Advertising
Newsletter reserved for subscribers
The magazine’s ethical columnist on the pressures of romantic and conversion situations of marriage.
By Kwame Anthony Appiah
My wife got pregnant shortly after we met, even though our dates were “fluid” and not monogamous. We agreed to raise the child together and, at my request, to have an open date. However, our dates since then have been monogamous. My wife was injured during the birth of our second child and now finds sex painful and avoids it. (We had a great sex life before the injury. )When I brought up the issue of having other partners and reminded him of our agreement to have an open date, he became irritated and said that having children had replaced things. Subsequent discussions resulted in an impasse.
I enjoy my wife’s company very much and love her and our two children. I don’t have any goal of separating myself from my family. However, I resent the fact that my wife reneged on her commitment to me, and this, combined with the lack of sex, creates a rift between us. Would it be moral to have a mistress, given her past promise, and if so, can I do it discreetly to avoid tensions and, in all likelihood, divorce?Or I tell him that I intend to continue this process?Or does the inherent threat of infidelity mean I would have to settle for quasi-celibacy indefinitely?
From the ethicist expert:
I understand your dilemma, but you are undermining the obligatory verbal exchange by insisting that the final results of the verbal exchange are already established. You say that your wife has broken her commitment to you. The deal you defended and agreed to never materialized. If a relationship becomes de facto monogamous, it is moderate to assume that an agreement was made a long time ago, dating back to a time when a relationship that has since merged was still “fluid” – has become moot. The regulations of a non-monogamous date want to be very transparent so as not to be undermined by outdoor activities. Ethical non-monogamy demands open channels of communication and consent that go beyond the undeniable. Resigned submission.
It would be disrespectful to proceed, openly or covertly, on the basis of an agreement that you have repudiated. Discretion does not guarantee that your wife will not notice what she is doing, which can especially harm her acceptance and intimacy. . And especially if your flings are at an all-time low, you may end up with an emotional investment in an outdoor date that diminishes or competes with your marital dates. This is a challenge if your purpose is to keep your marriage in combination and maintain a circle of family members concerned about their children.
It is worth noting that persistent low libido after childbirth is not uncommon, nor is intercourse painful, a condition that turns out to be undertreated (if it were a male disease, doctors might be more competitive in analyzing the situation). There are other remedies that can be effective and your wife deserves to fully explore her options; It is also true that physical intimacy can take many forms. Given the deadlocks in the conversation, you and your wife might find some helpful tips. In the meantime, remember that sex is rarely just about physiology and peremptorily insist that being owed a pass can’t put you in a loving mood.
Last week’s question came from an American reader who moved permanently and wondered if she deserved to vote in American elections. She wrote, “I have dual citizenship of Sweden and the United States and have been living in Sweden for five years. , with no goal of returning to the United States. I have a Swedish husband, I pay Swedish taxes and I vote in Swedish elections. I still retain my U. S. citizenship and register my taxes in the U. S. every year. But I made the choice not to vote in U. S. elections. Because I no longer live (nor do I intend to live) in the United States, I don’t think I deserve a say in opting for your government. I have expat friends who disagree on Everyone. Everyone votes and thinks I deserve to do it. What do you think?
In his response, the ethicist noted: “One conclusion that explains why is that other people who enjoy the legal right to vote are morally flexible in exercising it, whether or not a theory of representation suggests that they have that right. There are many considerations that apply to deciding who is eligible to vote, and there is no single way to balance them all correctly. Since the explanation for why you vote is rarely wildly unfair, I say you can go with it. Then you can vote, morally speaking. But you? Do you have a duty to vote, as some of your expatriate colleagues openly think? You do not. I agree that a responsibly cast vote is a vital civic contribution in a democracy. Matrix. . . Well, then you don’t have to vote. But would it be a smart thing for us to do? Would that make you smart? Not that I can see it. It turns out that voting is an expressive act. It is a way to commit to your country. If you vote, you are part of the winning block or the losing block. It is a way of investing in a result. Now you are politically invested in Sweden and not in the United States. Whatever your legal status, it is a choice you are morally free to make. (Re-read the full query and respond here. )
⬥
I agree with the ethic’s arguments about voting for foreign residents, however I would argue that, given the influence of American politics on the entire world, I believe that anyone who has the right to vote for the American president should do so.
⬥
I strongly disagree with the position of ethicists on voting. Voting is a privilege, and it can be exercised simply because it is legal to do so. There are millions of people around the world who are not allowed to vote, or whose elections are so corrupt. and it’s crazy that voting is useless. Not voting because of confusing non-public ethical scruples is a slap in the face to each and every disenfranchised user on the planet, it’s a slap in the face to Americans (alive today!) who may simply not have voted or had difficulty voting before 1965. It is voted to honor all those who have died or been imprisoned fighting for the right. Women from all over the world who have been excluded from voting are voted. You vote because you can. cristina
⬥
As a U. S. citizen living for many years, I have chosen to vote in presidential elections only, for applicants whose foreign policy prospects will gain the greatest advantage for the United States and the country I follow. I don’t vote for state or local officials; Because I don’t live there, maybe I don’t know enough about all the subjects. -Nancy
⬥
I am a U. S. citizen who moved to Israel 25 years ago. And since then, I’ve never voted in an American election because I think it would be ethically reprehensible for me to. By voting, he would be (at least unconsciously) influenced the final results of the elections that would be most productive for Israel. I wouldn’t make the same judgments if I lived in the United States and made a decision about what would be smart for my fellow Americans in America. In addition, it would make you unaware of applicable issues in the same way as if you were still living in the United States. So I think that those who live permanently have no ethical right to influence elections in the country in which they live. They don’t live there (even if they pay taxes there). -Uriela
⬥
I am a dual citizen of the United States and Sweden, where I have lived for over 12 years; I also have no plans to return to the U. S. permanently. However, I find it difficult to perceive how this editor could not be interested in or feel any connection to the United States, especially in the existing political chaos. I suppose so. I’m older than the editor, and as a retiree, that matters a lot to me, especially since I have family and friends who will be directly affected, for example, if a certain user is re-elected president. I agree with the ethicist that other people who vote deserve to worry a lot about this. I just don’t understand how voting can’t be considered a civic duty, no matter where you live. Moreover, five years is not a long time, and cases Some aspects of the editor’s life may still replace and require a return. She could live to repent of her indifference. —Deborah
Kwame Anthony Appiah is an ethics columnist for The New York Times Magazine and teaches philosophy at New York University. His books include “Cosmopolitanism,” “The Code of Honor,” and “The Lies That Unite: Rethinking Identity. “To submit a request: Send an email to ethicist@nytimes. com. Learn more about Kwame Anthony Appiah
Advertising