Guest Post: “In their effort to seem liberal and progressive, people have forgotten what an extra-marital affair is really like”
This came in as a comment from Matthew S, but I’m putting it up as a guest post.
—————————
While trying to explain the gravity of the Owen Bonnici/Janice Bartolo/Konrad Mizzi/Lindesy Gambin situation to some people, I realised that in their effort to seem liberal and progressive, some people have forgotten what an extra-marital relationship is really like.
Everyone now seems to think that love is blind and unstoppable. They also seem to think that affairs are about love, when what they really are about most times is the confluence of sex and boredom.
Let’s dispel some myths.
First off, love is not blind. Look at your other half. She or he comes from a similar social background to yours. She or he has a job which is comparable to yours. You share many of the same interests. You have a similar sense of humour and if you look really closely, you’ll notice that you even share quite a few physical attributes (Eddie and Mary Fenech Adami’s likeness was uncanny, for example).
People are invariably attracted to their own kind because they are attracted to themselves. This is a biological and social fact. And if couples don’t share interests, what on earth would they talk about when not having sex or cooking dinner?
The second myth is that love is unstoppable. This is partially true. Emotions take a hold of people whether they want them to or not. That said, actions can definitely be halted.
In today’s print edition of Times of Malta, there’s a story about a married British serviceman who was stationed in Malta during the First World War. While here, he fell in love with a young and unmarried Maltese clerk, and she with him. In spite of their obvious attraction, they never spoke to each other. It was only on the last day before leaving the island that he gave her a single red rose.
Years later, when both happened to be widowed, they got back together and married. That is a love story for the ages. The rabbit-like propensities of Magistrate Herrera, the Super One crew, the justice minister, the energy minister, the President of Malta in her younger years and the MCST chairman (is there anyone in this administration who is not a home-wrecker?) are not. And that is aside from the fact that sexual desire is not love. If it were, Dominique Strauss-Kahn was permanently in love with all sorts of different women, and not just a cheap philanderer.
Now let’s look at the mechanics of an extra-marital affair, which is the meat of the matter here.
It starts with a glance. Then you have coffee together and a perfectly harmless chat. The chats become more regular and before long, you tentatively kiss for the first time. Once you’ve had your first kiss, you’re only a short stop away from the bedroom.
The first time is the hardest. After getting past that, there’s nothing stopping you from turning that slightly out of the blue shag into a once a week thing. And if once a week is fine, why not twice or maybe three times, especially if you’re doing it on taxpayers’ time and money?
While doing all this, you’re running around like crazy between the matrimonial home, the office, your mistress’s flat and your children’s school events.
Your mistress is now becoming more dependent on you and more possessive of you. To placate her, you find yourself going on a business trip to, erm, Venice. Getting away with a ‘business trip’ makes you bold. Whereas previously, you only used to kiss behind closed doors, you now start stealing kisses in public and going to places where people might recognise you, maybe even the same restaurants that you usually go to with your wife.
At this point, you start feeling exhausted with it all. Your wife wants more quality time. Your children need help with their homework, your mistress wants you to move in with her and your boss wants you to build that damned power station or sort out the law courts. Meanwhile, Franco Debono is texting and ringing you 200 times a day threatening wholesale destruction if you do not make him President of the Law Commission and appear in a press conference at his side.
You have bags under your eyes, your weight is exploding, your work rate is well below par, you have started forgetting things in your pockets which you would have previously thrown away before arriving home and all kinds of rumours are spreading about you around the water cooler.
A part of you starts wishing that you would be publicly outed so that you can be done with the charade but another part of you is totally delusional. You still somehow think that you’re on top of it all.
The above cycle repeats itself until either something snaps or a resolution with your family is reached.
The whole point here is that extra-marital affairs are not quiet romances as everyone seems to think, but monstrous juggernauts which gobble up everything in their path, grow bigger and clumsier as they go along and ultimately leave all people involved deeply bitter and unsatisfied. Leading a double-life is not for the faint of heart. It requires Madame Bovary-like stamina and a Henry VIII- like mastery of deceit. And rather a lot of money, if you’re not on the taxpayers’ tab.
Anyone who has tried juggling work and family will tell you that it is quite trying at the best of times. Imagine trying to handle high office, a family and a mistress. Extra-marital affairs leave no room for anything else. They consume people’s lives, make them skive work and keep them up at night. That is why you should be worried that your representatives are caught up in all this hanky-panky.
Oh, and for the record, there’s nothing particularly progressive, liberal, classy or romantic about home-wrecking. The greatest love stories ever told have invariably been ones involving restrained and/or unrequited love.
39 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The bearded fool is at it again:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/comment/blogs/45995/the_big_one_in_the_oil_scandal#.VGMkwvmsWSq
It’s John Dalli’s work.
Excellent guest post.
We just have to thank our lucky stars that Joseph Muscat apparently shows no interest in the other sex. Imagine us then.
He’s just busy screwing the whole country.
“You have bags under your eyes, your weight is exploding, your work rate is well below par, you have started forgetting things in your pockets which you would have previously thrown away before arriving home and all kinds of rumours are spreading about you around the water cooler”.
Then you lose concentration while driving and ram a couple of cars and a man and behave as though it was his fault because he was standing in the middle of the road. Luckily he’s foreigner and you, after all, are the Justice Minister so the courts believe you and you get away scot free, until the next accident.
Matthew S, this is an excellent piece, very well explained, and it cannot get any closer to the reality of it all.
The wreckage that is left after these frolics can never be redeemed and the victims will never fully recover from the pain of betrayal.
Dejjem nghid li ghad tfaqqa xi wahda!
Bravo! I have tried many times to convince my friends why extra-marital affairs are just not worth it, from now onwards I can use this guest post.
Extremely well put and very exact. It explains exactly why one should be worried about your minister (whoever that might be) enters such situations which will automatically reflect on performance.
It’s actually worse than that: a person who makes marital vows in front of family and friends, in church or on the bible, meant to last until death, and who then breaks them, has far fewer qualms breaking any other vow or promise and is hence untrustworthy.
Bravo.
I really appreciate this reader’s posts. Great work, Matthew S.
An excellent piece. And spot on.
Power is an aphrodisiac.
There is much, much more going on when the mistress is a subordinate than described in this excellent post.
The mistress begins to feel that she is entitled to do as she pleases because she has a direct line to the boss’s ear, and no one dares to cross her or put her in her place.
People start to notice that she is suddenly present in meetings and situations which are not required by her job but she’s there because of a personal invitation from the boss.
Employees start to notice that car-pooling or coffee-meetings take on a weird configuration. Any other pretty, available woman in the office finds herself under scrutiny and would be wise to give the boss a wide berth to avoid viciousness from his office mistress. Vacation leave and sick leave start taking on noticeable pattern and visits abroad begin to have an unexplained tail-end.
Projects start to materialize which require long, one-to-one input with the boss and his office mistress. At office lunches or suppers, table placings take on a life of their own as do hotel reservations and proximity of rooms or choice of hotels.
Whatever happens in the office, everyone knows that it is going to be the mistress’s version which will be believed and if there is some sort of promotion to be had no one has any doubt who will be judged the best candidate.
Of course the mistress would most likely not be inundated with work (she needs her energy for other things) but the rest of the office is expected to chip in so that she can then present the finished product and demonstrate her abilities.
This is why relationships between colleagues are banned. It undermines the professional chain of command.
Was the Justice Minister alone when he crashed?
That’s a really plausible question.
Now that’s a good question.
Wasn’t it said at the time that he had attended a reception? Where was he off to afterwards? Not home to Marsacala as the accident happened on Regional Road. Was he going to Mellieha perhaps?
The only way is to join some dots on a map.
1) Where was the reception that Owen Bonnici had just left?
2) Where does he live?
3) Where does Janice live?
4) Where did he crash?
Do they have enough time to look after the shop in between shags?
Good post. May I add something. You can even be negligent while driving and cause car accidents.
There is nothing progressive about the unspeakable pain these people inflict upon those they supposedly love.
Speaking from experience, it is one of the worst things you can go through, far worse than a bereavement or serious illness – that these curs, for that is what they are, behave in such a fashion means that they are lowlifes of the worst kind and cannot be trusted in any way.
Apologies for the vehemence of my comment, but modern society seems to treat such things lightly. It is no laughing matter, and the scars last a lifetime.
Bravo – excellent observation based on rational thought. Love has indeed become a cheap word.
Matthew S., I salute you and look forward to your future contributions. How wonderful to be able to visit a site and read well-written articles with good, solid sense.
There are threesomes and there are threesomes.
Matthew S. – A well written post, however: “She or he comes from a similar social background to yours. She or he has a job which is comparable to yours.”
Maybe on a small insular rock – not across the world though where multicultural marriages with partners from very disparate backgrounds and lawyers, academics and other professionals happily married to tradesmen/women, cleaners and factory workers is common and acceptable.
“The second myth is that love is unstoppable. This is partially true.” Can a myth be partially true? It’s either a myth or it isn’t.
The other issue of course, and more importantly is that this story strongly asserts that home-wreckers only exist on one side of the political fence – now that truly is a myth.
Final quotation: “(is there anyone in this administration who is not a home-wrecker?)” Was there anyone in the previous administration who is not /was not a house wrecker?
You must seriously consider that human weaknesses and foibles exist across all of society irrespective of background, status and political alliances. Again, a well written piece but you have been carried away with the emotional political messaging.
I totally disagree.
Unless people deliberately choose to marry somebody different – no need to say why people marry up, some men deliberately marry down so as to make domination easier, others like to dominate a dumber woman, and some women don’t care who they’re marrying as long as he has lots of cash – they marry people who are like them and look like them.
When people who are very different marry each other, you just need to look more closely at things like sense of humour, and sometimes even at weird things like sharing the same illness or disorder, to notice the similarities.
Almost 60% of white Americans are getting married nowadays. Only about 35% of black Americans are doing so. Why, do you think? It’s because black women can’t find adequate black men to marry. Too many are in jail or have a poor education, and many black women would rather not get married than marry a white man.
More than 60% of college educated people get married in America but only about 45% who have a low education do so. Why? It’s because the highly educated are marrying each other and having stable marriages while the lower educated have problems finding a stable partner.
Gay men in America like to congregate in San Francisco. Why? It’s because they don’t want to mix with all those heterosexuals found everywhere else.
Please remove your blinkers, Mr Dingli. This is real life, not a unity in diversity advertisement in which a mixed race couple, a gay couple and a transvestite live happily ever after in a complicated menage.
At no point did I say that only Labour politicians are home-wreckers, although a quick look at the numbers on either side of the house will give you a good idea of where most of the problems lie.
My whole point is not about how bad extra-marital affairs are (though there is that too) but how extra-marital affairs are screwing up the country. The previous administration is irrelevant in this context because it is not running the country.
If these lowlifes want to wreck each other’s lives, I frankly don’t give a damn. It’s the wrecking of innocent children’s lives and the wrecking of the country which bothers me.
Yes, my message is political. That’s the whole point.
Please look at the graph in this article for the American wedding rates I quoted.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying
Matthew, your first paragraph does make any sense to me.
You state that “unless people deliberately choose to marry somebody different ….they marry people who are like them and look like them”.
This statement is akin to saying “if a glass is not empty then it’s full”.
Have you considered that people who are very different to each other marry because opposites attract?
Your comment about illness or disorder being evidence of similarity and labelling it weird is to put it mildly offensive.
You use statistics from the United States to suggest that it reflects reality across the globe.
I would humbly suggest that the United States is not a culture, mostly led by reality TV, that most developed societies aspire to.
You also assert that gay men in the US (it’s the US by the way not America – America is a continent which includes the US, Chile, Argentina etc) congregate around San Francisco because they do not want to mix with all those heterosexuals found everywhere else.
Your comment implies that there are no heterosexuals in San Francisco. I suggest that gay men and women congregate there because heterosexuals living there are more accepting of gays.
Unity in diversity is not an advertisement – it may not have yet reached the rock – but it’s a reality where I live and in most of northern Europe.
You state that at no point did you say that Labour politicians are home wreckers. Could you please enlighten me then to what this phrase means if not that “is there anyone in this administration who is not a home-wrecker?”
Maybe it was not rhetorical but an actual question. I highly doubt it though.
You also state that extra marital affairs are wrecking the country. In the US (to pick a country you choose to back up your argument) Monica Lewinsky did not contribute to any ruining – and that story was repeated and repeated globally.
The foibles of the previous French president were plastered all over the world press. France is not any worse because of it.
Here is some more research – one from the United States that may hopefully contribute to moving your blinkers, even slightly. They are about children from gay marriages and about children from bi-racial unions.
I have formed my own conclusions but will leave the readers to make theirs.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interracial-marriages-biracial-children/
I was going to reply to some of your comments but your thinking is so muddled, I barely know where to start.
Please improve your reading and analytical skills before reaching any more of your own conclusions.
These bad women not only steal away a husband but also a father.
If only they realize the harm they inflict on the family, they will think twice before they act.
But what matters for them is sex, money and status.
But what status can she achieve? I look down on these women.
My advice to spouses is do not give up. Go to court even if it means four or five years.
How can one get separation in just three weeks? Not enough time for reflection. Mediation in the family court is a joke.
Nobody “steals” anyone from anybody. Why do some people automatically blame the “bad woman”?
You are obviously referring to a case of a married man and a female lover.
The man has his own brain to decide with unless he’s thinking with the wrong head.
I think the fault is usually with the weak male following his hormones.
Having said that, if one is interested in an extra marital affair, s/he should talk about it with their spouse way before anything happens. Better still, discuss it before marriage.
birds of a feather flock together (within the Labour party).
Is this going to be the downfall of the Labour government, living the high life with their family, friends and lovers and forgetting what they got elected for?
They promised to tackle ‘injustices’ done throughout the years of PN administration. Moderate supporters don’t really care about all this gossip as long as they get what they have voted for.
The trouble will begin if they don’t. There is this Grievance Unit pending with cases still on hold. Time will tell.
TO TEST A MAN’S CHARACTER, GIVE HIM POWER.
Now you can see the result.
Something you want to get off your chest there, Matthew S?
Hi TL. This should have been posted as a reply to Matthew S’s response to me time marked November 16, 2014 at 1:09 am.
For some strange reason there is no opportunity to respond directly to him as the Reply button is hidden. I am unsure if this is a glitch or an intentional situation.
[Daphne – After a certain number of responses and counter-responses, the Reply function ceases. This has always been the case. It avoids having protracted discussions within a discussion, that detract from the main subject.]
I would like to tell Matthew that I am always ready to improve my analytical and reading skills as life is a journey and we never stop learning.
The problem I have though is that I am unable do this unless I receive a response to my earlier comments. He may be able to teach me to be less muddled. Thank you.