That's exactly what I would have liked to say. You said it better. I don't think it's true for everybody, but for many, I think that if "fidelity" wasn't synonymous with "sexual exclusivity," we'd be happier. Happiness is a worthy goal, and it benefits everyone around you, including children. So why not just serial monogamy? I have nothing against that, but I've come lately to realize that people are possibly happiest with a combination of stability - someone to make a life with and grow old with - and adventures of other kinds.

The operative word is "admitted": Every year, roughly 10 percent of married people admit to having cheated on their spouse...

Surveys of self-reported behavior are dubious. When GWB left office, the number of Americans who "admitted" to voting for him was less than what he needed to win reelection in 2004.

Is it really a good idea to post under the name of a real person from your past?

I can remember a cartoonist, embittered by his wife's betrayal, used her telephone number in some type of "for a good time call" cartoon. It proved to be big trouble (for him and the paper).

I agree with you EXCEPT that the person you are making a stable long term life with is virtually never going to be happy for you to have adventures which leaves lying as the only alternative which interferes with the level of emotional intimacy necessary for satisfying long term stability, especially if you get caught but it tends to cost something even when you don't. So it appears there are two options for the vast majority of people: 1) long term relationships with concealed affairs or 2) long term relationships with someone who can provide enough adventure to get you by, well of course there's the third option: be miserable.

I’m surprised at how very childish or even provincial this author’s view of marriage is. So the criteria to judge the happiness and quality of a long term relationship between two complex adults is sexual fidelity? Wow, that’s very limiting and shallow, and I think THAT is a “sad defense of marriage”.

Reality and people are more complex than that and puppy love is to marriage what Candace Bushnell is to Henry James: they belong in a different category. You can prefer the former because it’s “more fun” or “easier” or “playful” or whatever you want and dismiss the latter as “long”, “boring”, “sad” or “old-fashioned” and that’s fine by me but don’t pretend you know anything about literature.

Every time some politician gives himself a public flogging over his errr, "mistake," we are subjected to a new round of navel-fixated bloviating from the Commenteriat about marriage -- what it all means, can it survive, should an aggrieved spouse forgive the "betrayal," etc., to predictable etc.

The idea of marriage as a lifelong commitment between two people who promise to love each other forever and to never, ever even think about having sex with anyone else is a nice, little fairy tale that was created -- in historical terms, at least -- yesterday. Marriage sure didn't start out that way. It was created not to express undying love, but to ensure the orderly disposition of property, the rearing of children and to generally preserve order in society. In many areas of the world, it hasn't changed one bit in that respect.

Yes, there are people who have fairy-tale marriages. If you are in one of them, congratulations. You essentially got the relationship equivalent of a winning lottery ticket. But just as no sensible person would plan his or her retirement on lottery tickets, no sensible person should seriously expect to find a single "soulmate" who will fulfill every need he or she has until it's dirt nap time, and then feel cheated when it doesn't work out that way.

In the end, I don't see how you achieve any happiness by constantly expecting the highly improbable and then being disappointed in others and yourself when the highly improbable doesn't happen. There's a name for behavior like that. It's called compulsive gambling.

Thank you Tracy! I couldn't agree more. When the whole Mike Sanford thing came out and I saw him up there apologizing to his constituents, to the people of South Carolina, to his family and good friends...I was so frustrated. First of all I felt like, geez Mike, if you were my good friend you would owe me no apology. You're just being human and subject to the trials and tribulations that sometimes come with marriage. My whole view is exactly congruent with yours. If you're unhappy in the marriage, then end it, and go after what you need but don't stay in it for the sake up upholding these western Puritanical values that imply that the institution of marriage is worth upholding at the sacrifice of everything else! Even you're own happiness! You're not a bad person if you don't want to be married anymore for crying out loud! Sometimes you find that you're not as compatible as you may have thought...there could be a whole host of reasons. Of course if there are children involved, then act responsibly but I am a firm believer that children are better off with parents who are happy and loving rather than parents who are together and unhappy, but keeping up the sham for the kids. Even if the parents are not fighting, the tension permeates and the lack of joyful connection can and will be felt by the children. Now, I Do believe that many people get married out of a fear of being alone. Then, once they're married, they may meet someone who they are more compatible with, for as the saying goes, a lot of the time you don't get what you want until you stop looking for it. And of course, this causes a problem when you're already married, and you have settled rather than waiting for the truly satisfying relationship. But, my last sentiment is one of true compassion for I do understand that sometimes people lose faith in their dreams and decide that reality and their true desires just don't mesh. And sometimes through being practical and pragmatic they trade their true hearts desire for security, or comfort etc. But to each his own, obviously that seems to be working for a lot of people out there. Working well? Well that's to be debated.