A man should have a wife for the family and a mistress for pleasure : Discuss.
 

A man should have a wife for the family and a mistress for pleasure.

Discuss this :

I say yes and of the two roles I'd prefer to be the mistress. I know this will be controversial :omgno:

Can I have a husband for the money and a stud for the weekends?

Seriously though each to their own. If everyone involved in the situation is fully aware of what's going on then I don't see anything wrong with it. If it's not hurting anyone else.

Sorry I don't share, are you saying that wives are not pleasurable? That's a bit insulting don't you think? Also, I find this topic pretty sexist

My first thought when I saw this thread was "ew wtf no" so I guess that's how I feel about it :laugh: I personally couldn't and wouldn't let my husband have a mistress or be a mistress myself, both situations would make me feel like a mug

There's no reason someone can't have a partner, family and pleasure without having to be unfaithful

:clap1:

I think it's a reality though that there is a lot of unfaithfulness that goes on, and that (not all but) most of it is carried out by men. Maybe Kate's suggestion would help in some situations?

Just the one mistress?

This.

If someone isn't content with being with one person, then they shouldn't be in a relationship/married, if people want to be in an open relationship then whatever, each to their own, I personally find it gross, but people who sleep with other people behind their other half's back are disgusting and so are the people who willingly sleep with someone who is attached imo.

The issue I have with this notion isn't the unconventionality of the relationship, but with the implication that a wife's role should be that of a homemaker and nothing else :umm2:

By all means have open relationships/marriages, each to their own and all that - but the suggestion that having a wife means her only role is to cook, clean and provide emotional (and possibly financial) support to the man while he goes off and is sexually gratified elsewhere is actually quite sexist.

What about a woman having a husband for the family's financial stability and her getting off with some other blokes?

Help how exactly or more to the point who? Would it be an open relationship? If so why not just call it that? Having a mistress suggests unfaithfulness, lies cheating which is surely never good for a haelthy relationship and why only the man being allowed to cheat? Are we heading backwards into the 1950's?

Personally, I committed to being with just my husband when I married him and him to me, if he feels the need to go off with some girl who likes sleeping with other peoples partners then he's not the person I thought he was and I'd rather be single. If I got to the point where I don't enjoy being with my husband or him with me, then I'd rather be single then just stand around with my hands swinging while he goes off "pleasuring" himself with another woman

If I was single and wanted a bit of fun with no strings attached, I'd rather find another like minded man not some slimey cheating asshole.........but that's just me :hee:

So the wife would be the skivvy and he'd have a mistress for the fun stuff? **** that.

And coming from a woman too makes it even worse imo

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Matt - You need to come on here more often.

Indeed, and it's very disheartening! Women are marginalised enough as it is, stand with one another for God sake :fist:

You're preaching to the choir here Jack :laugh:

The only way Kate's scenario works is if there is an open relationship agreed upon by both parties, and both the wife and the husband were free to look outside the marriage for physical comforts... but at the end of day, do relationships like this really work out?? It would be interesting to see statistics on the longevity of open marriages.

Well I mean, in the very specific example of how I read the OP which was 'a man has a wife and a mistress and they're all happy with that situation', compared to another specific situation of 'a man is cheating on his wife', I think the former is a better situation. That's not me saying it's an ideal that people should want, or that all married couples should view their gender roles a certain way or anything like that, but just that there might be some people in some situations who view it as a way in which they want to live their lives, and I don't see anything wrong with them making the decision to do that. It doesn't change your relationship.
Personally I would never be able to. I was actually in a relationship where my boyfriend wanted us to be 'open' and I ended it as a result. But everyone's different and if it works for some, then why not?

Well, in Kates specific example, she wants to be the Mistress so in effect isn't even involved in the relationship in the first place which is what I find a bit off putting tbqh. Also she's suggesting that a man should have a Mistress for pleasure and the wife then for "the family" which means what exactly? to pop out the children, look after them and clean the house and that's where her role ends? Once she gets the ring on her finger she ceases having fun with her husband anymore?

women only marry men for one thing, money and status, but there is other things that men can't stand about there wives, they treat there husbands like little boys, and try to change them in there own way,

:umm2:

hetero relationships are definitely very complicated. i won't pretend to understand them. the dynamic between men and women is very complex.

What a load of bull****

no you dont

no need for foul language...what he said is often true, not always but often. Far far more woman than men marry for money and status.

I stand behind my use of strong language ...

It is seldom true in normal everyday society. The majority of the world isn't living in some trumped up reality where women are some kind of barbie princesses looking for someone to pay their botox bill. ALL the women I know work as many hours or more as their husbands and bring in an equal share of the income, pay half the mortgage and almost all of the grocery bill, and take care of the lion share of household chores.

We don't just serve the bacon, we go out and raise the pig, slaughter it, bring it home and fry it in the pan.
welcome to not the 50's :wavey:

...so, in this scenario...why does there have to be marriage involved..and not just people choosing to have multiple sexual partners..?..

...so I guess that if a wife is perfectly happy in doing all of the chores/raising their children etc and for her husband to have a mistress for the sexual part of their partnership etc...what she's really saying is..honey, my hoovering and mashing the children's potatoes is bringing it on for me ..sexually, you don't really offer anything I need or would enjoy...so, a 'mistress'...someone who didn't want the hoovering and mashed potatoes in their life but only sex, would they then, not want great sex../that would make sense...so why would they choose someone whose wife was quite happy doing her chores..because in having a mistress, he's running before he can walk really...


..obviously, that's taking out any betrayals and just assuming that this was all open and agreed by all involved....

This really and a wife isn't there just to do the cooking, have children,cleaning etc

I mean if they all agreed to it then that's fine, it just isn't something I would want :laugh:

Yep.

:umm2: do you have any facts to back up this sweeping statement?

In answer to the OP no I don't agree, it might sound like fun to be the mistress at least that is how you made it sound Kate, but what about if the mistress become emotionally involved and down the line resentment kicks in and all those special days he is with his wife (Christmas for instance) and family and you are on your own, and then you find out he lied about not having sex with his wife :laugh: etc etc ...

Amazing

No let Kate be Happy

Well Spunky

No, not for me, if a mistress is required then better not to have married in the first place.
If you commit to someone then you've chosen your path and should not stray.

A very old-fashioned opinion there, Kate. I admire your bravery of sharing it, though. :laugh:

I disagree though, it would probably confuse the children more than anything.

Decent honest married men (or even men that are in a long term relationship) tend have no need for a mistress, I think happily being 'the mistress' in the situation says a lot of that person, they have no respect for themselves and are clearly someone that happily plays that part without feeling or guilt for the other parties involved and not just the wife or other partner but for the rest of the families too including children.

Mistresses are generally kept secret for a reason too, they are used by the so called men they get involved with and then flung to the side and ignored when it comes to more important things in the mans life like his wife and children.

I'm only replying to the husband/wife scenario due to whats said in the OP but do find the topic to be slightly sexist as it's not just men who have affairs so what I said could be applied to anyone.

Does that also mean a wife can have a husband and a toy boy lover...

Certainly not, that's BARBARIC, how could you even suggest such a thing? :nono: