Posted: Aug 27, 08 6:50am
This question was sparked by something that occurred to me in the "sexless marriage" thread, and I thought it might be interesting to start a new discussion about it.
In our society, marital infidelity is looked at as a Very Bad Thing. The cheating partner is given advice like "If you're really not happy and can't work it out, you should do the honorable thing and get out rather than subject your spouse to the violence of betrayal..." (even if it means giving up half your assests, half your income and involvement in your kids' lives). I've been reading threads here where victims of infidelity talk about their hurt, about how their self-esteem and ability to trust were undermined, how their ability to love was shaken.
But I don't see the same kind of censure directed at partners who sexually and/or emotionally abandon their spouses and choose to remain in the marriage because it satisfies some other needs for them. When one spouse cuts-off physical and emotional intimacy and makes it clear that they not only no longer find their spouse desirable (or maybe even that they find their spouse repulsive), but are also no longer willing to participate in the physical bonding that reaffirms their union, isn't that a betrayal, rejection and violation of trust of the same order as infidelity? (I'm not talking about a cessation of intimacy due to a medical condition - I'm talking about a voluntary withholding of intimacy.)
In some senses, I think this type of abandonment is worse than infidelity. At least, with infidelity, there's a chance that the "victim" won't find out. Infidelities usually are time-limited - an affair has a beginning, a middle and an end. The victim of abandonment always knows and has to live with the rejection, the undermined self-esteem, the betrayal of trust and of their marriage contract every single day.
Yet I never hear abandoners censured. I never hear, "If you don't want intimacy and won't get help, then you should do the honorable thing and leave the marriage." In fact, I hear the victim blamed if he/she looks outside the marriage to satisfy this basic human need for intimacy that his/her partner is no longer willing to satisfy.
Abandonment is grounds for annulment in the Catholic church; it's grounds for divorce in a number of states. But the definitions are made much more restrictive than those of adultery. I don't know why that's so. It would appear to me that the marriage is ended once one partner is no longer willing to fulfill the requirements of the marriage contract. What remains may be a child-rearing union or an economic union or a friendly cohabitation - but it's not a marriage anymore.
Any thoughts?
