Pajiba

*backs slowly out of the room*

I'm curious:

Do any of these essays place the blame for cheating where it BELONGS...on the man who is cheating?

The Other Woman is not cheating on you. TOW did not ever make a vow or a promise, explicit or implicit, to you. The man did, and he is the one breaking them. TOW has never lied to your face. He has. TOW has never betrayed your children. He has.

I say blame the lying cheating tomcatting betrayer, the man who junked your heart.

Is that irrational?

I'm not sure how it would qualify as a "breezy-read", because I agree with W.M. that this book is likely to put you through an emotional wringer and possibly stir up some strong personal responses...

But it does sound like an important topic to be tackled, one that usually gets swept under the rug or distorted by people's rush to judgment. Great job by the reviewer to really highlight the way this books seems to explore the topic from a lot of different points of view. If I were going to read a book on women and cheating relationships this seems like a much better approach than one woman's sad/angry/redemptive memoir (or worse, some nauseating pop psych self-help book).

A complex look at a complicated subject, and a quality review to do it justice. Well done.

Jerce, I hesitate to even do this (you don't have high blood pressure, do you?) but this review reminded my of an article on the most recent Esquire on "why men cheat" (obviously intended to run on the heels of Tiger Woods, etc.)

So if you feel like punching something...

http://www.esquire.com/features/reasons-why-men-cheat-0410

Jerce, while I certainly agree that there is no excuse for men cheating (generally, they made a bad decision for themselves and deserve any abuse heaped upon them) I look at "The Other Woman" much the same as someone who gets arrested for buying stolen property--although you were not the person who broke into the house and stole the painting--you're not actually a thief, after all--you knew damn well where that painting came from and that you shouldn't be buying it. Yes, it would probably have been stolen anyway (the man most likely would have strayed no matter what TOW's involvement) but once you buy that painting you are nearly as culpable as the actual thief. Does that make sense?

I love the term 'stepping out'. It makes cheating sound so quaint and I dunno, civilized.

/sarcasm

Call it stepping out, call it cheating, call it fucking around. Call it whatever you want. A black man will still be offended if you call him "Butter" and then you'll have to put "I Can't Believe It's Not Nigger" on your toast.

Oh for Pete's sake, if we can talk about Abortion, Global Warming, and Religion we can talk about cheatin'. Look: Tracer even used the N Word! It's ok, the pixels won't hurt you.

Older & Wiser, that's quite a fiery response from someone who is making a claim that we shouldn't be judgmental or project our beliefs on others. I don't think the original review or the comments that followed were as vehement as your response was. The primary message seemed to be that there are many, many sides to this issue and "in the end, neither the mistress nor the wife is entirely responsible or free from blame in the destruction of a relationship." And I certainly don't see how you read a manipulative editorial agenda into reviews that are written by reader/commenters, not staff writers.

Sure, "Jezebels.. bitches.. home-wreckers" employs some strong epithets but if you keep reading you'll find a nuanced and reasonable point of view that is not incompatible with your list of things learned. There is criticism of the other woman, as there should be, but nothing that vilifies TOW without acknowledging the culpability of the other two people in the triangle.

And finally, while it does seem a bit silly to invoke 'don't screw your sisters over' as if it presents some sort of obligation not to get involved with a married man, do you really not see any moral implications to being the knowing other woman? To say it is all her fault is ridiculous, to say she is blameless and the responsibility is on the married people to not cheat is a little simplistic.

It isn't simple. It's a very complex topic and the feelings of people involved (i.e. what the book was about) are legitimate and worthy of the consideration they are given here. To shrug and say 'eh, she should have been a better wife, she can always get divorced' is missing that point entirely.

What could be worse than Mr. Zero knowing?

That was an excellent and well balanced review of a book that I'm sure is able to elicit strong reactions from the reader.

I'm also fascinated by what seems to be a commonly held commandment that "Thou shalt not mess with another woman's man." To me; it seems naive to believe that a woman who has never met you, knows nothing of you, may be a continent away from you and has no vested interest in your relationship beyond the fact that you're involved with the same man, should really care at all. Hell, she may not even know that he's married.

As for the gentleman (term used loosely) in the link Yossarian providied; I'd have to agree with Tracer. It sounds more like a, "because I want some trim and take enough precautions that I haven't gotten caught" situation more than anything. There are any number of defensible reasons for a spouse to cheat (not that they may be right) so summing it all up to because he/she felt like fucking is erroneous at best. The fact of the matter is that relationships are extremely complex and very rarely is anybody (including those in the relationship) privy to all the information contained within that relationship.

All I can say is that all this crap is exactly why I refuse to get married. It seems to me, (and me alone, me owning only my own opinion and not attempting to suggest that anyone else should own, borrow or spindle this, my own idea - yeesh) that if you can't follow a set of rules made publicly, rules that attempt to anticipate a variety of changes and possible future issues, then don't get married/make a partnership or commitment. If you want to mess around, and you partner doesn't - and doesn't want you to either - then it's a cheat. Simple. If you are the knowing other woman, you're part of a cheat.

Whether being a cheat bothers you or not, is up to you. Not saying it has to. But to complain you can't get your needs met one way, and refuse to commit to getting that need met elsewhere without committing fully to THAT, well. You're eating cake on someone else's lunch tab. Kinda greedy.

But, you only get one life. Live how you're going to, right? Accept your own karma like a grownup.

Me? I love to think about eating cake. Big fan of cake. But I'm not interested in eating somebody else's cake for real - because it's their cake, not mine. Unless they want to give me some. But then, in order to get to eat it, I might have to share my cake with somebody I haven't anticipated taking a bite, and I don't know if I'd want to share in that case.

Good thing I have a GREAT imagination. And, sounds like a good, balanced book. Thanks chowardbc!

Goddamnit. This is bringing me out of lurking.

I know that this article isn't where the original post was going, but the following quotes cannot be allowed to be out in the world without me saying something about it:

Women will never understand how men can cheat because they think of it in terms of themselves —as something done to them. Because it IS something done to us, you jackass! YOU are the one who couldn't keep your pants on, thereby destroying your wife's trust, self-esteem, and life. YOU did that. To US! Very often, YOU are the one who endagered OUR lives (and our children's lives) by not wrapping it up while "stepping out" with someone else. WE are not the ones who couldn't act like a freaking grown up and keep our zippers up!

They treat it as an affront first, as a breakdown in social order, then a wound, then a mortal wound. It IS a mortal wound. Anyone who has ever had the special horror of discovering a text or email sent between her husband and another woman understands that this is a "mortal wound". She understands that when she sees those words, her heart speeds up, so that all she can feel is the rapid pounding in her chest. She understands that all the blood that her heart is frantically pumping is rushing to her ears, so that she cannot hear her children talking to her. She understands that she must figure out a way to make it to the bathroom to throw up without anyone in the room noticing, including her husband, because she cannot let him see that she knows anything yet. She understands that the reaction is 100% physical first, because the body is taking the hit to protect the mind. She understands that she and she alone can see that the world is falling down, that everything she every believed has not been colored by those few words.

I really, really hope that the author's wife never has to experience that mortal wound. And I really, really hope that the author does.

On topic: great review. Think I might have to skip it, though.

And of course, The Mama, that applies to women too.

admin - yes, it absolutely applies to women as well. I meant to add that, but now that i'm rereading this, it seems like I got a little fired up with my response.

Fiona - While I concede that there are sometimes shades of grey when it comes to infidelity, one has to wonder how the first Mrs. Olivia, Mrs. Banderas, and Mrs. Sting felt when they discovered Joan, Melanie, and Trudi.

chowardbc,
Many thanks for your thoughtful and informed review. As the editor of The Other Woman, I'm aware of the controversy stirred up around the subject of infidelity, and I welcome this kind of open discussion. I appreciate the comment that this book takes no sides---it was my hope that the essays would cast a sharp light (sometimes, a harsh light) on what is often a painful and life-changing experience. The subtitle "wives, lovers, and others" was carefully chosen because several essays dealt with having life affected by infidelity, much as one can be affected by second-hand smoke: not an active participant, but suffering the consequences nevertheless.

Sorry, I should have also said that lifelong monogamy is generally not practical. We're working against our own biology trying to do it.

Yes, it's a worthwhile aim and a lovely thing when it's achieved, but you only have to look at the figures (30-40% of people involved in a long-term relationship have cheated) and the natural patterns of desire in a relationship to see that it's not always practical (or desirable).

Not enough people actually question themselves and whether balanced against all of the other good things in their relationship, sexual fidelity is the most important. Look at the absurd furore Mo'Nique created when she said that her husband having sex with someone else wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen in her relationship. The reason people overreacted to that statement was mainly because it suddenly makes them question their automatic assumption that sexual fidelity is the most important aspect of a relationship and most people don't like that.

Thanks for taking the time to write this post. I spent some time thinking about it and I am going to write another more detailed comment a bit later on because I need to make my thoughts more coherent. Nonetheless, thanks again. Very interesting

It would not have said it any diffrent. Good looking out