For a long time couples survived infidelity. Many men cheated and many women either ignored or just tolerated it.

Obviously various things have shifted over the last fifty years. I think the question is more complicated than "is this a good thing". I'm not even sure its a NEW thing.

I'm not being facetious, but isn't this exactly what some promise or vow at the time of entering into the marriage?

Isn't that a reason? Because you promised to "stick it out", for better or for worse?

Not sure of the purpose of his promise otherwise.

Perhaps the point is that this promise/vow should be removed from "traditional" marriage ceremonies (and by traditional, I mean where the couple doesn't write their own vows), as it may be meaningless. Better that one promises to stick it out so long as one remains happy and fulfilled. (Again, not meant as a snark; meant seriously.)

Sure, but those same people generally also vowed to "forsake all others."

"Defending the institution of marriage by citing the percentage of couples who are able to persevere -- as opposed to the percentage of happy and fulfilled long-term partnerships -- seems pretty cynical."

In all seriousness--how do you justify the premise that any marriage in which a partner was unfaithful cannot be "happy and fulfilled long-term partnerships"?

Sure, many (perhaps most) people believe that infidelity to a spouse is a horrible, terrible thing that destroys everyone involved in a swirling cesspool of some scoundrel's filthy self-gratification.

But surely not EVERYONE feels that way. Is it appropriate to make the assumption that everyone who continues a marriage after someone cheats MUST BE miserable and unfulfilled?

Maybe it's because Sandra Tsing-Loh was miserable and unfulfilled...and her marriage represents 'em all. Is that it?

Get it?

Just as abortion should be entirely a matter between a woman and her doctor, continuing (or not continuing) a marriage after infidelity is entirely a decision of the couple, NO ONE ELSE!

Just as, for some, abortion is a significant emotional trauma, but for others it is not, likewise infidelity is a greater or lesser emotional trauma for different couples.

What is more intriguing, and more disturbing, is the subtext of the article, which is that there should be a single set of rules which must be applied to every marriage and every couple, which must be applied in every instance, with a strict and unvarying set of consequences. Gee, sounds familiar -- kind of like the old, rigid, patriachal, abusive system of marriage which I thought we were slowly outgrowing as a culture.

Why is it so impossible to imagine that a couple could reconcile -- really work things out and reconcile -- and be happy together after a sexual infidelity? I know people who have done it.

My husband and I are monogamous, but one thing that I've learned from my polyamorous friends is that sex is only one part of a marriage, and that a couple's life together depends on fidelity in a much broader sense. Frankly, I can think of a lot of more unforgivable things that one spouse could do to another.

Everyone in this situation has to make their own decision. Women cheat too, by the way. All that's happened is we've discovered we are human. Yes, a marriage can survive an affair. That doesn't necessarily mean the partners are "just hanging in there." And the number of marriages where neither partner cheats, but are consistently satisfying through the duration of the marriage is probably very small. Marriage is ups and downs. Over 30-50 years, you can go through all kinds of cycles, from passion to indifference to companionship and many others, over the course of that time.

I didn't read the article in so much as a defense of marriage than as an attempt to diagnose why divorce rates are down over the last couple of decades compared to the fact that it doesn't seem that infidelity is down at all.

They hit most of the reasons, I think, but left out the fact that at least recently the bad economy certainly plays some part in it.

The one area they did touch upon, and one that I agree with, is that these days people are far more clear eyed about the real cost of divorce after having witnessed most of our parents going through it. My wife and I for instance are both children from broken marriages and it's not something that either one of us relishes repeating. Also, to be a little more blunt, if the saying is that "it takes hard work to make a marriage" is true, then likely we are more aware of this than our parents were, and hence more willing to accept that work - even if it means reconciliation after infidelity.

Frankly, I don't see how marriage needs a "defense", but it is likely that it's making a bit of a comeback as society matures and marriage does not become the "de facto" progression for most people's lives. After all, if just half of the people that should never get married never do, then that would dramatically drive down divorce rates, wouldn't it?

Marriage is about the long haul. And about raising kids. Romance is about romance.

No surprise then that many, many people seek sex and adventure outside of marriage. They always have, and they always will.

Are we finally getting real? More tolerance of and awareness of human nature can lead to more stable marriages, and a more stable society, and happier youngsters. The lower divorce rate may mean that we Americans are more adult, less childish about the idea of marriage than in the past. This is a positive development in my view.

that couples who stay together after infidelity are miserable?

I don't know why it's so flabbergasting that people would want to try to repair a relationship they spent so many resources putting together.

If you didn't want to stick it out through thick or thin with someone else, whether the problem was internally or externally created, then you should probably skip marriage (and having kids with a partner).