Ah yes, the old excuse:
Gabrielle Union On Why She Felt ‘Entitled’ To Cheat On Her First Husband: ‘I Was Paying All The Bills’
Now let’s play “Just Imagine” for a moment, and think of the response if a man used that as an excuse to bonk a woman not his wife.
Knives out? Calls for cancellation? Yet another example of “Male Domination”?
I have no idea who this harpy is, but no doubt she’s well entrenched in the feministical hierarchy, judging by her arrogance.
And just in passing: with an attitude like that, small wonder he was screwing other women.
One could argue (I’m not actually *making* this argument, for the record) that male infidelity is unimportant. Men don’t get pregnant after all, so as long as we fulfil our fiduciary duties to our wives and the children they bear for us, our philandering is irrelevant.
If *women* cheat though, that calls into question the paternity of their children (the *maternity* is obvious), which defeats the purpose of the institution of marriage. Why should a man take on the obligation of supporting a woman and her children when the children are someone else’s? Some will do so of course, but most men want to father children of their own, and we have no natural mechanism for determining paternity, hence the need for sexually-exclusive rights to a woman.
Of course that all ignores the emotional component, which is why male infidelity *is* a problem. If the man cheats, the woman is more likely to do so as well. After all, the woman will always know who the mother of her children is, regardless of the paternity thereof.
But then I’m one of those knuckle-dragging types who thinks that marriage existed to serve an actual, socially-useful function (recognized paternity), rather than the SCOTUS’ belief that it’s just welfare for live-in-lovers, so what do I know?
> One could argue …
One could argue that. One would be wrong though.
At the one level there are various viruses and bacteria that pass only through, or better through intercourse. Untreated these have a serious impact on reproductive health.
Also yes, men do not get pregnant, but *women do*, and unless you’re going to advocate “Women are for children, Men are for fun”, then those men will be stepping out with other women…who can get pregnant, and the man is morally obligated to provide for HER now.
This leaves does not leave the man with divided loyalties–he’s clearly loyal only to himself, but it does leave the man with divided focus. Which mother is primary? Which children take precedence if there is a time or money conflict?
> defeats the purpose of the institution of marriage
Part of the purpose of the social institution of marriage was to make sure the husband stayed there to support his children and their mother.
Looking for a term to explain this woman? Try skank whore. This in no way excuses men who procreate like alley cats. Marriage is supposed to be a one-to-one commitment, not a competition to see who can score the highest.
> And just in passing: with an attitude like that, small wonder he was screwing other women.
From reading the whole article it sounds like they were never monogamous:
> “In our first marriage, neither one of us felt like the marriage
> should get in the way of our dating,” Union explained.
as to her attitude:
> “Like my dad before me, whoever has the most gets to do whatever
> the hell they want is what I thought,” she continued.
You teach your children in lots of ways. Example is one of them. She just did as *her father* taught her.