First, there is the reference to Elliot Spitzer's affair and the whole 'what was he thinking?' issue. The author fails to acknowledge that Spitzer's affair had less to do with a simple infidelity driven by a desire for variety and/or his wife's possible lack of libido - both issues worthy of exploration - but the fact that Spitzer aggressively demonized men who had done THE EXACT SAME THING HE WAS DOING, prosecuting them to the fullest extend of the law, and lynching them n the court of pubic opinion...all the while holding himself up as a tacit example of 'better', i.e. a man who was not tempted by such behavior and would never engage in it. THAT is what makes me wonder, what was he thinking, as in, did he somehow not remember the exact circumstances of his rise to prosecutorial and political success? Did he think he was somehow immune to the legal consequences of patronizing a prostitute, and the moral consequences of presenting himself to the public as something he was not?

Then, as another writer pointed out, there is the issue of the reality of the goose doing as the gander does. He doesn't spend much time acknowledging that his wife, too, may have sexual desires and needs she'd be interested in having met outside their marriage. How does he feel about that? It's easy to separate the ideas of sexual gratification and love when it's you...but when you are on the other side of the equation, it can make you look differently at all the consequences of an open relationship.

There is also the issue of the 'need' for variety, and his lack of examination of that. Is this really a core biological need? Or is it a deeply rooted desire for conquest that in turn reaffirms his sexual desirability to himself?

I think it best to have the discussion outside the realm of gender, and put it where it belongs, on the continuum of human sexuality. Some of us are more sexual than others; some of us act out sexually while others act out with booze or anger or drugs. Generalizations based on gender are never going to contribute to an effective discussion about sexuality; I found myself totally dismissive of this article not because I can't accept that the author's sexuality runs counter to what I as a woman might prefer to experience in a marriage, but because he is ignoring the highly individual aspect of sex; we may have biological urges that can be generalized about, but the lens of reason tends to render the way in which we act on those urges to be highly individual.

First - your dad's money is his money to do with as he pleases, and if he wants to spend it all on bingo, not your business. If he wants to spend it on a trophy wife who is willing to have sex with him and live with him in exchange for providing for her material needs, not your business. If he wants to spend it on holistic medicines to cure his psoriasis, not your business. It's his money and you have no claim on it.

You say that you would only ask him for money in an emergency, but feel betrayed that he didn't consider you first - it seems you are saying "I didn't ask for the money, and there were people in his family that were asking for money, but nevertheless he should have read my mind and asked me "hey, do you need any money?" That's unfair. Furthermore, had you asked for money, I doubt very much he would have seen it as an 'either/or' - help the new family or help you. He probably would have helped you both. Your sense of grievance is not really justified, you simply have a 'feeling' that your dad's money is more yours than anyone else's, which is not correct.

You say it seems your dad doesn't care, but that, too, is unfair. You have no means of knowing what your father is thinking or feeling, unless you initiate a long talk that he willingly participates in (doubtful if you approach it with your unjustified feelings of betrayal and grievance).

LW, you should see a counselor and get to the bottom of this sense of betrayal and grievance. You must realize that, as an adult, you have no claim on your father''s money, and nor do you have a right to expect him to read your mind and suss out that maybe he should give you some, though you are too proud to ask. When you've figured out where your sense of grievance is coming from, you can address it, and only then should you endeavor to talk to your dad about what he can or should expect regarding how he plans to get by, and what if anything you can (or want to) do to help him.

It's sort of disturbing to see your utter lack of empathy for the failure of your father's relationship. You say he doesn't seem to care about his current financial crisis. Well, why would he share his feelings with someone who seems to care about it only because it means less for them?

I'd be careful talking to your father about this. While you may assume that he feels ripped off, cheated and abandoned, that may not be the case. He may be hoping to work things out with his wife. It's not for you to say if he should or shouldn't. It's his choice to make, not yours. And your father's (lack of) savings or new wife should not come between the two of you - it has nothing to do with your relationship, or rather, shouldn't.