Is wanting a threesome grounds for divorce?

Yup, you read that right.  Recently I read this exact question posted on an online advice columnist: “My husband asked me for a threesome, is this grounds for divorce?”

Unfortunately this is how many people think.  They are so afraid of their significant others fantasies that they immediately jump to the most extreme response possible.

If I was answering this question I’d of said: “No, his asking isn’t grounds for divorce, but your reaction to his expressing himself is grounds for him to divorce you.”

Harsh?  Maybe.  But this isn’t even really about threesomes.  It’s about a lack of honest and open communication in a relationship, which is the number one issue that eventually leads to anger and resentment and divorce.

This is all due to the lack of a safe and secure atmosphere within the relationship that a person’s feelings and fantasies can be revealed.  All too often doing so triggers insecurity and jealousy and the ensuing anger, hurt and the defense mechanism, belittling, that they get from their partner.  Things nobody wants to experience.  So it’s safer to just not say anything at all.  Eventually the resentment builds and they strike-out on their own, either through divorce or cheating, to fulfill their fantasies and live their life.  The life their significant other is too jealous to live with them, or even listen to.

We hear this all the time, especially from married men that contact us through swinger dating sites we belong to (that might just be because men so actively seek sex, especially through swingers sites). It’s always the same old story: “I love my wife, but she is just too prudish, reserved, doesn’t like sex, doesn’t like the same kind of sex I do” etc., etc., etc. And one of the most read topics on The Swingers Board is the “How do I talk to my spouse about swinging” threads.  Taken a step further, that could be: “How do I talk to my spouse about any sexual fantasy I have without having them reject me and make me feel stupid for having them.”

It’s always amazed me how people will be more open with complete strangers about their darkest sexual secrets then they will be (can be?) with their spouse, the one person they should be able to talk to about anything.

Being secure enough in yourself to not be threatened by your partner’s sexual fantasies is a paramount of a sexually happy and satisfying relationship.  Being open to hearing your partner’s fantasies without judgment or jealousy doesn’t necessarily mean you have to do those things, it just means you have to validate them and not make them feel that they can’t talk with you about them.

Again, lack of communication (and the willingness of someone else to listen) is the biggest cause of cheating and the resulting emotional trauma associated with it when the cheated spouse finds out.

But, until people can get over themselves, this will continue to be a huge issue with romantic relationships.

~ Lucius Scribbens

Are we married or not? Part 2

In my last post I mused aimlessly about the difference between the definitions of “Civil Union” and “Marriage”, and how with the support of Prop 8 certain churches would like to define “marriage” as a strictly religious union. Yet, at the same time they say they support Civil Unions, but Prop 8 (and others like it throughout the U.S.) even ban them.

My point being was that Civil Unions are performed by Civil Servants and have no connection whatsoever to religiously recognized unions.

Case in point.  My first wife and I were married in the Greek Orthodox Church.  However, when we split I did not seek the Church’s recognition of the divorce for the sole purpose of I really had no need to throw my ex-wife under the bus and confess her sins against me for their perverted purposes.  So in the eyes of the State we are divorced and I am now married to Lucretia MacEvil.  If the State did not believe we were really divorced they would not have allowed me to marry Lucretia.  In the eyes of the Greek Orthodox Church however, they do not recognize the State’s divorce and I am still married to my ex-wife, and because of this if I so desired to take communion I could not until I seek their recognition of the dissolution of my first marriage.

My mother did the same with her first marriage and to the day of her death she was refused Holy Communion by the Greek Orthodox Church.

So where is the line drawn?  Is a State recognized marriage simply a Civil Union and to be truly “married” you must be joined by a religious body of some kind?  Clearly, State recognized marriage is completely different than a religious-recognized marriage. Unless of course it is in the religion’s best interest to blur the line.  This “Government stay out of our business, but we’ll mingle in yours when it suits us” attitude is one of the real issues that should be addressed.  The Constitution protects a Church’s right from Government interference, but what protects the Government from Church’s interference?  Nothing.  Nice situation for the Church, eh?

The masses don’t understand the difference.  A church leader can perform marriages because as an ordained minister of any kind he is automatically given (in most states) the authority to also perform a State recognized union which entitles the couple to all the benefits given to a “married” couple.  A couple can get these same benefits being married by a judge, a county clerk, a justice of the peace, etc.  The only difference?  The union is not recognized “in the eyes of the Lord” by the opinion of the Church of Whatever.

Great. They don’t have to recognize it or give the couple who don’t prescribe to that religion any benefits bestowed upon a “married” couple within that particular church.  So why are We The People allowing churches to dictate who of other faiths — or no faith — can be joined in a State and Federally recognized union and who can’t?

Why? Fear. The LDS Church was telling it’s faithful that should Prop 8 pass in California that it could force the LDS Church to perform same-sex marriages.  Now nothing could be further from the truth.  The government doesn’t have that authority or even anything that resembles it.  But, people are lazy. It’s easier to believe what you are told rather than actually research it for yourself and find-out if you’ve been lied to (hence the need for sites like Snopes.com, eh?). But the Mormon faithful, and flurry of fear, donated time and money in a Church organized manner to promote the passing of a law that won’t effect a single member of the LDS Church in a negative manner.  But it was the fear that it could in some undefined way that caused these people to do as they were informed, not as they personally felt.  At the minimum the allowed how they felt to be determined by what they were told without any real introspection into what they really feel about the subject.

Besides, in Utah thinking differently than the “majority” is frowned upon.  Politicians use slogans such as “I stand for Utah values” to get elected.  And those values are what?  Hmmm… Wait, I’m sure someone will tell me what my values should be.  Just give it a minute.

So there we have it.  My rant-and-roll for today.

~ Lucius Q. Scribbens