[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Magic Wheel Memory

That's not what I'm saying at all, SuchFriends. Of course, marriage is much more than sex. And men need more than just sex from their wives. But I used sex as the example in my scenario, since the discussion was about extramarital sex. And while sex is not everything, it IS one important part of a healthy marriage. That's why we choose our marriage partners based on our sexual orientation. When one partner chooses to no longer have sex with the other, then the problem in their marriage is something deeper than just lack of sex.

your example is really unfortunate and confuses the issue you're trying to advance.

it sound's like you're accusing kim of withholding sex-- and that sends people on a garden path of silly speculation and unnecessary refutations. it's a misleading example that pushes too many buttons and based on terrible assumptions.

the real serious question posed by your earlier post is-- in the event of a sentimental attachment to a third party (regardless of cause, who gives a shit)-- should a marriage be broken?

when you don't have kids, it's easy to confess and say it's over-- it's only marginally harder than breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. but if you have children and a family business, then there are other issues at play, and it's not so cut and dry-- "honesty" can bring ruination for all involved.

people from certain backgrounds will demand "honesty first"-- that's generally what the american populace demands of their celebrities and politicians. hence the scandal. people from other backgrounds might choose to keep a lover secret and protect the family from destruction. it really depends on many things, and the answer is not always as clear as absolutists want to make it.

kim of course has every right to be angry and hurt upon discovering the treason, regardless of thurston's intentions.