How bad?

[cygny]

Situation that has existed for 20 years: a very famous designer has been married and also has a mistress. The wife and mistress live in different European cities and know about one another, they are both accomplished artists themselves. The designer is with his lover during the week because she lives near his office. The designer is at home with his wife and grown kids in the other city on the weekend. The wife is aware of the mistress and accepted the fact that her husband has other lovers but it will always sensitive for her to some degree. But she also is the one he has never left and probably never will. And it's been the same main mistress for 20 years too. So now the designer wants to start an additional affair with another woman in his office. Everyone knows the score, he is a cakeman, but he also contributes a great deal of intellectual stimulation to everyone he is involved with so it is not a 1-way street anywhere.

 

So it is not the typical situation of the wife not knowing or not being able to handle it. How bad would it be (practically and also morally) for this woman to have a short, casual affair with this guy, with no intention of anything long-term or serious? She knows she's no threat to the wife or long-term mistress. What she would get out of it would be alot of valuable mentoring, i guess, as well as she is attracted to him. Also, she is not planning to stay in his office long-term and is not looking for anything financial from him.

[bluechocolate]

How bad would it be for this woman to have a short, casual affair with this guy, with no intention of anything long-term or serious?

 

I think that would depend on the woman's own set of values. I don't think that the wife has anything to do with this. Just because she knows about the mistress doesn't necessarily make it right? Does it? And if it did, wouldn't she and the mistress also have to know about the short casual affair in order to balance the scales, so to speak?

 

So now the designer wants to start an additional affair with another woman in his office.

 

How charming. What would the tenor of this be if we were talking about Mr. Joe Blow Operations Manager cheating on his wife AND his mistress with little Ms. Sally from accounts?

[cygny]

alot of the moral issue comes from hurting a wife and kids, doesn't it?. this woman is not going to be hurt or threatened. a marriage will not be destroyed. the wife has been interviewed and said in print she knows and accepts--the mistress and the man also very public--no secrets and published acknowledgement. the woman who is the target has led an exemplary life so far, but has been disappointed in the results of her self-discipline and wondering if turning him down would hurt her in other ways as well. she's tempted but not entirely comfortable. it is also not a case of romance or infatuation, but of attraction.

 

and fact is we're not talking about operations manager. everyone involved is very european and have a different set of values. they also consider themselves more sophisticated about this kind of thing. not to look down on joe blow, but we are dealing with a different circle here, one in which ideas and accomplishments and associations with people are the currency, not just sex and money and love. for instance the mistress has done many collaborations with the designer as a result of their relationship.

[bluechocolate]

....they also consider themselves more sophisticated about this kind of thing.

 

 

Mr. Joe Blow could be a wealthy sophisticated European too.

 

we are dealing with a different circle here, one in which ideas and accomplishments and associations with people are the currency, not just sex and money and love.

 

What do ideas & accomplishments & associations with people have to do with screwing around on your wife? I know what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make much sense.

 

If the woman from the office doesn't have any reservations about entering into an affair with her married boss - then why the discussion? Just because the people are European, or famous, or rich, or open about their infidelities, doesn't make any diffierence. Like I said in my first post, it depends on her own set of values. If she has no problem with it at all, then bonne chance to her.

[cygny]

....they also consider themselves more sophisticated about this kind of thing.

 

 

Mr. Joe Blow could be a wealthy sophisticated European too.

 

we are dealing with a different circle here, one in which ideas and accomplishments and associations with people are the currency, not just sex and money and love.

 

What do ideas & accomplishments & associations with people have to do with screwing around on your wife? I know what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make much sense.

 

If the woman from the office doesn't have any reservations about entering into an affair with her married boss - then why the discussion? Just because the people are European, or famous, or rich, or open about their infidelities, doesn't make any diffierence. Like I said in my first post, it depends on her own set of values. If she has no problem with it at all, then bonne chance to her.

 

she does have reservations. she has never considered this kind of thing before.

and its not about wealth. or even fame, except in the sense that career opportunities would be provided which would be extremely difficult to come by otherwise. for instance the mistress has been catapulted to international recognition for her work through the collaborations she has done with the designer. same with the wife's work--she is known primarily through her collaborations with her husband. she would not have gotten that otherwise. he 'raised her profile'. and also provided the intellectual stimulation to bring out the best in their own work.

[bluechocolate]

...or even fame, except in the sense that career opportunities would be provided which would be extremely difficult to come by otherwise.

 

Furthering her career via the casting couch then? If the woman is talented why wouldn't her boss help to further her career without the need to have sex with her? Seems like an abuse of power & position to me dressed up as creative genius.

 

...and also provided the intellectual stimulation to bring out the best in their own work.

 

And she thinks this will happen for her also? But only if she sleeps with the guy?

 

This man has probably been bonking women from the office, the corner store, the bank and the dry cleaners for the past 20 years as well as having a mistress and a wife & children.

 

I don't think she should get her hopes up that sleeping with him is somehow going to catapult her to success. And if that's the reason she's going to enter into an adulterous affair in the first place, isn't she just prostituting herself?

[Ladyjane14]

If you benefit financially by a sexual association, couldn't that be described as prostitution?

[blind_otter]

I don't know that the only moral issues involve other people. It involves what you internally feel is the right thing to do, behaving in a manner that is cognitively dissonant is par for the course in Western society -- usually the only reaction people have is a vague feeling of unease or discomfort, which is easily medicated away with any kind of drug, legal or illegal.

 

Ultimately the people involved will work out whatever they need for themselves. But to enter into a relationship because it's convenient, no strings attached, and allows the 2nd mistress to attain her career goals -- well what the hell kind of relationship IS that exactly? It would pump up her career, but ultimately leave her emotionally stunted, IMO. Which is usually how these things go. Whether the situ. involved the messy lower class or the delusional upper class.

[bluechocolate]

I don't know that the only moral issues involve other people. It involves what you internally feel is the right thing to do, behaving in a manner that is cognitively dissonant is par for the course in Western society -- usually the only reaction people have is a vague feeling of unease or discomfort, which is easily medicated away with any kind of drug, legal or illegal.

 

Ultimately the people involved will work out whatever they need for themselves. But to enter into a relationship because it's convenient, no strings attached, and allows the 2nd mistress to attain her career goals -- well what the hell kind of relationship IS that exactly? It would pump up her career, but ultimately leave her emotionally stunted, IMO. Which is usually how these things go. Whether the situ. involved the messy lower class or the delusional upper class.

Well said otter.

 

It is easy to see in a position like this how tempting it must be and how it would make that cognitive dissonance even easier to rationalise.

[cygny]

If you benefit financially by a sexual association, couldn't that be described as prostitution?

 

 

"YOU"?? where did i say this was about me?

it's not a financial benefit, it's a creative benefit. there would be no direct correlation to money, because many of these projects are not paid for, rather they cost money, they are money-burners. it's more think-tank stuff. has a historical impact though. art history.

[cygny]

...or even fame, except in the sense that career opportunities would be provided which would be extremely difficult to come by otherwise.

 

Furthering her career via the casting couch then? If the woman is talented why wouldn't her boss help to further her career without the need to have sex with her? Seems like an abuse of power & position to me dressed up as creative genius.

 

...and also provided the intellectual stimulation to bring out the best in their own work.

 

And she thinks this will happen for her also? But only if she sleeps with the guy?

 

This man has probably been bonking women from the office, the corner store, the bank and the dry cleaners for the past 20 years as well as having a mistress and a wife & children.

 

I don't think she should get her hopes up that sleeping with him is somehow going to catapult her to success. And if that's the reason she's going to enter into an adulterous affair in the first place, isn't she just prostituting herself?

 

the reason it would be possible is because of the time spent together and getting to know each other well. he is rarely in the office himself and seeing him is otherwise very difficult.

 

he has already offered her the opportunity to work on the projects, but hasn't explicitly offered the affair yet--so it's not tit for tat, but she knows the attraction is there and knows the relationship would be 'less' and less involved if she makes clear she isn't interested in that.

it's not sex for money. it's a sexual relationship that is casual and also involves mutual intellectual attraction.

 

this is about as grey as a situation as i've seen, in my view.

i can't figure out the morality. how is this immoral or cheap, exactly?

[bluechocolate]

"YOU"?? where did i say this was about me?

 

Far be it for me to speak for Ladyjane (she does that pretty well all by herself ), but my guess is she was using YOU in the general sense of the question - substitute YOU with ONE.

 

..there would be no direct correlation to money

 

No money changed hands, therefore one is not a prostitute - that is just a rationalisation.

[cygny]

I don't know that the only moral issues involve other people. It involves what you internally feel is the right thing to do, behaving in a manner that is cognitively dissonant is par for the course in Western society -- usually the only reaction people have is a vague feeling of unease or discomfort, which is easily medicated away with any kind of drug, legal or illegal.

 

Ultimately the people involved will work out whatever they need for themselves. But to enter into a relationship because it's convenient, no strings attached, and allows the 2nd mistress to attain her career goals -- well what the hell kind of relationship IS that exactly? It would pump up her career, but ultimately leave her emotionally stunted, IMO. Which is usually how these things go. Whether the situ. involved the messy lower class or the delusional upper class.

 

yeah i think i'm trying to figure out what exactly the dissonance would be.

it's a short-term relationship, alot like a fling, so i don't think it would leave her emotionally stunted.

[witabix]

The original marriage won't be destroyed, IMO there never was a marriage, or a marriage of convenience.

 

He leads a Xerox life, making poorer and poorer copies of an existence.

 

Original picture contains a woman and children,

 

First copy looses the children.

 

Third copy looses the emotional attachment, and so on.

 

The man needs to grow up and stop collecting women like toys.

 

Lending your name/skill/intelligence to another is called teaching or mentoring. That is a noble pursuit. How many of our teachers said "I will teach you to understand Mathematics, but I want to sleep with you during the week, when my wife/husband is not around"

 

They usually get into a lot of trouble when that happens.

 

If these women were talented they would not need or want to get a leg up from a man who treats women this way. It has nothing to do with with class, which he doesn't appear to have much of, or culture, which he may be full of. Unless of course all the women in his life restrict their sex lives to him.

[cygny]

 

..there would be no direct correlation to money

 

No money changed hands, therefore one is not a prostitute - that is just a rationalisation.

 

no i don't agree. i think then that marriage would be considered a prostitution. there are very very few relationships in the world that involve no benefit beyond love and sex. even in dating, the girl usually gets treated by the guy. then that would be prostitution too, using your logic.

 

there is genuine attraction here, just not infatuation.

[blind_otter]

how is this immoral or cheap, exactly?

 

To me, honoring someone else's relationship has nothing to do with the people involved's attitudes towards their own relationship -- it is about honoring my feelings about what a committment means. I feel it's important (now, maybe not when I was younger) -- so even if the parties involved continually disrespect the institution of marriage, I don't want to have that on my shoulders.

 

If I wouldn't feel right being one of the other parties involved (the wife, the first mistress) -- then I wouldn't want to be involved as ANY of the parties. See what I mean?

[cygny]

The original marriage won't be destroyed, IMO there never was a marriage, or a marriage of convenience.

 

He leads a Xerox life, making poorer and poorer copies of an existence.

 

Original picture contains a woman and children,

 

First copy looses the children.

 

Third copy looses the emotional attachment, and so on.

 

The man needs to grow up and stop collecting women like toys.

 

Lending your name/skill/intelligence to another is called teaching or mentoring. That is a noble pursuit. How many of our teachers said "I will teach you to understand Mathematics, but I want to sleep with you during the week, when my wife/husband is not around"

 

They usually get into a lot of trouble when that happens.

 

If these women were talented they would not need or want to get a leg up from a man who treats women this way. It has nothing to do with with class, which he doesn't appear to have much of, or culture, which he may be full of. Unless of course all the women in his life restrict their sex lives to him.

 

actually the guy is with the wife every weekend and she provides a haven for him at their home. it is very inconvenient for him to have to go to her city. they go places together and she seems to prefer having him part-time rather than not at all, or instead of a full-time lover. she has recently been interviewed and stated her position. until then i thought it was a marriage of convenience too, but now i don't. i'm not exactly sure what it is. but they seem to maintain a deep bond in spite of everything.

[lindya]

... to enter into a relationship because it's convenient, no strings attached, and allows the 2nd mistress to attain her career goals -- well what the hell kind of relationship IS that exactly? It would pump up her career, but ultimately leave her emotionally stunted, IMO. Which is usually how these things go. Whether the situ. involved the messy lower class or the delusional upper class.

 

Beautifully put, Otter.

 

Cygny, of course the idea of infidelity is infinitely more seductive when set against an elegant backdrop...and when all the players involved are smart, sexy, sophisticated individuals. These are exciting props, but I suspect the underlying emotions involved are the same as they are in every situation of this type. I guess the angst is probably just a bit more glamorous.

[bluechocolate]

this is about as grey as a situation as i've seen, in my view.

 

i can't figure out the morality.

 

I don't see what is grey about this. Is it just because he's a known philanderer? For me that doesn't cloud the moral issue here at all, just means that no one is keeping secrets.

 

it's not sex for money.

 

It's sex for time then? You know what they say.... time is money.

 

how is this immoral or cheap, exactly?

 

It isn't immoral or cheap if she doesn't think & feel that way. Of course any of us can make a judgment call on this, but at the end of the day she is the one who lives with her conscious.

[cygny]

To me, honoring someone else's relationship has nothing to do with the people involved's attitudes towards their own relationship -- it is about honoring my feelings about what a committment means. I feel it's important (now, maybe not when I was younger) -- so even if the parties involved continually disrespect the institution of marriage, I don't want to have that on my shoulders.

 

If I wouldn't feel right being one of the other parties involved (the wife, the first mistress) -- then I wouldn't want to be involved as ANY of the parties. See what I mean?

 

yes but THEY (all 3) have defined their relationship in these terms. therefore a 3rd party would not be dishonoring it. the only thing is if you define MARRIAGE as always having to be about monogamy and love in every case, with no room for the individuals to define it for themselves. is that even possible?

[bluechocolate]

even in dating, the girl usually gets treated by the guy. then that would be prostitution too, using your logic.

 

Not at all. Of course people in relationshp give & get something from each other. I was simply pointing out that money, in my opinion, doesn't define prostitution.

[cygny]

this is about as grey as a situation as i've seen, in my view.

 

i can't figure out the morality.

 

I don't see what is grey about this. Is it just because he's a known philanderer? For me that doesn't cloud the moral issue here at all, just means that no one is keeping secrets.

 

it's not sex for money.

 

It's sex for time then? You know what they say.... time is money.

 

how is this immoral or cheap, exactly?

 

It isn't immoral or cheap if she doesn't think & feel that way. Of course any of us can make a judgment call on this, but at the end of the day she is the one who lives with her conscious.

 

are you saying that even though everyone is ok with it, that it is immoral simply because of the wedding vows? if you are going to be black and white then of course there is no room for grey. but if so, then please come out and state that in your view, any extra relationship outside of a marital one is wrong.

i already said there is genuine attraction there and so it's not time for money, the other thing makes it complex.

[cygny]

even in dating, the girl usually gets treated by the guy. then that would be prostitution too, using your logic.

 

Not at all. Of course people in relationshp give & get something from each other. I was simply pointing out that money, in my opinion, doesn't define prostitution.

 

i don't think prostitution is even an issue here at all.

[lindya]

yes but THEY (all 3) have defined their relationship in these terms. therefore a 3rd party would not be dishonoring it. the only thing is if you define MARRIAGE as always having to be about monogamy and love in every case, with no room for the individuals to define it for themselves. is that even possible?

 

Any woman considering joining up with this ménage à trois would have to think very carefully. The fact that the wife and mistress just about tolerate eachother does not automatically mean that either of them will tolerate another woman being brought into the picture. Woman #3 could find herself in the bad books of two quite powerful females, and Mr Mentor won't necessarily protect her from the consequences of that.

[cygny]

Beautifully put, Otter.

 

Cygny, of course the idea of infidelity is infinitely more seductive when set against an elegant backdrop...and when all the players involved are smart, sexy, sophisticated individuals. These are exciting props, but I suspect the underlying emotions involved are the same as they are in every situation of this type. I guess the angst is probably just a bit more glamorous.

 

i totally agree that it is just another relationship in terms of emotions. however there are other factors involved. they aren't just props, the work itself is what everyone involved thrives on and lives for.