Americans grow increasingly intolerant of extramarital affairs

  • Article by: Andrew Wagaman , Star Tribune
  • Updated: July 25, 2013 - 1:15 PM

While Americans are more tolerant of many behaviors, we’re increasingly intolerant of extramarital affairs.

  • 26
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mariezzJul. 24, 13 6:01 PM

"According to a University of Washington study, the rate of people over the age of 60 who admitted to sexual infidelity sometime during their lives increased between 1991 and 2006 from 20 to 28 percent in men and from 5 percent to 15 percent in women." Those are the ones who are willing to say they had an affair. Additionally, not all people in a committed (but unmarried) relationship would consider an extra-relationship affair to be infidelity.

bluedevil101Jul. 24, 13 8:25 PM

What a croc. There are many people out there who defend Mrs. Weiner and Mrs. Clinton for "standing by their man" instead of getting away from corrupt men who are in constant need of attention. Who's who in the "war on women"?

foneboothJul. 25, 13 7:48 AM

It is interesting that in most of these stories the offending party is always referred to as "he"...I guess women just don't cheat or lie, but they do have affairs...I question why the author didn't address this. Also, adultery has always been condemned by most people...the percentages may fluctuate but we all get it...

athe0007Jul. 25, 13 8:01 AM

Personally, I am strongly opposed to extramarital affairs, but I am also opposed to people projecting their own values and punishing others who may not share them. What goes on in a marriage is between the people in it, not strangers on the outside. Two cliches apply here, "mind your own business" and "people in glass houses." Not to mention the divorce rate, which I am also strongly opposed to, but 3 out 4 people seem to support at least in their actions. To each their own.

Slider451Jul. 25, 1311:13 AM

@athe0007 - Oaths matter. If you swear to uphold a set of values, then lie, cheat, or steal in violation of your oath, don't complain when others judge your broken promises. If you can no longer uphold your wedding vows get a divorce. It's honest and doesn't hold the stigma it used to. But while you're there, do the right thing.

qwertmfjdsJul. 25, 1311:45 AM

I respect Lorena Bobbitt far more than Hillary Clinton or Mrs. Weiner.

athe0007Jul. 25, 1312:16 PM

@Slider451, Yes oaths and contracts matter, but it's not a contract or oath to you, it's to their spouse and they are really the only person they are accountable to. Besides, if we were to hold everyone to their marriage vows it wouldn't be "until we don't don't get along anymore," it'd be "until death do us part." And...we'd also be putting people in stocks in the public square or in prison for adultery.

freewheelerJul. 25, 1312:45 PM

"Yes oaths and contracts matter, but it's not a contract or oath to you"....That my be true for a marriage vow, but these politicians have an oath to their constituents. If they can't be faithful to their spouse i really doubt they can be faithful to the voters that elected them.

athe0007Jul. 25, 13 2:01 PM

@freewheeler, Here's what's in the oath of office for MN Legislature by law: "Each member and officer of the legislature before entering upon his duties shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, and to discharge faithfully the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability." It doesn't say anything about being faithful to their spouse! And I really don't think it's any of my business. To think so might mean that I wouldn't elect someone who's in a gay marriage or a divorcee. I elect politicians for other reasons than their sexual inclinations. To worry about such things is way too moralistic and judgmental for me.

DucemanJul. 25, 13 2:38 PM

@atthe0007: "It doesn't say anything about being faithful to their spouse! And I really don't think it's any of my business." I believe the issue comes down to this: If one can not be faithful to one's own spouse, then how can one be faithful to one's constituents? In Weiner's case, while he may not have broken any laws, are the laws themselves what define moral and immoral behavior? Anyone running for or holding public office should, and needs to, be held to a higher standard of trust as opposed to the common lay person. Otherwise it is much too easy to stray into other grey areas, especially with respect to telling the truth to one's constituents.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters