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.