The Barometer will simply recite the facts from a New York Times “Ethicist” column (November 19, 2017, p. 30) and end with one comment:
A 60-something husband’s wife is in ill health. The ill wife has given her 60-something husband permission for conjugal visits with a non-conjugate. The husband describes the proposed affair/relationship as “friendly but not competitive.” (One comment: Hell hath no fury …). The 60-something husband turned to a dating website and described his situation thereon with full disclosure (One comment: We could expect no less from a married man proposing permissive infidelity) and was met with scorn and accused of “cheating.” (One comment: Is this incorrect?) The 60-something husband labeled these responses as “immoral” and “unfair.” (One comment: Said the kettle to the pot and vice versa)
So, the 60-something husband requested a solution to his dilemma for, in his words, “… there seems to be no pathway to address the ageism and biblical [sic] rigidity of a society that spends billions on youthfulness and eroticism and nothing on thought.” (One comment: So, society is to blame for this dilemma? For better, for worse, in sickness and in health … — we have not added footnotes to the vows to cover one 60-something who self-describes as a “very sexual person.”) (One more comment: One need not spend a bitcoin on thought; they are free and ours for the taking — one need only contemplate the consequences of actions to be drawn into another world of depth and self-development.)
(One last comment:The problems that even permissive affairs create have been given, sadly, less thought than Biblical rigidity. Perhaps love from afar and devoted help and assistance to his bride could help the 60-something understand that he has been given a test of character that demands more from him than he can imagine. Every worthwhile act of service demands sacrifice as it builds the strength and character of those who give despite personal costs.)
That was a total of seven (or so) “one comments.” The dilemma demanded as many.
> One comment: So, society is to blame for this dilemma? For better, for worse, in sickness and in health … — we have not added footnotes to the vows to cover one 60-something who self-describes as a “very sexual person.”
I would think yes, society is absolutely to blame for this dilemma.
Society did make the rules, and society does have no answer except “immoral infidelity” or “unhappy chastity”.
This is especially distressing as study after study show the importance of touch, love, sexuality to everyone, and if (I didn’t read the original column), the wife’s health is not expected to recover and the husband’s health is otherwise good.
One final comment:
> 60-something understand that he has been given a test of character that demands more from him than he can imagine
If the wife can be believed to have given her informed and genuine consent, then, … what a stupid test and who are you to impose that on him?
I did not impose the test. Nor did society. Society gives them rights and benefits for their marriage. They took vows. Should they choose to not honor those vows, society has given them an out. The out is not bringing in a third person. Study after study also shows the damage that infidelity causes — deep psychological damage, even with “informed”consent. Just a thought — How does a wife become fully informed on the prospect of this third person? The original question from 60-something was vague on that notion.
By the way, the out society gives is each going his/her separate ways.