares their ideas about raising children) and that male-as-provider model most likely perpetuates gendered expectations when it comes to marriage.

When George Clooney proposed to now-wife Amal Alamuddin, some people — and I’m sure some of his former girlfriends — wondered, why her? What does Amal have that the others didn’t? It’s clear the typecast “perpetual bachelor” and purported commitaphobe was neither; he just was waiting for the right woman to commit to. A woman who is wife material.

Again, we are stuck trying to define what that means.

Mrs. Clooney (yes, Amal took Clooney’s last name) is a top-flight human rights attorney — she may or may not cook and she may or may not know her way around a Swiffer, but somehow I don’t think Clooney married her because of her great domestic tasks. He most likely asked her to marry him because she’s smart, she’s beautiful, she has a kind heart and she has confidence (she’s also 17 years younger than he is, a huge age difference that is often typical for older men). And, perhaps most important to Clooney, a noted jokester, a sense of humor.

But there are other expectations of being a “good wife” that go beyond our own. Just ask Oprah — despite being smart, beautiful, kind-hearted and confident, she is clear that society’s expectations of being a good wife is not her thing; she’d rather stay a good girlfriend. Which means that perhaps she isn’t good wife material after all. Which means there is no one-size-fits-all definition of what a “good wife” is or does. Or is there?

The conversation all would-be cheaters should have

Women want sex and passion — surprised?

If we are to believe a recent study by AshleyMadison.com, that’s why married women say they cheat. They’re not interested in ending their marriage, they’re just looking to put some spark in their sex lives and, let’s face it — once you’ve tried new sex toys, new positions, new porn flicks and new lingerie, there just isn’t much more that a married couple can do.

Except there is. 2014-08-22-Fotolia_5649786_XS.jpg

Married women looking to get some action from others are forgetting, or perhaps just ignoring, an important reality about infidelity — it often ends marriages, painfully. Which is sad because, according to one study, 56 percent of cheating men and 34 percent of cheating women considered their marriage “happy” or “very happy.”

So why risk it? Why cause all that pain and anger, not to mention the potential loss of your marriage, your family, your home, when all you have to do is sit your husband down and say, “Honey, I think we are both aware that neither of us is enjoying sex all that much lately. Actually, we haven’t enjoyed it for a long time. What do you think about opening up our marriage?”

After the shock — or maybe relief — you might actually be able to have the first honest discussion about monogamy you’ve ever had as a couple.

Not to say it will be easy. Talking about non-monogamy is hard; everything we think about non-monogamy is about cheating and deception, or promiscuity. We don’t have any healthy models of consensual non-monogamy. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.

While researching for our book, The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels (Seal Press, Sept. 28, 2014), Susan Pease Gadoua and I heard from numerous couples who had open marriages, or who opened them up for a while. It isn’t as rare as you think; somewhere between 4.3 percent to 10.5 percent of all relationships identify as open, which can be anything from couples “in the lifestyle,” to the occasional threesome to poly arrangements.

All the couples that decided to experiment with non-monogamy told us they were happy they did it, even though, yes, they sometimes struggled with jealousy, managing schedules and setting boundaries. Not only did it bring them closer, but they also were proud that they broke from the norm and forged a new path. It was “a badge of courage” they said.

“Our sex life was better because we felt invigorated,” one husband told us. “We found each other very compelling because we were both embarking on this experiment and it takes a certain kind of bravery, and we found that attractive in each other and ourselves.”

“For a lot of people, it doesn’t even occur to them that they can be anything other than monogamous,” his wife told us. “Monogamy can be dangerous even without sleeping with other people. Just having a sense of your own sexuality, being attracted to other people, being able to flirt with other people; when you can’t do that, it just shuts down a part of you. It changes who you are in your marriage and so long-term, that can be really damaging.”

By opening up their marriage, they got to have sex with other people safely and honestly, and with their partner’s knowledge and approval. How refreshing is that?

So, is bringing up the idea of an open marriage a tough conversation to have with your spouse? Of course it is. But trust me — it’s a heck of a lot easier than the conversation you’ll have after your affair has been discovered.

Want to keep up with The New I Do? Pre-order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook.

Is it OK for a woman to want to be provided for?

provided_for

 

Is it OK for a woman to want to have a man take care of her?

Yes, writes Ginger at her popular blog Girls Just Want to Have Funds:

“I mean, I don’t need him to be rich or anything, I just need for him to be making enough to provide for me some day, you know?” – seen at TeacherFinance.org

If you’ve read some of the more contentious articles here, then you know there was a time when I drew a hard line when it came to women who decided to opt out either because they wanted to, can or have to do so.  The reasons for opting out range from wanting to spend more time with their families, be more hands on with the kids, pursue vocational interests – or whatever their hearts can justify at the time making a career pointless.  Thus, you have women who have chosen en-masse, to opt out.

And It’s OK.

Here’s the thing. We really are too hard and judgmental as it relates to picking apart the choices that another woman makes for her life.  Don’t get me wrong, I am no advocate of flying by the seat of your pants unless it’s a calculated risk, but I don’t support bashing a woman for wanting a lifestyle that works entirely for her and the family she supports and/or raises. The mommy wars (Stay at Home vs Working Moms debate) that has spanned the women’s movement must stop and here’s why:

Read more of what she has to say here, and then tell us — do you agree?

What’s the “right” age to marry?

Men and women are pushing back marriage — if they’re even getting married, that is. While our parents may have married in their early 20s, most women nowadays are marrying at 27 and most men at 29. Right time to marry

Should we really be worried?

Delaying marriage has its perks, especially if you’re a woman: Women accumulate more wealth if they wait until they’re 30 or older to marry — about $18,152 (nothing to sneeze at). And, delaying marriage has meant that those marriages are more stable, thus driving down the divorce rate (couples who marry in their early 20s or even younger are more likely to divorce). That’s good, right?

Still, the big “horror” stories about waiting to marry are actually about waiting to marry if you want kids — no one seems to be too concerned about marrying latter if you’re not going to have kids — because the older women are, the harder it is for them to conceive. A recent article in the Atlantic, How long can you wait to have a baby?, basically busted that argument wide open, and Cyma Shapiro’s “Nurture: Stories of New Midlife Mothers,” her traveling photo and essay exhibit of mothers aged 41 to 65, indicates more and more women are finding ways to work around the age-fertility issue, happily.

So, is there a “right” age to marry? Read more here.

Three reasons why you shouldn’t marry for love

Susan published this article in her Contemplating Divorce column for Psychology Today. It created quite the stir. Not marry for love? That’s unheard of! And yet, as she explains, love made a mess of marriage. Read on: Marry_for_love

Those who don’t marry for love in our culture are considered unlucky, suspect, manipulative, exploitative, and bad. We feel they are either doing something wrong or there is something wrong with them. It makes us feel everything from sympathy to contempt for these folks because most of us were taught that love is the only “right” reason to tie the knot.

But if you really think about it, love is a luxury. When you marry for love, it generally means you have all — or at least most — of your other needs met (like food, shelter, warmth, etc). That may explain why those with fewer financial resources also have lower marriage rates: If you’re worried about your survival or safety, you’re not going to be focusing on finding the man or woman of your dreams — unless of course this dream person is your ticket out of your terrible home life, dreary financial picture or scary “singledom.”

Procreation has always been a factor in why people married, but up until about two hundred years ago or so, people in the West married more for political or financial gain than for love.

The Victorian Era and the Industrial Revolution (1800s) created two important changes in how people lived: Romance became all the rage and technological advances made life much easier. Prior to these developments, divorce was incredibly rare but when love entered the picture as the reason to marry, dissolutions became more commonplace.

Read the rest of the article here.