i

www.Ebook777.com
The Secret Life of
the Cheating Wife

www.Ebook777.com
www.Ebook777.com
 The Secret Life of
the Cheating Wife
Power, Pragmatism, and Pleasure
in Women’s Infidelity

Alicia M. Walker

LEXINGTON BOOKS
Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

www.Ebook777.com
Published by Lexington Books
An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com

Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB

Copyright © 2018 by Lexington Books

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any
electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems,
without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote
passages in a review.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available

ISBN 978-1-4985-4460-3 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN 978-1-4985-4461-0 (electronic)
∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America

 For my beloved son, Alex, my “Big Bird,”
who would have so enjoyed this book,
and whom I will miss the rest of my days

And

to the women of Ashley Madison,

who so richly shared themselves and their experiences with me,
and without whom there would be no book
 Contents

Acknowledgmentsix
Introduction: Why Do We Care if Other People Cheat? xiii

1 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where

Did You Find Them?) 1
2 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 17
3 You’re not the Boss of Me 51
4 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 87
5 Sometimes You Just Need a Subcontractor 116

Conclusion: The Things You Learn from Bad Girls:

Conclusions and Implications Resulting from this Inquiry
on Women and Outside Partnerships 129
References141
Index159
About the Author 161

vii
 Acknowledgments

While the cover bears only my name, this book would not exist without the
care and support of many people. Not all of those folks are named here.
This project began as a small, exploratory idea, a side project really. With-
out the support and encouragement of Dr. Brea Perry, this study may never
have existed. My admiration for her knows no bounds, and her belief in me
and this idea carried me through the whole project. I owe you a debt of grati-
tude that could never be repaid.
Likewise, my dissertation committee played no small role. Drs. Claire
Renzetti, Shauna Scott, Edward Morris, and Melissa Stein all gave of them-
selves so that this project might be born. Although Dr. Renzetti’s time is a
precious commodity, she gave of it freely and without hesitation. Her enthu-
siasm for this study buoyed me along. She graciously read early drafts of the
opening chapters of this book. Dr. Scott stepped in at the last minute, which
is a huge and generous act unto itself. However, I must also thank her for a
conversation during my first year of graduate school that shifted my entire
perspective. Without her, I might have given into the despair so many gradu-
ate students feel. Dr. Morris, whom I greatly admire, rolled with the punches,
and enthusiastically contributed to this project’s final product. Dr. Stein’s
class was a beacon of hope for me every week of my first semester, and she
continued to provide support, encouragement, and direction throughout this
process. I cannot thank you all enough.
Graduate school can be a lonely, dark place. Jonathan Holland made it
less so. His consistently positive thinking and his companionship sustained
me through many precarious moments. Likewise, my fabulous officemates—
David Luke, Sam Keathly, Salvador Rangel, Kaitlyn Motl—brought so much
gusto and passion for their own work and enthusiasm for the success of us all.

ix
x Acknowledgments

I so treasure our time together, and think of all of you fondly. Drs. Thomas
Janoski and Janet Stamatel, I will carry with me always the profound lessons
learned in your classes. Dr. Julie Zimmerman, your professional advice is
invaluable, and yet you give it so freely. Thank you.
I am forever grateful to Brighid Stone, who reached out to me and saw
the potential in this project. Her passion and enthusiasm for this project
brought this book into being. And I owe an enormous debt to Sarah Craig,
who jumped in with just as much enthusiasm, and answered every question
I asked no matter how trivial. Her support has been priceless. Thank you for
helping me see this book through to the end. Thank you, Lexington Books,
for believing in this book. This manuscript is stronger due to the comments
of the reviewer. I cannot thank you enough.
Academia can be a scary path to navigate, and one can easily lose their
way. Drs. Ken Sanchagrin and Arielle Kuperberg do their level best to talk to
me off the ledge when I’m feeling hopeless, and act as a sounding board when
I need to talk things through. They are both so giving of their perspectives and
themselves. I babble inanely, but you somehow remain my friend. Thank you.
Old friends are precious. When someone has spent their lives uprooting
and wandering, they are invaluable. Dan Dalton and Jeremy Fischer, you are
such amazing people, and your friendship makes me believe that perhaps
I may have some remarkable qualities as well. You are both ready to drop
things and come to my aid whenever you can. What more could anyone ever
ask for? I treasure you both so. I only hope I give you half of much support
as you provide to me. Thank you for your support and love.
To my many friends and family, who are part of my everyday through
Facebook, thank you for your generosity of spirit. You happily and freely
send me mojo, good juju, and positive thoughts even on my darkest days. I
could not ask for greater cheering section than you guys. You have virtually
held my hand for years, and have held it even tighter as I walk through the
unbearable grief of losing my Big Bird. You are such a blessing to me. Thank
you so much! Thank you also to Kara Ritthaler, and Mike Tuttle, who will-
ingly read early drafts of this project.
No one writes a book in their free time. Writing time is stolen from other
things in your life, like your family. My family has endured hours upon hours
with me chained to a desk. My partner, Bret, takes up more slack than anyone
I know. He is the perpetual optimist, and unbelievably willing to endure an
incredibly unequal division of household labor (to my benefit) because he
believes in my work. Thank you.
It is not always easy to be the child of a woman who studies sexual top-
ics. Harder still to explain that your mother is currently studying infidelity.
My children have somehow managed to rise above any embarrassment to be
 Acknowledgments xi

proud of their mother. Avery and Mason, I thank you. Alex, you know how
much I appreciated your support.
My mother, Nancy Cox, taught me so many things, without which I would
not be who I am today, and I would not have conceived of such a project.
She always believes in my work, my ideas, and my talents. Thank you. I like
to think that my extended family played a role in shaping my attitudes and
beliefs. Were I not shaped by such open-minded people, I would not be doing
the work I do. Thank you. I particularly want to thank my cousin, Dustin
Cox, for his feedback and willingness to be a reader of an early draft. Your
comments were incredibly helpful, Cuz! And my uncle, Tom Cox, for his
willingness to engage in healthy debate. Our conversations have helped hone
my own understanding of social theory. Thank you!
If this book is successful, it is because of these amazing people, and the
others not mentioned here. Thank you to every person who has ever shared
with me details of their romantic lives. Those conversations play on my mind
and inform my research. Please keep talking!
 Introduction

Why Do We Care if Other

People Cheat?

They are our sisters, mothers, neighbors, and friends. They are homeroom
moms, bring-oranges-to-soccer-practice-moms, and PTA bake sale moms.
They are sit-by-your-husbands-in-the-pew-every-Sunday wives, corporate-
dinner wives, and remember-his-birthday wives. They are the women whose
marriages you think are “good”—or at minimum “fine.” They may even be
the women whose marriages you look at with a twinge of envy. Yes, they are
all that, and they are also the women who are online prowling for secret lov-
ers to fulfill their sexual desires and untapped passions. They did not “fall”
into this. They carefully weighed their options. Then they searched for, and
took a lover. And they’ve granted us a peek into their minds, psyches, and
worlds. You may think you know the reasons women cheat. But you probably
have no idea.
This book is the result of a yearlong inquiry into women’s extramarital
experiences. Using a sample collected from Ashley Madison, a niche online
dating site catering to married individuals seeking an affair partner, I col-
lected rich interview data from 46 women between the ages of 24–65 located
across the United States. Most of the women reported having children, and
more than half of the sample reported their marriages as either sexless or
orgasmless—at least for them. (Those women described having sexual activ-
ity within their primary partnership that did not result in their own orgasm.)
All of the women in this inquiry created a profile on Ashley Madison to
seek out a sexual affair partner. Some women were in the midst of their first
affairs, but most were involved in subsequent affairs.

xiii
xiv Introduction

NATIONAL FASCINATION

The topic of infidelity holds much fascination and interest for us. Academic
inquiries into infidelity abound because its broad consequences make it
an important social behavior. It is a key predictor of both marital conflict
and dissolution. Historically, the causes of infidelity are poorly understood
despite the prevalence. Further, questions remain regarding why certain indi-
viduals participate in infidelity and others do not.
Outside of academia, we eagerly devour news of infidelity, so as long as
it’s not our own relationships in jeopardy. When celebrities cheat on one
another, it is front-page news. Politicians committing infidelity find them-
selves in the midst of a media storm. The news of the break-up of a celebrity
marriage with no obvious explanation sparks infidelity questions. Often when
someone in our social network shares the news of another couple’s infidelity
troubles, we gobble up the news with scandalized affect.
Beyond casual interest, some of us actually relish the opportunity to play
tattletale on cheaters. We even feel entitled, no, obligated to inform total
strangers that their partners are cheating. Case-in-point: the Huffington Post
reported on the Hinson sisters, who not only tweeted their discovery that the
woman sitting in front of them at a baseball game (and sitting beside her
spouse) was sexting someone, they wrote a message to her spouse with their
number offering to text him pictures of his wife’s phone screen. (Incidentally,
the man did text them and asked for the screen shots.) Although a few Twitter
members called the sisters out for being busybodies, most were supportive.
One even tweeted that the sisters deserved “a Nobel Peace prize” for their
actions. As much as we value our privacy, we have different rules when it
comes to unmasking cheaters.
As reviled as hackers are in our culture for stealing the identities and finan-
cial information of innocent citizens, when they hacked into Ashley Madi-
son’s database and subsequently leaked the names, physical addresses, email
addresses, and credit card information of users, most people shrugged and
said, “Well, that’s what you get for cheating!” While the data was originally
posted on the dark web and required encryption to read, the Washington Post
ran a how-to article on accessing the information, which was picked up and
re-posted on other searchable websites. The prevailing attitude was not one
of sympathy for these people whose personal information was stolen, but of
acquiescence with the hackers.
While all discoveries of cheating serve as fodder for raised eyebrows and
juicy conversations marked with tsking and head shaking, women who cheat
especially draw our ire. After all, “boys will be boys,” but women are sup-
posed to crave the comfort of familiarity and abhor casual sex and multiple
partners. Women’s participation in infidelity is a behavior often perceived as
 Introduction xv

“male.” We presume that cheating is the domain of men. For the women in
this inquiry, the act of participating in infidelity is not only an offense against
cultural norms regarding monogamy, it is a gender transgression as well.
The behaviors of the women in this study are challenging our ideas about
women’s sexuality.
The study of infidelity is important to understanding broader social
behavior. As Hirsch et al. (2010) pointed out, by examining illicit sexual
practices “we can develop a richer understanding of how marriage and sexu-
ality vary within and across societies” (Hirsch et al., 2009, p. 4). Looking at
the practice of secret sexual nonexclusivity among women who are involved
in an assumed-monogamous marriage sheds light on intimate relationships.
Further, examining behavior that is frequently deemed as deviant yields a
better understanding of the average.

THEN COMES MARRIAGE

Our fascination with infidelity and its participants makes sense given our
reverence for marriage. Romantic relationships in general hold a place of
enormous significance within the U.S. culture. Of those, marriage is consid-
ered to be the most intimate of relationships in our lives. How do we respond
to news of a marriage’s demise? Sympathy and regret. Why? Because one of
the assumptions behind the regret of a failed marriage is that the institution is
a prized one. This is due in part to the assumption of its provision of stability,
love, and companionship, all of which are lost with its dissolution. Not only
does marriage provide intimacy, it resolves many uncertainties for the indi-
vidual. For example, you are no longer solely responsible for sorting out your
own living arrangements. It also provides status and a social identity. Unsure
of who you are? Get married; now you are someone’s spouse. Instant iden-
tity. Getting married “decides” a large part of our social lives. Your extended
family expands, as does your social circle. Who you are becomes enmeshed
with and influenced by not only your spouse, but their social circle as well.
Long-term romantic couplings provide organization for our social lives and
roles, as well as the production and policing of normative identities, including
those of gender and sexuality.
At present, marriage is positioned as the epitome of achievement, and a
necessary ingredient to a fulfilled adult life. In our society, marriage is as
an achieved status, and serves as a master status, a social standing of great
significance. After all, the social message is that once you’ve accomplished
selection into marriage, life really begins. The film Bride Wars (2009) may
have been poking fun when Candice Bergen’s character informed her two
prospective brides that up until now (the moment when they got engaged and
xvi Introduction

began planning their weddings) they had been dead, but the two characters
immediately understood her meaning. Why? Because we are inundated with
this idea that up until we walk down the aisle, we have not truly launched our
lives. Wedding websites and magazines also use language to imply that your
life has begun once you get married. The culture industry presents the idea
that prior to entering into marriage, single people are simply waiting for their
“other half” to come along. Until then, we all simply mark time in our lives
trying to fill the empty void with work, friends, and travel. We reinforce these
ideas even in the language of wedding invitations and personal accounts of
courtship. It’s common for people to evoke phrases of “my life began” when
describing finding “the one.”
Models of idealized marriages, expected roles within marriages, and
expectations of sexual relations within marriages surround us through media,
and offer up marriage as an antidote to unhappiness and loneliness. Many
heroes and heroines find all their unhappiness dissipates once they find the
“love of their lives,” which the audience assumes will lead to marriage.
(Doubt this? Think of the many television series where fans complained
that the series went “downhill” after the main characters became coupled.)
Films like 27 Dresses, Made of Honor, Hitch, You’ve Got Mail, Notting Hill,
and Bad Teacher all end with the protagonist seemingly having found their
soul mate, and finally happy. Even the wildly popular television series How
I Met Your Mother ended not with the marriage of Ted, but when he finally
accepts that his true soul mate is Robin, and they get together. The show
cannot end when he marries his first wife because she is the wrong person
for him. The series can only conclude when he and Robin come together for
good. While they do not show the wedding between them, viewers assume
that, of course, they will wed and live “happily ever after.” Unhappy singles
are told again and again to “find someone and get married” any time they
express discontent. Marriage is presented as the magic remedy for unhappi-
ness. Presentations of “happily ever after” include marriage. In our minds,
you simply cannot have the “happily” without the marriage. Notice in casual
conversation how people respond to accounts of individuals who have never
married. We view those who have never walked down the aisle as sad
souls. We try to come up with plausible reasons why they’ve never mar-
ried, and those reasons usually involve some emotionally crippling tragedy.
Those who have loved and lost, and then never rolled the dice again are also
pitied. We feel sorry for those singles among us, as though singlehood was
an affliction.
The messages are somewhat gendered as well. The culture industry pro-
duces a cultural life script that trains and socializes women to desire marriage
as an accomplishment. Little girls are encouraged to “play house,” which
presumes the presence of a “father” in the picture. They are also given dolls
 Introduction xvii

in bridal dresses, shown depictions of weddings as the culmination of the

plot in animated films and television shows. Marriage is held up as a goal
for girls from an early age. Growing older past a certain age without having
been asked to marry is a fear for many young women. While girls are social-
ized early to desire marriage, men are not immune to the idea of marrying as
desirable. PEW data (2013) reported that men report a desire to eventually
marry at the same rate as women: six in ten (Cohn, 2013). And The Daily
Mail recently reported on “the rise of the groomzilla,” claiming that modern
men are more involved than ever and “just as obsessed” with their “dream
day” as brides (Winter, 2013). Cherlin explains, “Getting married is a way to
show family and friends that you have a successful personal life. It is the ulti-
mate merit badge” (Riccitelli, 2012, p. 205). Women are warned not to delay
marriage to focus on their career because “all of the good men will be gone.”
The idea that women have a short shelf life to lock down a good husband is
prevalent. Alongside pride regarding a daughter’s accomplishments is often
concern when she remains unmarried.
Although the prevailing conception of marriage is that it is a personal deci-
sion, marriage is also a legal contract. Unlike other legal contracts, the two
individuals participating in any specific marriage do not get to set the terms of
that arrangement (Cott, 2000). Rather, its terms are set by “public authorities”
and the contract cannot be broken “without offending the larger community,
the law, and the state” (Cott, 2000, p. 13). When you buy a house, you can
ask that the drapes stay, a fridge be added, or that the ugly lawn ornament go.
But when you take on a partner for life, you cannot require them to remain
in shape, to grow two inches taller, or request that their family is not part of
the package. Marriage is very much a “buyer beware” market and everything
is sold “as is.” Trying to return an item leaves a permanent mark on your
credit profile. And you get no money back regardless of your level of dis-
satisfaction. In fact, you must pay a hefty fee to dispose of unwanted items
yourself. Since marriage is a contract, and the most personal contract of all,
its enactment, meaning, and significance within a culture make it vulnerable
to continual scrutiny, public discussion, and the imposition of legality in both
remedies and permission.
Marriage is a dynamic union, and its aims have shifted throughout history.
At times, it has existed to ensure bloodlines and transfer of property, while
at others its purpose was to guarantee political alliances between families.
Modern marriage has undergone significant transformation. Since the late
twentieth century, our culture has been permeated with the idea that marry-
ing for love is paramount to happiness. The past several decades alone have
brought shifts in our attitudes and norms regarding the division of household
labor, the role of women in the paid workforce, timing of childbearing,
female sexual agency, and cohabitation.
xviii Introduction

While its purposes and aims have changed, marriage remains a source of
social currency in Western societies, where it endures as a valued and sym-
bolic institution. As a result, people rate having a healthy marriage as one
of our most important life goals (Karney, Garvan, & Thomas, 2003) and a
stable, intimate relationship as essential to happiness (Christopher & Spre-
cher, 2000). Culturally, in the United States, there is a preoccupation with
and an overemphasis placed on love and marriage. Relationship columnists
Jake and Melissa Kircher posit that because “our culture’s greatest fear is
being alone,” our society values intimacy and connection “above all else,”
and as a result, people tend to marry for “love” in search of that intimacy and
connection (Kircher & Kircher, 2011). Institutions, social expectations, and
cultural norms buttress marriage as a master template for relationships and
the embodiment of ideal relationship design.
Due to the ritualistic nature of present-day marriage ceremonies, our
participation in wedding rituals—even as attendees—constitutes our agree-
ment with and commitment to its ideals and expectations. The public nature
of weddings coupled with the continued call for announcement of marital
status via conversational inquiry and job/housing/financial applications con-
tinually reify marriage as a social status. Marriage as an organizing agent is
legitimized throughout our culture. When we meet someone new, “are you
married?” ranks among socially acceptable questions. Newspapers proclaim
announcements of the newly wed. Jewelry broadcasts the status of total
strangers. “Married” is an important and valued status we literally and figura-
tively wear for everyone to see. In the contemporary United States, infidelity
challenges that revered status.
Singles in our culture expend considerable time and energy wishing for and
searching for a partner—both in social settings and on online. And they have
help: Well-meaning coworkers, friends, and family members are eager to play
matchmaker; Commercials for dating sites beckon for singles to come find
their perfect match. Online dating has been estimated at a $2 billion industry
(Yoder, 2014). Those without it are clearly looking to put love into their lives.
And their expectations of the institution are high: 94 percent of young adults
both male and female between the ages of 20–29 report an expectation that
they will marry their “soul mate” (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2001).
Am I suggesting that all this concern surrounding coupling up is manufac-
tured? Not at all. There is something more fundamental than culturally-induced
fear in our need to seek out intimate companionship. Romantic relationships
play an important role in our well-being and health. Baumeister and Leary
(1995) have described our need to connect with others as a “fundamental
human motivation” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497). Indeed, satisfying
intimate relationships result in better physical health (Cohen et al., 1998), the
ability to recover from illness more quickly (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005), and
 Introduction xix

a longer life (Gallo, Troxel, Matthews, & Kuller, 2003; Holt-Lundstad, Smith,
& Layton, 2010). In other words, we are physically healthier when we are in
satisfying intimate relationships.
Our mental health improves as well. Healthy intimate relationships are
the strongest predictor of happiness and emotional well-being (Diener &
Seligman, 2002). Intimate relationships are so central to our happiness and
emotional state that studies show that being in a distressed relationship, or
being lonely increases our risk of both illness and depression (Cacioppo et al.,
2002). Not surprisingly, patients cite loneliness and relationship distress as
the most prevalent reason for seeking out therapy (Veroff, Kulka, & Douvan,
1981). This emotional distress impacts every aspect of our lives. Loneliness
and relationship distress reduce worker productivity (Forthofer, Markman,
Cox, Stanley, & Kessler, 1996). Romantic relationships are central to optimal
functioning of the body and psyche. So while there is a clear cultural mandate
to be part of a couple, we do benefit physically and emotionally from roman-
tic entanglements.
However, at present our expectations of our partners are at an all-time high.
People now expect their spouses to meet all of their needs. And this idea is
reified all over popular culture. Women’s magazines scream from their cov-
ers about the great sex you should be having with “your man.” Our current
presentation of the marriage ideal involves marrying one’s “best friend,”
and requires our spouse to fulfill several roles: lover, friend, and partner. We
now hold our spouses responsible for emotional support, financial contribu-
tion, help around the house, and great parenting. He needs to bring home the
bacon, fry it up in a pan, wipe the kids’ noses, listen to our woes, and bring
us to orgasm to make it all better. Films and television present models of hus-
bands who excel at all things. Men who fail in one category or another are the
subject of ridicule and humor. This is a new conception of spousal expecta-
tions. “Never before in history ha[ve] societies thought that such a set of high
expectations about marriage was either realistic or desirable” (Coontz, 2005,
p. 23). Modern expectations of marriage break all barriers. At present part of
those expectations is monogamy. Who and how we can love is normatively
framed through the lens of monogamy. Sexual fidelity is a nearly univer-
sal expectation of committed romantic relationships in the United States,
whether expressly verbalized or assumed. It has a foundational position in the
master romantic model and is reinforced throughout the culture industry and
institutionalized within our legal and religious realms. Not only do we want
it all, we expect to find it all in one person.
In fact, both romantic and sexual exclusivity within marriage are held up
as evidence of commitment, affection, and devotion to one another. Indeed,
it represents a slice of what it is to be “in love.” Love is supposed to mean
that you have no desire for anyone beyond your spouse, and vice versa.
xx Introduction

Our love is supposed to make it easy to resist the temptation other people
may present. We’re socialized to believe that if someone cheats on you,
then they do not love you. This feeds the idea that the appropriate response
to discovering someone cheating on you is to end the relationship. Sexual
fidelity and love are synonymous in our culture. It is so much a fabric of our
belief system that assumptions about monogamy overlap and inform our col-
lective ideas about what it means to be a “good person.” When we discover
someone has cheated on their significant other, our perception of them shifts
to regard them as a “bad person.” We frame infidelity as a weakness, and a
lack of moral fiber.
Monogamy is both a contested and invisible norm. All around us stand
models reifying the “naturalness” of dyadic pairings both in marital and dat-
ing arrangements. Emens (2004) recognizes two types of ideals surrounding
monogamy: “super monogamy,” which is the ideal that people are to have
one partner for life, and “simple monogamy,” which is the ideal of monog-
amy within every romantic pairing a person has (Emens, 2004). A person can
have a string of back-to-back couplings so long as they were monogamous.
Although there is widespread failure of many people to live up to these
ideals—as evidenced by our incidence of adultery and high divorce rates—­
people still aspire to sexually exclusive relationships that last a lifetime.
In fact, 95 percent of Americans report a desire for a monogamous relation-
ship (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

CONSENSUAL NON-MONOGAMY

We cannot talk about infidelity without clarifying the difference between con-
sensual non-monogamy (CNM) and nonconsensual non-monogamy (NCN).
An agreement between parties that either can engage in outside sexual
relationships is not infidelity, and should not be classified as such. Such an
arrangement comes to be after much discussion to establish boundaries and
clear definitions around permissions. Despite the fact that CNM couples par-
ticipate in outside couplings with the express permission of their partner, a
stigma remains around the practice, while we regard assumed-monogamous
couplings as the ideal relationships (Conley, Moors, Matsick, & Ziegler,
2013; Matsick, Conley, Ziegler, Moors, & Rubin, 2014; Moors, Matsick,
Ziegler, Rubin, & Conley, 2013). CNM relationships suffer poor public opin-
ion as we see them as both lower in relationship quality and less satisfying
than those relationships we assume to be monogamous (Conley et al., 2013;
Moors et al., 2013). Yet recent research shows that couples practicing CNM
enjoy similar relationship quality and psychological well-being as those who
report being monogamous (Rubel & Bogaert, 2014).
 Introduction xxi

Despite the stigma, research places the incidence of couples participating

in consensual non-monogamy at roughly 4–5 percent of the population (Con-
ley et al., 2013). Individuals in CNM relationships create unique boundaries
and definitions. However, across these couplings, the values of honesty, com-
munication, negotiation, and consent remain common themes (Barker, 2005;
Jenks, 1998; Kleese, 2006). Researchers found the CNM couples report low
levels of jealousy, and relatively high levels of satisfaction, honesty, trust,
friendship, and intimacy (Barker, 2005; Bonello & Cross, 2010; Ritchie &
Barker, 2006; Visser & McDonald, 2007).
While mainstream attitudes degrade CNM, guides promising to help
couples navigate opening their relationships abound. Dossie Easton and
Janet Hardy’s The Ethical Slut, which reigns at #18 in self-help books on
sex on Amazon.com, has been translated into multiple languages, and can be
purchased at major book retailers. While one of the more popular and well-
known books on how to open your relationship to other sexual partners, other
volumes exist as well. We can find portrayals of CNM in mainstream films,
television, books, and songs (e.g., Savages, House of Cards, The Arrange-
ment, Brittany Spears’s hit “3”). Academic interest in CNM has increased
dramatically as well (Barker & Langdridge, 2010).
CNM and NCN are diametrically opposed practices. NCM refers to the
practice we typically refer to as “infidelity” or “cheating.” In this scenario,
one or both partners have outside sexual or romantic partners without the per-
mission, knowledge, or consent of their primary partner. While CNM couples
report high levels of trust and satisfaction, the discovery that one partner
has been participating in infidelity (NCN) usually obliterates trust, satisfac-
tion, self-esteem, and happiness. In turn, the betrayal of the non-cheating
partner’s trust often leads to their emotional withdrawal from the cheating
partner (Brimhall, Wampler, & Kimball, 2008; Campbell, Simpson, Boldry,
& Rubin, 2010; Hertlein, Wetchler, & Piercy, 2008).
However, as much as we like to imagine relationship dynamics in simple,
black-and-white terms, they are not simple. That is, we would like to imagine
that happy marriages are monogamous, and unhappy ones are more likely to
be non-monogamous. Yet the research proves this commonsense understand-
ing to be flawed. While a commonsense understanding of infidelity is that
a poor primary relationship leads to infidelity, many studies have failed to
establish a direct link between relationship satisfaction and infidelity (Blum-
stein & Schwartz, 1983; Elbaum, 1981; Spanier & Margolis, 1983). In fact,
often infidelity (NCN) occurs in relationships where both partners report high
levels of satisfaction. Glass and Wright (1985) found that infidelity involving
sexual behavior is less likely to be related to marital satisfaction than affairs
involving sex and emotional connection. Research also shows that in cases
of infidelity as the result of opportunity (e.g., affairs with coworkers), those
xxii Introduction

individuals reported higher marital satisfaction than individuals in other

extramarital configurations (Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). Further, a couple’s
continued monogamy neither indicates nor ensures high levels of happiness
or satisfaction of either partner. As a society, we so revere monogamy that we
make snap judgments based on its practice, but those judgments are merely
stereotypes without basis. The reality is the NCN occurs in both “happy” and
“unhappy” primary partnerships.

INFIDELITY: THE ULTIMATE THREAT

Studies and polls routinely find that Americans disapprove of infidelity for any
reason. Bring up the topic at any social gathering, and watch people quickly
decry the practice. When a marriage ends with reports of infidelity, our inclina-
tion is to blame the cheater for the entire demise of the relationship. We may
know the other partner to be difficult, selfish, and demanding, but in our assess-
ment, the fault still lies with the “cheater.” Spouses who stay with partners
who have cheated in the past are met with scrutiny, disgust, or pity for “putting
up with that.” People often rationalize other bad behavior in their relationship
(e.g., selfishness, not making time for you) with “at least I know they aren’t
cheating on me.” Stories of other couples’ infidelity woes evoke our relief
and thankfulness for our own partner’s (assumed) fidelity. No one wants to be
cheated on. The cultural mandate against it is so strong that no one wants to
be the person who publicly says we don’t think cheating is “so bad.” If we have
cheated on someone in the past, we only ever admit that with shame.
Despite the nearly universal disapproval among contemporary Americans,
there exists a disparity between those desiring monogamy and those behav-
ing monogamously. How many of us are cheating? Well, it’s tough to say.
Reports of the incidence of infidelity vary tremendously, in large part due to
the manner in which the inquiry is made. For instance, asking about a lifetime
incidence will yield higher percentages than asking about incidence over the
last year or other set time period. Another complication is our own tendency
to edit our own sexual histories. We tend to “forget” to count encounters or
associations evoking unpleasant memories. For example, some people don’t
even count sexual experiences where they did not orgasm. Others do not
count sexual encounters about which they feel guilty.
Also, our definitions of infidelity play a role. Our definitions of infidelity
are so personal and individualized that two people in the same relationship
can have completely different definitions about what “counts” as cheating
and what does not. Is oral sex cheating? Well, it largely depends upon whom
you ask. (Remember, Bill Clinton did not count it.) Is flirting with someone
else cheating? Is confiding secrets (about the marriage) in another person
 Introduction xxiii

cheating? Is kissing cheating? All of those answers depend upon whom

you ask. This further complicates intimate relationships when “monogamy”
is an unspoken expectation. When couples do not necessarily define what
“monogamy” and “fidelity” mean to them, upholding those ideals becomes
more challenging. With fuzzy lines surrounding what constitutes “cheating,”
partners may opt to conceal questionable associations and interactions for
fear of conflict within the partnership. In fact, in one study 40 percent of
young couples reported inadvertently breaking their partner’s rules of monog-
amy without realizing simply because they were unaware of those definitions
(Warren, Harvey, & Agnew, 2011). With so much variance in definitions and
no clear consensus, most studies of infidelity default to counting whatever the
participant themselves counts.
Thus, reliable measures of infidelity are both difficult to come by and rela-
tively new; and what does exist employs measures that have been called into
question (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001) as most of the calculations
regarding infidelity incidence are drawn from the General Social Survey (GSS),
which relies upon in-person interviews. That is problematic when we take into
consideration that participants are less likely to admit to infidelity when asked
as part of in-person interviews and surveys (Whisman & Snyder, 2007). Most
research using the GSS estimates the lifetime incidence of sexual infidelity to
range between 20 percent and 37.5 percent (Atkins et al., 2001; C.Atkins &
Kessel, 2008; Wiederman, 1997). But there is a general tendency to underesti-
mate the incidence of infidelity (T. W. Smith, 1994). So, we assume this figure
to be low. Vangelisti and Gerstenberger found rates as high as 60 percent of
men and 50 percent women reported sexual intercourse with someone who
was not their spouse while married (Vangelisti & Gerstenberger, 2014). Rates
as high as 85.5 percent of married people committing infidelity have also been
reported (Yarob, Allgeier, & Sensibaugh, 1998). Marianne Brandon points out
that while we state that our cultural norm is monogamy, in reality we have a
high incidence of secret non-monogamy in various forms (Brandon, 2011).
As Hirsch et al. (2009) point out, infidelity is a “secret, but widespread (and
widely acknowledged) social practice” (Hirsch et al., 2009, p. 3).
As a closeted behavior, pinpointing infidelity incidence is challenging;
however, the data suggests that some of us struggle with sexual exclusiv-
ity within marriage, and reveal monogamy as something at least some of us
value more in theory than in practice. Extramarital encounters are so com-
mon that affairs could be regarded as “an institutionalized part of the intimate
and sexual landscape” (Kleese, 2011, p. 4). Cheating is not limited to those
who are married or sharing a living space. Hertlein et al. (2005) found that
30 percent of dating couples participate in some type of infidelity (Hertlein,
Wetchler, & Piercy, 2005). While most people frown upon cheating in dating
relationships, it is taken less seriously than within legal unions.
xxiv Introduction

Most recently, cyber affairs have been added to the body of research on
intimate relationships; incidence of these affairs is increasing. Research
shows that technology increases access to cheating partners (Brimhall, Miller,
Maxwell, & Alotaiby, 2017). The proliferation of smart phones and tablets
grant more people the freedom to hunt for a potential partner online. Nelson
and Salawu found that social media is a significant platform for emotional
infidelity (Nelson & Salawu, 2017). In fact, it has been argued that never
before “has it been so easy to enjoy both the stability of a marriage, and
the thrills of the dating scene at the same time” (Mileham, 2007, p. 11).
Stories abound of high school sweethearts finding one another on Facebook
and picking up where they left off—sometimes just virtually, sometimes in
person. This is not surprising when we consider that between 5–12 percent
of married individuals report infidelity-related behaviors on social media
(McDaniela, Drouinb, & Cravensc, 2017). Even LinkedIn and other profes-
sional networking sites permit private messaging through a system less likely
to be perused by a snooping spouse. After all, the site is for work. A quick
Google search permits any ex-lover to search, find, and initiate an affair—at
least a virtual one. Even a decade ago cyber affairs accounted for one-third
of divorce litigation (Mileham, 2007). Facebook infidelity has been listed as
official grounds for divorce (Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2017). But beyond social
network sites, dating sites are rich hunting grounds, and several sites are
tapping into the infidelity market catering specifically to married individu-
als. While there is some question as to whether online relationships really
even count as affairs, studies show the effects of a cyber affair on a couple’s
dynamic can be “almost as severe as sexual intercourse” with an outside part-
ner (Whitty & Quigley, 2008, p. 463). Further, there is a correlation between
online affairs and in-person affairs (Schneider, 2000; Wysocki & Childers,
2011). The level of relationship satisfaction is not a predictor of online infi-
delity. Mileham found that online infidelity occurs in the absence of inherent
marital problems, and among otherwise “happy” couples (Mileham, 2007).
Thus, being online is tantamount to having the opportunity to cheat, which is
often is enough to launch an affair.
What causes someone to have an affair? Commonsense tells us it is either
a deficit within the cheater themselves, or a “real problem in the marriage.”
We certainly prefer believing that cheaters are “bad people” or simply people
in “bad marriages.” It helps make us feel insulated from the threat of infidel-
ity. Some studies locate the cause of sexual nonexclusivity within the indi-
vidual as opposed to a problem within the relationship or the presentation of
an opportunity. Strong sexual interest (Treas & Giesen, 2000), being more
extraverted and open to new experiences (Orzeck & Lung, 2005; Yeniceri &
Kokdemier, 2006), and a tendency toward boredom (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1986) have all been cited as traits increasing the likelihood that an individual
 Introduction xxv

will engage in nonconsensual sexual nonexclusivity. Studies show that those

with low levels of agreeableness (Barta & Kiene, 2005), neuroticism (Barta
& Kiene, 2005; Whisman & Snyder, 2007), or who have a desire for need
fulfillment (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006) are also at increased risk of
participating in sexual nonexclusivity.
Other researchers find that your “sexual personality,” specifically, your
tendency toward sexual excitation and sexual inhibition (Mark, Janssen, &
Milhausen, 2011) can also influence sexual nonexclusivity. From a psycho-
logical perspective of infidelity, a secure attachment style is less correlated
with infidelity than an avoidant or anxious style. This is in part because those
who rank high on the avoidant scale (which measures your tendency to avoid
intimacy and commitment) tend to be “uncomfortable with psychological
closeness and intimacy” (DeWall et al., 2011, p. 1303). (The anxious attach-
ment style showed no correlation to tendency toward infidelity).
In keeping with our commonsense ideas about infidelity, there is a cor-
relation with relationship quality and infidelity. For both males and females,
satisfaction with the primary relationship and relationship quality, as well
as sexual incompatibility and dissatisfaction, have all been cited as factors
influencing participation in nonconsensual sexual nonexclusivity (Fisher
et al., 2009; Mattingly, Wilson, Clark, Bequette, & Weidler, 2010; McAli-
ster, Pachana, & Jackson; Preveti & Amato, 2004). Sexual incompatibility
between spouses is an issue that significantly increases infidelity risk. But the
biggest problem in terms of sexual incompatibility is a disparity between lev-
els of desire for each spouse (Regev, Zeiss, & Schmidt, 2006). For example,
if a wife wants to have sex daily, but her husband would be good with sex
twice a month, then this would be a big disparity in desire levels. In couples
where there is a big gap between desired sexual frequencies, one party can
begin to feel that nothing will ever change, and that they are doomed to keep
going without. At that point, their risk for participation in infidelity increases
(Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006).
However, other researchers have found evidence that the mere presentation
of an opportunity begets your risk for participation in nonconsensual sexual
nonexclusivity. That is, if you find yourself with an opportunity to partici-
pate in a romantic/sexual association with someone other than your partner,
you are more likely to act on it. As both the social changes of recent history
and the internet shrink our world and bring our gendered spheres in closer
contact, many people have more opportunities to interact romantically with
people outside their marriages. From sexually charged office flirtations to
sexting with online friends to friendships with neighbors, the possible spaces
for would-be monogamists to act non-monogamously abound. As a result,
contemporary intimacies are often suspended between monogamy as ideol-
ogy and monogamy as a practice. We may embrace monogamy as the ideal,
xxvi Introduction

but for many of us just the presentation of an opportunity is all it takes for us
to stray. There is evidence that infidelity with coworkers does not necessarily
signal unhappiness in the primary relationship (Atkins et al., 2001; Treas &
Giesen, 2000). In fact, some samples reported higher martial satisfaction than
respondents involved with non-coworker affair partners. Rather, respondents
indicated they were simply acting on an opportunity. This certainly suggests
that most of us are capable of infidelity participation, and that our infidel-
ity does not necessarily indicate a moral failing of the individual. This isn’t
necessarily how we want to see ourselves. The idea that our spouse could be
happy at home, but cheat simply because a coworker indicated willingness
is unsettling. We prefer the illusion that only unhappy people—or people in
unhappy relationships—cheat.
The impact of infidelity on a relationship can be damaging on both an
emotional and psychological level to the partner who discovers their part-
ner’s cheating, and to the relationship as a whole. The discovery of our
partner’s betrayal makes us aware of our capacity to be hurt by the person
we love most, and makes our dependence upon a central intimate relation-
ship obvious. However, the effects of infidelity impact both the cheater and
the cheated upon. The cheater may struggle with guilt and confusion, and
must deal with the pain of knowing that they are responsible for the hurt and
anguish of their partner. Research has shown that individuals in relationships
where infidelity is present are six times more likely to be diagnosed with a
major depressive episode (Cano & O’Leary, 2000). Infidelity can literally be
dangerous, as it sparks feelings of jealousy and can lead to intimate partner
violence. Further, the experience of infidelity in one relationship can impact
the individual’s experience in future relationships. Some individuals struggle
to trust anyone after discovery of a partner’s infidelity. Glass and Wright
(1988) found that marriage counseling therapists estimated 50–60 percent of
their clients sought treatment as the result of some form of infidelity (Glass
& Wright, 1988).
Because of the potential for pain and hurt as a result of being cheated upon,
many people struggle with the fear that they may be a victim of a cheating
partner. The concern regarding infidelity can prompt individuals to action as
prevention. Some people monitor their partner’s online activity, texts, email,
and bank accounts. Others keep close tabs on where their partners go. Still
others take more direct precautions. Men who perceive themselves to be at
greater risk to be cheated on spend more time performing oral sex, and do so
more often (Pham, Shackelford, & Sela, 2013). Women, on the other hand,
do not utilize provision of oral sex as a preventative measure.
While many factors influence relational happiness, infidelity continues
to be cited as a significant factor in both reports of marital distress and the
 Introduction xxvii

decision to dissolve marriages (Amato & Previti, 2003; Atkins, Yi, Baucom,
& Christensen, 2005; Fincham & May, 2017). Incidence of infidelity signifi-
cantly increases one’s odds of experiencing divorce. It is the most commonly
reported reason cited by couples for seeking out counseling, and deemed
the most difficult issue to resolve in therapy (Bravo & Lumpkin, 2010; Fife,
Weeks, & Gambescia, 2008; Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2005; Heintzel-
man, Murdock, Krycak, & Seay, 2014). Butler, Seedall, and Harper found
that infidelity is second only to abuse in terms of destruction to a marriage
(Butler, Seedall, & Harper, 2008). Our cultural constructs around broken
trust and adages that “cheaters never change” make repairing a marriage bro-
ken by infidelity more challenging. Some therapists suggest that a couple’s
survival of a physical affair hovers around 50 percent (Solomon & Teagno,
2016). However, research has found that not only were 50 percent of couples
still married at the five-year mark following therapeutic intervention, those
couples enjoyed the same level of good outcomes (Atkins, Marín, Lo, Klann,
& Hahlweg, 2010; Marín, Christensen, & Atkins, 2014).
Additionally, the present level of expectations for marriage is complicat-
ing our participation in it. These high expectations have set up an idealized
view of romantic relationships in general. Women hold their husbands to
the highest of standards and still cling to a desire for romance, an idea
created by people in arranged marriages as a psychological escape from
the reality of their loveless partnerships. In the modern marriage, which is
most often entered into out of love, romance is a tall order. Granted, the
pace of our lives and our bloated to-do lists make finding time for romance
problematic. But also antithetical to romance is the familiarity that comes
from the day in and day out of sharing a dwelling. Yet the messages of the
culture industry provoke the demand for romance in our lives and present
images of other couples who do regularly have romance in their lives. This
leaves us wondering what’s “wrong” with us—and our primary partner-
ships—that our own lives are so lacking in it. Rather than problematizing
the culture of expectations of the institution, we problematize ourselves and
our relationships.
Given the ease with which divorce can be obtained in our culture, our
unions are held to a very high standard. People want more from their spouses
than ever before. The cultural positioning encourages people to believe they
deserve to have those expectations met. In fact, our cultural sense of entitle-
ment when it comes to personal fulfillment and happiness may even increase
our likelihood of cheating when our marriages do not meet our high expecta-
tions. We believe we are owed the happily ever after, including the hot sex.
Infidelity in marriages is an important site of inquiry because it sheds light on
the breakdown of marriages.
xxviii Introduction

THE SEXLESS MARRIAGE

The term sexual satisfaction refers to the degree to which individuals report
being satisfied with the way their expectations of their sexual relationship
are met. Sexual satisfaction plays a role in marriages, and in each spouse’s
perception of satisfaction with the union itself. Not only is sexual satisfaction
an important indicator of sexual health, it is strongly correlated with relation-
ship satisfaction (Pascoal, Narciso, & Pereira, 2014). Long-term sexual satis-
faction is negatively correlated with conflict within the partnership (Hanning
et al., 2007). In other words, if a couple is having good sex often enough,
the other problems in the relationship tend to seem less important. Sex is the
figurative glue that binds couples together.
The need for a strong sexual relationship within a marriage does not
diminish over time, but maintains steady over the course of the lifetime of
the union. Although there is sometimes the assumption that good marriages
“naturally” produce good sex, the reality is that sexual incompatibility is a
commonly reported marital issue. Only 48 percent of men and 58 percent
of women report satisfaction with the current frequency of sex in their mar-
riages (A. Smith et al., 2011b). Just because we love someone enough to
marry them, and can work out the logistics of sharing a space with them
does not automatically mean that our between-the-sheets life with them
works equally as well. Within couples, individuals reporting dissatisfaction
with sexual frequency are also more likely to report dissatisfaction with the
overall relational aspects of their relationships (McNulty, Wenner, & Fisher,
2016; A. Smith et al., 2011a).
Although the social expectation of marriage is as a site where spouses
have sex with one another, the incidence of sexless marriages is estimated
at roughly 15–20 percent of marriages (Laumman, Gagnon, Michael, &
Michaels, 1994; Weiner, 2003). We define a marriage as sexless when the
couple has sex less than 10 times a year. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz found that
the top Google search was “sexless marriage” (Stephens-Davidowitz, 2015).
So while the current culture industry presentation of marriage is as a site of
fulfilling sex, many of us are not having that experience. Television shows
and films reinforce the idea that marital sex can and should be very hot and
frequent, despite being disrupted by child-rearing. Thus, sexless relationships
are often viewed as deviant or abnormal. Marriages with higher levels of
satisfying emotional interactions tend not to be sexless (Donnelly & Burgess,
2008). While hurt feelings or resentment can be a cause for involuntary sex-
less marriages, sexual dysfunction or mental health disturbances—such as
depression or mental illness—often play a role. Involuntary sexlessness takes
a toll on relationship quality, satisfaction, and stability. This leaves the indi-
vidual who does not wish the relationship to be sexless open to the possibility
 Introduction xxix

of cheating. However, individuals are often reluctant to end involuntarily

celibate marriages (Donnelly & Burgess, 2008).

RESENTMENT AND DIVISION OF LABOR

Sometimes our propensity for sex with our significant other begins well
before we cross the threshold to the bedroom. At present, the ideal presented
is the “egalitarian marriage,” a union built on friendship and shared interests,
and inside which both parties enjoy shared responsibilities and power. And
indeed, many marriages are enjoying more equity in terms of household tasks
and child-rearing. The percentage of couples reporting an egalitarian division
of labor has increased; however, marriages where women still pull a “second
shift” remain the majority.
The disparity in perception of workload between spouses compounds
the issue. Husbands often perceive the division of labor in their households
as more even than women do. It is not unusual for wives to report a much
longer chore list than their husbands, while their husbands insist the divi-
sion is roughly 50–50. As couples transition into a family, the division of
labor tends to fall along traditional gender lines, which typically means an
inequitable split of labor. Traditional gender divisions of labor mean men do
the outdoor labor around the house while women cover the work inside. This
translates to women spending much more time each day doing household
labor (e.g., washing dishes, laundry, cooking), while men’s chores are weekly
or monthly tasks (e.g., mowing, oil changes, gutter cleaning).
The “second shift” most women pull at the end of their paid labor day isn’t
doing their sexual desire any favors. Many wives report deep-seated resent-
ment for partners where the division is inequitable. Husbands for whom mar-
riage has created a surplus of free time because women complete the lion’s
share of domestic chores and child-rearing will find that this translates into
less sexual activity, and less sexual interest on the part of their wives. Often
the same women who have no interest in sex with their primary partner—the
person with whom they share a household and an unequal of division of
labor—experience an ignition of sexual desire when they end their long-term
relationships and begin a new romantic partnership (Chivers & Timmers,
2012; Klussman, 2002). While some research suggests a biological force
prompting women to crave variety accounts for this phenomenon (Ryan &
Jethá, 2010), it is also possible that these new romantic pairings harbor no
lingering resentments about years of an unequal division of labor within the
household. The new sexual partner in their lives comes sans baggage of years
of cleaning up after him and cooking for him. The disparity in division of
labor within the household frequently results in feelings of resentment for
xxx Introduction

the spouse who perceives the division to be unequal. Resentment certainly

undermines sexual desire. In marriages where men contribute heavily to both
childcare and housework, women report higher levels of marital satisfaction.
While married women are often presented as lacking desire for their hus-
bands—think of the numerous variations on the “Not tonight, honey, I have
a headache” rhetoric—the solution may be as simple as taking more turns
on the indoor chore wheel (Carlson, Miller, Sassler, & Hanson, 2016; M. D.
Johnson, Galambos, & Anderson, 2016).

OUR GENDERED SEXUALITY

Gender complicates our romantic and sexual relationships and expression.

Gendered sexual scripts influence the ways in which both women and men
perceive and negotiate their intimate relationships. Male sexual scripts grant
legitimacy and sexual freedom, while female sexual scripts dictate the pri-
macy of love over sex. We socialize women to value relational connections,
and teach men to revere sexual contact. While some competing contempo-
rary sexual scripts allow some women to become conscious of their own
sexual autonomy and some men to adopt more flexible masculinities, these
hegemonic gendered sexual scripts policing female sexual expression are
reinforced and reified through the media and “commonsense” assumptions.
At their basest level: they position men as craving sexual variety, and women
as desiring monogamy.
This cultural narrative about women’s sexuality extends to our ideas about
what women need or want to feel sexual satisfaction. Aligned with the idea
that women desire monogamy is the idea that they also require emotional inti-
macy to experience sex positively. In fact, this “commonsense” idea finds its
way into research as well. Some researchers hold that in order to report sexual
satisfaction, men require a higher level of frequency, while for women the
emotional aspects of the relationship hold more importance than the sexual.
However, Yoo et al. (2014) found that while “sexual satisfaction significantly
predicted emotional intimacy for husbands and wives,” emotional intimacy
did not impact sexual satisfaction (Yoo, Bartle-Haring, Day, & Gangamma,
2014, p. 275). Further, gender influenced this relationship. For husbands,
their wives’ satisfaction with the relationship had no bearing on their own
sexual satisfaction. However, the data revealed that the greater their wives’
sexual satisfaction, the greater the husbands’ relationship satisfaction. Other
studies provide more evidence contradicting the popular idea that women
need an emotional connection for good sex. A recent inquiry found that
relationship quality did not have bearing on women’s sexual desire (Murray
& Milhausen, 2012). Some researchers make room for the idea that perhaps
 Introduction xxxi

sex precedes emotional connection regardless of gender. Rahtus, Nevid, and

Fichner-Rathus (2005) found that relationships are more emotionally con-
nected when partners experience regular orgasms during sexual contact with
one another (Rathus, Nevid, & Fichner-Rathus, 2005). Thus, for women, the
emotional aspects of relationships may be more influenced by sexual aspects
than previously realized.
Studies commonly report that men have greater sexual desire than women
do; however, many researchers posit this is likely due to socialization that
teaches that women aren’t supposed to desire sex. We socialize women to
perceive sex and love as intertwined, while we teach men to perceive sex as
recreational. Thus, at least some social desirability bias in reporting is likely
skewing the results. In fact, some researchers posit that many of our studies
showing such stark gender differences in what drives women sexually are the
result of our lack of self-awareness regarding our romantic decision-making.
In other words, the strong social expectation that women simply have lower
sexual desire likely impacts self-report on multiple levels. Other research-
ers point out the social phenomenon likely at work here is like the one that
teaches men to be self-focused, and thus more attentive to their needs, while
teaching women to ignore and sublimate their own needs so they can focus
on the needs of others. Once again, social forces create conditions that con-
trol both women’s sexual behavior, and their impression of their own sexual
wants and needs.
Alexander and Fisher (2003) conducted an experiment which revealed the
likely source of many of our taken-for-granted assumptions regarding gender
differences in sexual attitudes, desires, and practices (Alexander & Fisher,
2003). Specifically, they convinced half of the participants that the truthful-
ness of their responses could be measured by a “bogus pipeline.” Those who
were not hooked up to the “bogus pipeline” gave the expected gendered
responses. Among the group who believed a polygraph was measuring their
answers, no gender differences presented. This would seem to indicate that
even in “anonymous” settings, women tend to parrot the social story of how
they’re supposed to think and feel in regard to sex. Other research challenges
the conclusion that women are generally disinterested in sex. For example,
Conley (2011) found that when controlling for safety concerns, and when
women are guaranteed a pleasurable sexual experience, they are just as likely
as men to participate in casual sex (Conley, 2011). Eastwick and Finkel
(2008) demonstrated through a series of speed-dating events with follow-up
interviews a month later that women choose potential mates based on sexual
attractiveness just as men do (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Their study found
a disparity between participants’ stated preferences and their real world
preferences in romantic partners. Additionally, William C. Pedersen and his
team found that when they used the central tendency measure rather than the
xxxii Introduction

skewed data results, no gender differences were present (Pedersen, Miller,

Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Yang, 2002). It seems evident that social constructs
continually reified by the social institutions in our lives influence reporting
of sexual behavior and desires, resulting in strongly gendered findings. How-
ever, ultimately our behavior often overrides social conditioning.
This also comes to bear on another indicator of sexual desire: desired num-
ber of sexual partners. Buss and Schmitt (1993) report that women prefer to
keep their lifetime number of sexual partners low (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
This is commonly interpreted as a lack of sexual desire on the part of women.
However, Conley (2011) posits that fear of being slut-shamed influences
women’s sexual behavior (Conley, 2011). In other words, women want to
keep their partner count low because doing otherwise leaves them vulnerable
to being slut-shamed. Likewise, Milhausen and Herold (1999) found that uni-
versity women report significant fear of the social stigma attached to women
whose number of sexual partners or self-report of sexual interest is above the
perceived “norm” for women (Milhausen & Herold, 1999). As much as we
like to think that in the new millennium “things have changed,” restricted
female sexual empowerment and male sexual entitlement have not vanished.
As a culture, we have a long history of positioning women’s sexual desire
as either absent or lagging well behind that of men. The Victorian concept
of woman as passionless and disinterested in sex is alive and well, and the
social forces behind it contribute to our skewed sense of gender expectations
in sexual desire. We can see this ideology in the prevalence of slut-shaming
in our culture. Women who openly discuss their sexual interest and behavior
are subject to slut-shaming and social stigma.
This is a pervasive form of social inequality, most obviously illustrated in
the double standard. Men’s masculinity is built in part upon sexual prowess
(Fine, Weis, Addelston, & Marusza, 1997; Flood, Gardiner, Pease, & Pringle,
2007; Halkitis, Green, & Wilton, 2004; M. S. Kimmel, Hearn, & Connell,
2005; Thorne, 1993). He is to amass a list of past sexual partners, and fre-
quently demonstrates both his insatiable sexual desire, and his sexual exper-
tise (Fields et al., 2015; Flood et al., 2007; Halkitis et al., 2004; Pascoe, 2011;
Ramírez, 1999). Simultaneously, we both objectify women as sexual objects,
and demand their sexual repression. Women are to be chaste at best, and have
limited sexual experience at worst. Promiscuity in women is stigmatized and
policed by both other women and men, often through slut-shaming, which is
a form of stigma used to control female sexuality. Specifically, slut-shaming
works to socialize women to behave appropriately in terms of limiting their
willingness to engage in sexual activities, and curbing their number of sexual
partners. At minimum, they are to regulate their expression of sexuality and
at least publicly play the role of “sexually inexperienced.” Yet there is no
comparable social sanctioning label for men whose sexual behavior is “too
 Introduction xxxiii

promiscuous.” We regard men as “studs” when they engage in frequent

sexual couplings with a variety of partners.
Because women are supposed to have a low number of partners, or risk
being identified as a “slut,” women often devise ways of “not counting”
sexual encounters in an effort to keep their numbers low (Strombler &
Baunach, 2010). Forgettable encounters, sexual events that do not result in
orgasm, sessions with men who turn out to be unlikeable: all of these may
be omitted from a woman’s partner count. Other women simply underreport
as a practice. Some women refuse to represent their numbers to partners
until he reports his. Then she adjusts her number to be appropriately lower.
All of these practices stem from fear of stigma, and contribute to our “com-
monsense” understandings of women as less sexual. The film What’s Your
Number centers around a 30-something female protagonist desperate to reig-
nite any one of her previous 20 sexual relationships out of fear she will never
marry otherwise because her sexual partner count is too high. While this may
seem silly, her fears are illustrated for the audience when she reveals to her
high school boyfriend that he was not actually her first sexual partner as he
had assumed. His response is emblematic of our view of women’s sexual-
ity. He says, “So, what, you’ve slept with two guys?” When she provides
her accurate partner count, he responds with both disgust and an inability to
believe her capable of such sexual interest: “Yeah, right, like you’ve been
with 20 guys. Yuck.” Sure, this is a fictional film, but it is rooted in a deeply
held social idea. A quick Google search will reveal forums where many an
armchair expert will tell you that “sluts make high risk wives.” So, while a
fictional depiction, this film taps into realistic concerns. Sex and the City is
a fan favorite, and features sexually active main characters. However, Chris
Noth, the actor who plays fan favorite, Mr. Big, recently said of his female
love interest, Carrie, “How many boyfriends did she have? She was such a
whore!” Yet a survey by Durex condoms maintains that Carrie’s “count” is in
fact average for a woman in New York (C. Smith, 2008). Granted, these are
mass media representations, but in the private realm we see the same sorts of
assumptions and rhetoric.
The predominant cultural narrative surrounding women is that they are
assumed to lack sexual desire until they meet “the one.” Culturally, we posi-
tion men as sexually aggressive and driven by desire, while we view women
who express their sexual desires negatively and subject to social sanction.
Thus, many women curtail their public expression of sexual desire, while
internalizing these expectations, as evidenced by taking on the language and
attitudes of these gendered ideals. The social inequality created by women’s
lower status (compared to men) overall contributes to the self-policing of
women’s sexual desire and their sexual behavior. Women are consistently
positioned as less dominant than men, and that conception persists into the
xxxiv Introduction

expectations of men and women in the bedroom. As a result, women quickly

realize they must rationalize and legitimize their sexual desire. The safest
way to accomplish this is to call their sexual desire “love,” which leads many
women to conflate love and sex.
Complicating things further, we are getting married later than ever, which
gives everyone more opportunities to date, and rack up sexual partners. At
present, women tend to go into marriage more sexually experienced than ever
before. Yet a 2012 iVillage survey found that less than half of women reported
having married their “best sex ever.” (And perhaps a correlated finding: 66
percent would rather nap, read, or watch a film than have sex with their hus-
bands.) The women in this survey reported that when they left behind the ex
who was the “best sex ever,” and instead married their husbands, they were
making a “grown up” decision. For the women responding, the partner with
whom they could have their “best sex ever” was at odds with “grown-up”
life. Thus, our ideas about what women are supposed to be and the realities of
women’s sexual pleasure appear to conflict. For the women surveyed, settling
down with their “best sex ever” was immature. Further, foregoing better sex
and settling for lesser sex is what we expect from a responsible, adult woman.
Our ideas regarding women and the role of emotional connection in sexual
satisfaction may be too simplistic and not representative of the complexities
and nuance of female desire.

GENDER AND INFIDELITY

Our current gendered ideas surrounding women and sexuality feed the per-
ception that there is a gender gap in sexual desire and infidelity participation.
The social positioning of adultery paints men as “cheaters” and women as the
“wronged party,” desirous of stable, monogamous couplings. It regards those
single women who cheat with married men as “whores” and “home wreck-
ers.” In fact, contemporary relationship research finds that a number of men
desire monogamy and behave monogamously, while many women resist the
monogamy model in both covert and overt ways. Thus, our models of matri-
monial bliss do not match up with our realities. Neither do our presentations
of gender and sexuality.
Previous assumptions of infidelity were more concerned with men’s par-
ticipation and assumed most women were not cheating. There is little actual
basis for these postulations. The reality is that the study of gender and sexual-
ity are relatively new fields of inquiry. As a result, there was a lack of attention
to gender and women’s infidelity in previous academic studies. We simply
did not spend much time studying women’s lives and experiences in the past,
and therefore little inquiry was done on their participation in infidelity. This
 Introduction xxxv

is due, in part, to their social positioning as “disinterested” in sex. This belief

permitted the pretense that “typical” women weren’t involved in infidelity.
Rather the social narrative positioned those who cheated as aberrant.
The social construction of women’s sexuality as less salient than men’s
is reified in our views toward women and infidelity. This is bolstered by the
taken-for-granted assumption that emotion trumps sex for women. In fact,
Banfield and McCabe (2001) postulated that women “rarely [engage] in a
purely sexual” outside relationships, but often in emotional only or combined
emotional and sexual relationships (Banfield & McCabe, 2001, p. 140). In
line with the construction of women as more “emotional” and in need of emo-
tional connection in order to participate in sex, Spanier and Margolis (1983)
reported that the emotional support provided by an outside partner was more
valued by women than by men (Spanier & Margolis, 1983). Likewise, Glass
and Wright (1985) reported that men are more likely to approve of outside
partner relationships when the justification is sexual, but not when it is love,
while women are more approving when the justification is love (Glass &
Wright, 1985). Despite the researchers’ report of a gender division in justifi-
cations, they also found that within extramarital affairs “men appear to ‘fall
in love’ after sexual involvement whereas women appear to ‘fall in love’
before” participating in sexual intercourse with an outside partner (Glass
& Wright, 1985, p. 383). Once again, it appears that our social constructs
regarding how women are supposed to behave come into play. Women in
particular are “supposed” to value romantic love above nearly all else. They
are also socialized to justify their sexual appetite with reference to “love.”
Thus, conventional understandings of infidelity locate cheating firmly in
the male domain. Further, these expectations characterize men’s violations of
monogamy as brief, strictly sexual liaisons, and women’s experiences with
infidelity as primarily emotional. Although early studies consistently showed
a gender differential in infidelity, with results indicating that men participated
in sexual nonexclusivity at as much as a 2:1 ratio to women (Laumman et al.,
1994; Wiederman, 1997), more contemporary research has shown that the
supposed gap is narrowing, if not disappearing entirely. Hatfield and Rapson
(2005) found that both men and women are similar in their willingness to
participate in extramarital sexual contact, and are participating earlier, more
often, and with more partners than before (Hatfield & Rapson, 2005, p. 148).
In fact, when researchers factor in emotional nonexclusivity and kissing,
women perform on pace with men. Age appears to play a role in the results as
well. Wiederman (1997) found no gender difference in sexual nonexclusivity
among those under 40 (Wiederman, 1997). Atkins, Baucom, and ­Jacobson
(2001) reported that women between the ages of 40–45 and men ages 55–65
were most likely to report a lifetime instance of sexual nonexclusivity
(Atkins et al., 2001).
xxxvi Introduction

And considering the prevalence of online infidelity, women’s p­ articipation

takes on heightened importance. Wolfe (2011) found that while men out-
number women in online venues specifically designed for seeking outside
­partners, women are more likely to go through with meeting men in person
for sex (Wolfe, 2011). Thus, more men create profiles online, but more
women actually move forward with having an affair. Recent nonscientific
surveys reveal the majority of women are never caught and have no inten-
tion of leaving their spouses (Vinter, 2012), prompting some culture industry
discussion that perhaps women are “sneakier” than men.
It is difficult to say with any certainty whether the actual incidence of infi-
delity participation by women has actually increased or whether the shift is
due to an increase in willingness to self-report. Either condition is certainly
possible.
Some experts theorize women’s current reported rates of participation in
infidelity as that of “opportunity,” in part presented through greater economic
independence and increased participation in the workforce. More women
are entering the workforce, gaining financial autonomy, and claiming their
sexual agency, and some researchers correlate those trends with the numbers
of women participating in extramarital sexual encounters (Barta & Kiene,
2005; Burdette, Ellison, Sherkat, & Gore, 2007; Mark et al., 2011). Studies
have found that working outside the home creates opportunities for infidelity
with coworkers, and that these opportunities are often exercised even when
there is no perception of dissatisfaction in the primary relationship (Atkins et
al., 2001; Treas & Giesen, 2000). In fact, the study by Wiggins and Lederer
(1984) found those who had participated in infidelity with a coworker report
higher marital satisfaction than respondents involved with non-coworker out-
side partners (Wiggins & Lederer, 1984).
As women climb the economic ladder and enjoy more professional and
high-paying opportunities, their opportunities and propensity for infidelity
increase. Lammers et al. (2011) found that elevated power encourages infidel-
ity, presumably because of the boost of confidence (Lammers, Stoker, Jordan,
Pollmann, & Stapel, 2011). Economics comes into play in other ways as well.
Other studies found that economic independence is tied to women’s deci-
sions to leave marriages (Sayer & Bianchi, 2000; Sayer, England, Allison, &
Kangas, 2011). Knowing that one possesses the economic independence to
withstand the loss of a spouse—even if ultimately you desire to remain mar-
ried—could make women more open to exercise infidelity opportunities as
well. Thus, greater personal and economic independence could account for
the increase in reported instances of female participation in infidelity.
However, it is also possible that this is only an increase in reporting, rather
than an increase in actual participation. It is possible that with greater social
and economic equity, women are more willing to admit their participation.
 Introduction xxxvii

Conceivably, a greater sense of anonymity permitting in responding to

­surveys regarding infidelity participation could account for rise in reporting.
Or perhaps the incidence was simply underreported all along. After all, who
were all those married men involved in outside partnerships sleeping with all
this time? It certainly wasn’t the same woman.

CHEATING WIVES ONLINE

Given that marriage is the organizing relationship of our lives, revered,

widely aspired to, and assumed monogamous, and the nearly universal agree-
ment that “cheating” is wrong, the prevalence of infidelity is in and of itself
problematic. There is a clear disconnect between what people claim to want
and sanction, and what people are actually doing.
The shame attached to cheaters remains substantial. In our society, the
double standard that demands that women present themselves as less inter-
ested in sex remains pervasive. Thus, the idea of wives, mothers, and fiancées
purposefully seeking out sexual, emotional, and/or romantic fulfillment out-
side of their marriages and primary partnerships is offensive to most of us.
While on some level there are those people who may excuse men’s infidelity
under the “boys will be boys” umbrella, for women who have the audacity to
crave more, or seek variety, or simply get basic sexual needs met, infidelity
is still inexcusable.
Culturally, the belief is that she should have found another way to deal
with her disappointment and unmet needs, perhaps through masturbation.
However, the cultural stigma surrounding masturbation remains strong, and
that effect is intensified among women. Many people are socialized to see
masturbation as an activity only “sexually depraved” women participate
in. For other women, masturbation may simply prove an inadequate sub-
stitute for human contact and total sexual pleasure. Stuart Brody found that
partnered sex provides health benefits that masturbation does not provide
(Brody, 2010; Brody & Costa, 2012). Specifically, those who only mastur-
bated scored lower on measures of depression and well-being. Penile-vaginal
sex has also been shown to reduce stress more effectively than masturbation
(Brody, 2006; Brody & Krügerb, 2006), and is associated with sexual and
relationship satisfaction (Klapilová, Brody, Krejčová, Husárová, & Binter,
2014; Schoenfeld, Loving, Pope, Huston, & Štulhofer, 2017). The women in
this study specifically commented that masturbation alone was not enough to
meet their needs. For some of us, masturbation alone is not enough (Brody &
Costa, 2009, 2012; Costa & Brody, 2007).
The women in this study refused to accept and publicly acknowledge the
failure of their marriages via divorce or break-up. Each woman expressed that
xxxviii Introduction

their marriage did not live up to the socially constructed ideal and that their
marriage should bring them both emotional and sexual fulfillment. Often the
response to a disappointing marriage is to seek a divorce or break-up. How-
ever, most of the women in this study had no future plans to end their rela-
tionships. The reasons provided for this decision fell into two camps (neither
of which were exclusive of the other): “I love him,” and “we have children.”
Although divorce is very common in our culture, there is still some stigma
attached to the event; choosing to remain in a less-than-satisfying marriage
sidesteps that stigma.
However, their discontent with the dynamics of the relationship registered
high enough to provoke them to seek out relief. Yet they retained the privi-
lege of the master status of being married, or partnered. Thus, they rejected
the social norm of marriage as monogamous, but they did so in secret.
Through this experience, they redefined “commitment” to mean a resolution
to remain in the marriage. Thus, under this paradigm, sex and even emo-
tional intimacy with another partner did not violate their commitment. The
participants held the viewpoint that engaging in sexual behavior with outside
partners did not undermine the emotional integrity of their marriages. Rather,
many believed it improved the bond of the primary partnership. Thus, the
concept of “commitment” for these women refers only to a resolve to remain
in the relationship. Ultimately, these women rejected the binary proposition
of marriage, which dictates that either you work out the challenges and stay
married and monogamous, or you conclude the relationship is unsalvageable
and you break-up, and eventually begin seeing new partners. The women in
this study conceived of an alternate solution to a marriage that is not wholly
working, one where their own needs are ignored, unmet, and not prioritized.
Ultimately, for the women in this study, affairs were a workaround to avoid
the pain, inconvenience, financial ramifications, and stigma of divorce.
Rather than publically acknowledging the failure of their marriage through
the traditional avenue of divorce, the women of this study chose to create a
space for their unmet needs to be sated by outside partner(s). They exercised
this “infidelity workaround” in an effort to maintain the primary partnership.
For most of these women, the primary focus of these experiences was
sexual, while a small group preferenced the emotional element. However, the
common thread connecting them was the exercise of these experiences with
outside partners while maintaining and intending to remain in their marriages.
Remaining in their marriages while secretly participating in outside partner-
ships also permits the women to avoid any stigma associated with polyam-
orous practices. Women who commit the gender transgression of showing
too much interest in sex, and, further, the desire to have sex with multiple
partners are regarded as gender deviants and subject to social marginaliza-
tion. To the public eye—and even their families and primary partners—they
 Introduction xxxix

enact a normative romantic practice. They fully enact the expectations of their
roles as “wife,” “girlfriend,” and “fiancée,” in public, while they enjoy the
practice of covert non-monogamy.
While the participants not only recognize that their own marriages do
not meet the cultural ideal, they also recognize that if their outside partner-
ships were transformed into marriages, those too would fall short; some
participants’ expectations of their outside partnerships appear to mirror the
idealized social expectations for any romantic relationship. More than half
of the women believed the shelf life of the outside partnerships was a key to
their success. There was some awareness that the unrealistic expectations of
romantic couplings cannot be sustained long-term. These women positioned
the problem as something within themselves that prevents them from being
monogamous; they enacted affairs in an effort to navigate their disappoint-
ment in their marriages. This view of their situation permits them to continue
to view their marriages as viable and worthy of maintaining despite the
deficits. These women’s “infidelity workaround” functions as an act of secret
defiance of the expectations of marriage and monogamy.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

Acquainting you with the fascinating women of this sample, chapter 1

explains the genesis, methodology, and limitations of this study. This chapter
begins to paint a picture of the practices, attitudes, and views of the women
who make up this sample. The forty-six women of this study do not represent
every person involved in an affair, or even every woman doing so. They are
a racially homogenous group, but their circumstances and decisions are com-
pelling. This group of women functions in sexless marriages or orgasmless
(for them) marriages. Their motivations for finding an affair partner were
predominantly sexual, which challenges our commonsense understandings
of women’s sexuality and infidelity. Additionally, this chapter introduces
the reader to the controversial website, Ashley Madison, where the women
of this study find their partners. The site has gained national prominence in
recent years through extensive advertising, interviews with its founder, and
news stories of the massive hack by “The Impact Team,” which resulted in
disastrous consequences for some users.
In chapter 2, I detail the process through which these women meet, vet,
and ultimately get involved with men. I detail the traits these women seek,
the red flags that cause them to cease contact, and how they protect them-
selves and their marriages. These relationships between the women and the
men they have sought out for outside partners function differently than their
primary partnerships with husbands, fiancés, and boyfriends. Most often, the
xl Introduction

women of this study sought things in outside partners that were absent in their
­primary partnerships. Clearly defined boundaries serve to protect the women,
their primary partnerships, families, and sanity. This chapter peeks inside
those relationships to examine how they operate alongside the women’s “real
lives” without disturbing their primary associations. I conclude by showing
that women employ systematic strategies to ensure that their outside partner-
ships will be fruitful time (i.e., their needs will be met), while attempting to
safeguard their primary relationships and primary partners from hurt, injury,
and embarrassment. Finding an appropriate and productive outside partner
was taxing and laborious, but a commitment the women believed critical to
the success of their enduring primary partnership.
Chapter 3 framed their experiences in terms of power. Too often, we think
of power as something we exercise over another person, but power over our-
selves is also a critical facet of power. The women in this study endured pri-
mary partnerships where their needs went consistently unmet. They entered
into their search for an outside partner after careful consideration and delib-
eration. Doing so marked an exercise of personal authority for the women
in this study. The narratives here remark repeatedly on the ways in which
participation in outside partnerships increased their both their feelings of
being in control and their ability to own their sexual desires and preferences.
Their outside partnerships functioned as spaces of self-expression, and spaces
where their articulation of sexual needs, desires, and preferences did not meet
censors or stigma. Many felt “in charge” in a way they never had before in
their “real lives.” Even the power to walk away from an outside partnership
served as an exercise of power unfamiliar to these women. Women summar-
ily dismissed outside partners who failed to live up to their promise without
guilt, shame, or worry. Women spoke of these relationships creating spaces to
enact former selves or forgotten selves safely. The role of outside partner did
not carry the heavy expectations of roles such as “wife.” Both parties negoti-
ate expectations before meeting a new partner. If she grows tired of the role
she has ascribed to herself, she is free to either end the relationship or simply
change the terms. These associations brought freedoms and autonomy their
primary partnerships did not permit. Outside partnerships existed as spaces
where women’s own sexual pleasure was the most important thing.
The benefits and costs of participation in outside partnerships provide the
discussion presented in chapter 4. Affairs are expensive, not only financially,
but also in terms of energy and time. There is considerable risk for engaging
in an outside partnership. Thus, for a person to persist in such a relationship
there must be a considerable payoff. While successful outside partnerships
brought colossal gains to their lives, the costs were also vast. Participation in
outside partnerships demands the participant to wear a public façade that their
marriages are “good” or even “great.” Some women have no one in their lives
 Introduction xli

with whom they can unburden, while others struggle to discern who can be
trusted with the information. Entering the online domain subjects the user to
possible insult from strangers, and women experience a heightened risk. Sites
geared toward sexual partnerships constitute a particular arena where women
face a likelihood of verbal abuse. Tales of abusive and rude encounters litter
these narratives as well. Traveling between the rose-colored worlds of outside
partnerships to their “real lives” resulted in a jarring effect for the women.
Despite the numerous and sundry costs of participation in outside partner-
ships, these women believed the benefits outweighed. This sentiment speaks
directly to the depth of need these women are trying to meet through these
outside partnerships. The conditions of their primary partnerships surpass the
typical circumstances of primary partnerships.
Chapter 5 addresses the perspective shifts many of these women endured
because of their participation in outside partnerships. Many of the women in
this study describe a change in how they now see their primary partnerships.
Many questioned monogamy as a system, where before they had committed
themselves to the ideology despite their behavior. Many reported realizing
that depending upon one single person to meet all of your needs set them up
for disappointment, dependence, and conflict with their primary partner. As
a workaround, many adopted the practice of maintaining multiple outside
partnerships to ensure they never found themselves reliant on a man’s whims,
schedule, or willingness to meet their needs. This practice brought happiness,
empowerment, and satisfaction. Beyond practices regarding outside part-
ners, the women of the study reported a modification in what they believed
relationships should be. However, even within outside partnerships, many
women found men attempting to reproduce the same cultural expectations of
primary partnerships.
The concluding chapter revisits topics discussed in the substantive chap-
ters, and lays out the theoretical and clinical implications of this study. This
chapter addresses the research questions that guided this inquiry, and consid-
ers future research on this topic. In this discussion, I reiterate the many ways
this work challenges current assumptions and understandings of women’s
behavior in sexual relationships.

CONCLUSION

This book focuses on the meaning-making and experiences of women in the

United States who purposefully sought out extramarital relationships online.
These women did not fall into an affair due to opportunity. They created their
own opportunities by logging on, creating a profile, and vetting potential part-
ners. For these women, ending their marriages was not an attractive option,
xlii Introduction

and satisfying their sexual needs through masturbation was just not enough.
Simply resorting to masturbation may feel like a hollow resolution to the situ-
ation, especially for women living in a culture where they have been prom-
ised that creating a monogamous marriage would alleviate all of their sexual
needs. Yet they refused to walk from an otherwise “good marriage.” Their
outside partnerships functioned as a strategy to enable them to remain in their
primary partnerships. This infidelity workaround relieved enough pressure to
permit the women to continue to function in their primary partnerships.
For these women, nothing short of another partner would sate their desires.
This book gives voice to their experiences and perceptions through participa-
tion in in-depth interviews regarding the role of outside partnerships in their
lives and the impact upon their marriages. The participants were all members
of Ashley Madison, a site devoted to helping married people seeking affair
partners. Examining these women’s experiences is important as it provides a
glimpse into the interworking of our most intimate relationships and consid-
ers the ways women navigate marriages that fall short of their expectations.
 Chapter 1

Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway?

(And Where Did You Find Them?)

My morning ritual includes reading the news online. In the span of six
months, my morning reading included three stories that challenged my
own “commonsense” understandings of infidelity. Reporting on a survey
conducted by a dating site called Undercoverlovers, the first related that
95 ­percent of women who cheated were not discovered by their partners
(compared to 83 percent of men). Between the flood of talk shows revealing
cheaters and real-world discussions about the discovery of people cheating,
it is easy to believe that most people who have affairs are eventually outed.
Matter of fact, a quick Google search of “how often do cheaters get caught”
will produce a long list of articles emphatically claiming that cheaters will be
caught. So, imagine my surprise at this survey finding.
A second discussed a Victoria Milan (a site for married people who want
affair partners) survey that found that 69 percent of their members were not
cheating to shop for a new spouse, but intended to remain in their marriage.
Again, this challenged the popular notion that people get involved in affairs
because they want a way out of their marriages. And the third covered an
academic study revealing that women between the ages of the ages of 40–45
were the most at risk to cheat (Atkins et al., 2001). This particularly surprised
me given that, at the time, I was barely 41 myself, exhausted most of the time,
and completely overscheduled. An affair seemed like it would require a whole
lot of extra work, extra time, and extra grooming. “What makes someone like
me more likely to have an affair now?” I wondered. “And further, what are
they getting out of these affairs?” Thus, this planted the seeds of this project.
My first hurdle was where to find women who would talk about their
experiences. Participation in infidelity is covert by its nature. The secrecy
of any closeted population complicates its recruitment. There exists no direc-
tory or sampling frame from which a researcher can draw a truly random

1
2 Chapter 1

sample. I eventually remembered having read an article in a popular women’s

magazine about a website called Ashley Madison, a niche dating site aimed at
married people who desire affair partners. I contacted the company via email
and asked if they would be willing to post a study call to their site. And then
I waited.

WHAT IS ASHLEY MADISON?

Conceived by Noel Biderman, who came up with the idea after reading that
nearly a third of people posing as “single” on traditional dating sites are
actually married, the controversial website grew exponentially. His wife
reportedly loved her husband’s entrepreneurial spunk, and even posed for
the billboard ads. He approached his business partner, Darren Morgenstern,
and together they built the Ashley Madison empire. The philosophy of the
company is that a certain portion of people will participate in outside part-
nerships, and without a venue specifically for extramarital dating, those
individuals will simply prey on unwitting single people through traditional
dating websites. Launched in 2001, the site’s slogan is “Life is short. Have
an affair,” and a reported 22 million members in 30 countries have embraced
this attitude. However, the sample included in the present study is limited to
members from the United States. While Biderman, CEO of the company, has
been much beleaguered in public forums, he maintains that no site or com-
mercial will compel someone to cheat.
Public fascination and disgust with the site abound. Numerous articles
have featured reporters going “undercover” in an attempt to understand the
mindset of Ashley Madison users. During interviews, Noel offered pragmatic
reasoning that a certain amount of people will cheat, and that his site keeps
those folks off mainstream sites. Not everyone took kindly to this argument.
Talk show hosts (e.g., Dr. Phil, the women of The View) and their guests
(e.g., guests on The Tyra Banks Show) have come out with moral opprobrium
regarding the site and its founder. This only adds to Ashley Madison’s brand
recognition. Nevertheless, for those folks living lives of quiet and private
desperation—those who are desperate to remain married and desperate for
sexual release—Noel and his Ashley Madison are a godsend, a beacon in the
dark.
Female members seeking male partners join for free. The practice of dating
sites permitting female members free memberships while charging men cer-
tainly is not limited to Ashley Madison. But it is more common among sites
specializing in locating partners for sexual encounters, such as Adult Friend
Finder. The logic undergirding this practice stems from the fact that men
outnumber women on online dating sites. To attract more female members,
 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where Did You Find Them?) 3

many sites grant them free memberships, so long as they are seeking male
partners. The idea is that charging men to use the site, but allowing women
free memberships helps to balance the scales.
Men must purchase membership packages, which vary in price and access.
For those who purchase the most expensive package, Ashley Madison offers a
money-back guarantee that they will “find someone.” The “Affair Guarantee”
package offers 1000 credits, the ability to send messages marked as “prior-
ity” and unlimited mail messages, and costs $249. Provided they met specific
guidelines regarding number and frequency of contact with site members, this
package offers men a money-back guarantee if they do not secure an affair
partner. The “Elite” package provides 500 credits and costs $149. The “Intro-
ductory” package offers only 100 credits and costs $49. Each initial message
sent to a woman costs five credits. To open a message sent to him by a female
member is five credits. Without the “Affair Guarantee” package, to mark their
message as “priority” costs five credits.
Men must initiate conversations and doing so results in a deduction of
credits. Most profiles sport public pictures cropped to conceal the person’s
identity. Viewing a user’s private gallery of pictures requires a “key,” which
can be gained by asking the other party for access. This feature helps provide
peace of mind for its members, whose anonymity is precious. Virtual “gifts”
run up to 50 credits. Online instant messaging costs 30 credits for 30 minutes,
which is the minimum amount of time billed. An instant message session of
over 30 minutes, but up to 60 minutes will cost you 60 credits. Further, to
have mobile access to the site—which increases a user’s confidentiality and
ability to protect their secret from their primary partner—costs another $19.
No statistics are available on the average number of women a male mem-
ber must contact before even getting a face-to-face meeting. However, the
male respondents to the larger inquiry indicated that the cheapest membership
available likely would not yield success. Men often renew their memberships
several times before making contact with a promising partner. For context,
many traditional dating sites are free. When we consider the most popular fee-
based dating sites, we quickly see that Ashley Madison is expensive by com-
parison. Match.com costs $42 a month. Moreover, the Cadillac of traditional
dating sites, eHarmony.com, runs $60 a month, but aims at finding members a
spouse. With both sites, membership entitles you to all site services, so costs
are transparent and upfront. Also, both men and women must buy member-
ships. Given the high cost of memberships for men on Ashley Madison, we
can assume male membership skews socioeconomically. According to one
source, the site is also heavily skewed educationally; 74 percent of the mem-
bers have a bachelor’s degree (Ehrenfreund, 2014). Like many online sites,
Ashley Madison’s membership is heavily skewed male although the specific
membership numbers are not provided to the public.
4 Chapter 1

SAMPLING

A representative of Ashley Madison responded to my email, and let me know

that the company would be happy to assist me with advertising my study
call. Thus, the data presented here is culled from the larger study conducted
through the site. The full data collection included a survey, and interviews
with both male and female members. Ashley Madison arranged for email
blasts to certain sectors of their members. These emails contained an invita-
tion to participate in a survey, and offered members the opportunity to be
interviewed. The email invitation and the survey itself included a brief expla-
nation of the study’s purpose and promised complete confidentiality. In the
description of the study, located both on the first page of the survey and in
the thank you/farewell message at the survey’s conclusion, respondents were
provided with a brief description of the interview portion of the study along
with my email address, and were invited to volunteer for interviews.
In total, the qualitative portion of this study included a total of 89 partici-
pants completing interviews. Of those, 46 were female participants. Another
19 women and 9 men initiated interviews but dropped out without notice
midway through the interview process. I utilized only the 46 complete female
interviews in data analysis.

PROTECTION OF THE RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

Upon contacting me and indicating interest in an interview, I provided

respondents with their informed consent form approved in advance by the
University of Kentucky’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and a com-
plete description of the study. IRB approved waiving documentation of the
informed consent to protect the participants’ privacy. Participants could
change their minds at any point in the future regarding their participation.
I offered each participant the choice between a phone or email interview.
(Ashley Madison did not send study invitations to members in my local area.
Thus, face-to-face interviews were not an option).
In terms of ensuring the conversation remained furtive, the participants
deemed email communication safer, which was consistent with the means
by which they vetted potential partners and maintained ongoing relation-
ships. I obliged since their privacy was paramount to their participation in
this inquiry. Participants dismissed phone interviews as an option, citing
difficulty finding the privacy to speak about these experiences on the phone,
concerns about being overheard, and having to explain the number if their
primary partner were to see it on the bill. Others pointed out the possibility of
someone searching my phone records in an effort to identify my participants
 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where Did You Find Them?) 5

once the study was published. Despite their privacy concerns, nearly all of the
participants shared pictures of themselves, as well as other personally identi-
fying information with me (e.g., workplace names, their real names, etc). at
some point during the interviews.
Email interviews offered me the opportunity to gather data over a larger
geographical area than face-to-face interviews can accommodate. In the
present study, it presented the opportunity to conduct interviews nationwide.
Additionally, it decreased research costs and time because there was no
need for transcription. (That also meant no one but me saw the transcripts,
which further protected participants’ anonymity). The asynchronous nature
of email interviewing negated any scheduling concerns. Email also gives the
researcher the ability to interview more than one participant at a time. Using
email as a data collection method did impact the data collection period, which
was further impacted by a number of factors including the number of partici-
pants and the number of interview questions. The anonymity the participants
felt contributed to their willingness to participate (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004;
Herring, 1996; B. S. Kim, Brenner, Liang, & Asay, 2003; Mann & Stewart,
2000; Matheson, 1992; Tidwell & Walther, 2002).
In any study, confidentiality is a concern. In a study regarding closeted
behaviors, confidentiality takes on a larger priority. The biggest concern
regarding internet data collection occurs when data is stored on a public
computer. In this study, I utilized a password-protected, private computer
to which no one else had access. I deleted the emails themselves as soon as
the participant’s answers were transferred to transcript, which was identi-
fied solely by their self-selected pseudonyms. I saved email addresses in an
Excel spreadsheet identified solely by the participant’s pseudonym. And all
participants utilized an email account used solely to vet potential outside
partners. Those accounts were set up with pseudonyms as well. Thus, their
email addresses could not be tied back to the participant’s actual identities.
Although recruiting from a website and conducting interviews via email
may seem unconventional, email interviews are gaining popularity. And
previous researchers have also recruited solely from websites, and then con-
ducted the entirety of their study online as well (Mohebati et al., 2012; Ramo,
Hall, & Prochaska, 2010; Siegel, DiLoreto, Johnson, Fortunato, & Dejong,
2011). Studies suggest that when researching sensitive topics, participants
will reveal more information when they are not face-to-face with their
interviewer (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; B. S. Kim et al., 2003). Thus, email
interviewing permitted the participants in this study to share more freely. The
women who participated in this study were eager to share their experiences
and perceptions. They were pleased to find someone interested in their voice.
In July 2015, Ashley Madison was hacked. An anonymous team self-iden-
tified as “The Impact Team” copied the site’s user database and threatened
6 Chapter 1

to release names and personal identifying information unless the site shut
down. Ashley Madison did not yield to the group’s demands, and the group
leaked data for 30 million users onto the “dark web” between August 18
and 20 of that same year. Many users were put at risk for public shaming
and the destruction of their families as the hackers released their real names,
addresses, credit card transactions, and search histories. The average per-
son does not have access to the “dark web.” However, sites sprouted up all
over the internet permitting you to check to see if your email—or someone
else’s—was among those released on the “dark web.” Some members were
subject to extortion demands, and investigators tied a number of suicides to
the release of data. Not surprising, given that the demonization of Ashley
Madison users has been documented (Hackathorn, Daniels, Ashdown, &
Rife, 2017). As a society, we have no sympathy for Ashley Madison users.
Given the site’s policy to permit female users to join for free, my par-
ticipants were not subject to have their credit card information or addresses
released. While 15,000 users opted to use their .gov and other work email
addresses to open their account, my participants elected to use anonymized
emails to join the site. None of them used their real names to set up their
email accounts. Thus, for the women who so generously shared their lives
and experiences here, there was not much risk of being outed because of the
hack. Not so, for Noel Biderman, who stepped down as CEO of Ashley Madi-
son as a consequence of the hack. The data breach also revealed Biderman
himself at least attempted three affairs using his own website.

LIMITATIONS

There are limitations to this data collection method. The participant must
possess a higher level of motivation and interest in the interview itself than
in a traditional face-to-face interview (Chen & Hinton, 1999; Meho, 2006).
Additionally, participating can be physically demanding due to the typing and
reading required. Extra time is also required for the participant to read, think,
type, and maintain a thread throughout their response. The researcher is also
under pressure to get a response onto the screen while simultaneously probing
participant responses, keeping everyone engaged and involved, and asking all
relevant questions. The emoticons and acronyms utilized to denote emotion
and intonation require the researcher’s familiarity to have usefulness. The
lack of visual cues is a marked limitation of this methodology. Neither the
participant nor the researcher had the benefit of visual cues to help discern
meaning and intent. While any online interview method requires a level of
computer literacy, computer access, and costs, which can result in the exclu-
sion of certain groups, the target population of this inquiry were well-versed
 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where Did You Find Them?) 7

in both asynchronous and synchronous online communication as a result of

their participation in online-initiated outside partnerships. Additionally, the
longer timeframe of email interviews can result in participant frustration and
drop-out (Hodgson, 2004).
A key disadvantage of qualitative research is the inability to generalize the
results to larger populations. Qualitative methods produce data that is reflec-
tive of shared experiences and meanings. The findings reflect culturally and
socially shaped experiences. The results of grounded theory analysis can pro-
vide us with insight into social norms, but the shared nature of these meanings
and experiences limit our ability to isolate which influences are sociocultural
and which are individual (Rothe, 2000). Due to this limitation, we cannot
apply this study’s results to all women, or even all women participating in
affairs. They are specific to the participants of this inquiry.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Participant volunteers tended to come in waves corresponding with the email

blasts Ashley Madison sent out. Thus, interviews were typically concurrent.
The interviews were semi-structured so that, as much as possible, the partici-
pant could guide the conversation. The nature of this approach empowers the
participant to share their experiences in their own words and in their own way.
Thus, I sent one question at a time via email, and the participant responded
to the question. Based on the participant’s response to the question, I posed
follow-up questions. Thus, the interview was very much a “virtual conversa-
tion” during which the participants shared many details and stories of their
lives and experiences, which they felt relevant to their own meaning-making
or simply felt inclined to share.
This approach is consistent with feminist methodology, in part because it
makes room for the subtleties in the realities and conditions of women’s lives.
Feminist researchers regard the act of enabling women to discuss taboo topics
as both radical and subversive (Hyde 2001). Thus, the more the participant’s
desire to share drives the conversation, the more likely the data includes those
experiences the woman herself regards as both influential and important in
her relationship and sexual life. Additionally, it permits women to claim and
voice parts of themselves often silenced by mainstream culture.
Participant’s answers tended to be quite long, rich, and detailed. All of the
participants generated at least three single-spaced transcripts. The average
transcript was more than five pages, and the longest transcript was eighteen
pages long. A single interview often took weeks to accomplish, giving the
participants time to consider their response to my questions. Many emailed
in response to a question to say they needed time to think about it before
8 Chapter 1

constructing their answer. Some participants spoke of having emotional

responses to the questions and to their own responses to them. Many times,
the participant would say things such as, “I got really off topic there” or “I
don’t know why I just shared since that that wasn’t really what you asked,
but hopefully you understand me better.” The process of analysis required
unpacking and weaving back together aspects of the data that yielded infor-
mation about the women’s realities of their primary partnerships and their
outside partnerships. I hope the result offers richly textured insights into the
nature and meanings of these women’s extramarital and marital lives.

WHO ARE THESE BAD GIRLS?

The women who participated in this study ranged in age from 24 to 65

years of age. The average age was 40.7. Nearly half of the participants were
between the ages of 30–39. Another 30 percent of the sample ranged in age
from 40–49. Only three participants fell on both ends of the spectrum: 20–29
and 60–65. Forty-three of the female participants were White; only three
women of color participated. Only four women who either self-identified as
bisexual or reported same-sex sexual encounters participated. While Ashley
Madison does permit searching for same-sex partners, such memberships are
not free, and the pool of potential partners on the site is quite small. These
women reported from across the United States. Nearly all of the women
described themselves as married. Only five were unmarried, but partnered.
One woman was divorced with a primary partner.
The women who participated in this study were also other things. They
were articulate, insightful, self-aware, and funny. They were cognizant of the
duplicities and the contradictions in their lives. They spoke of typical lives:
being mothers, working quiet jobs, attending family functions, and exchang-
ing in friendly conversation with their neighbors. These women could easily
be your friend, your confidant, and your colleague. In fact, they likely are.
Throughout the data collection, I found myself thinking that if we knew one
another in some organic setting—work, school, church—we would have been
friends.
Thirty women in the sample reported having children. Five women specifi-
cally reported not having children. Eleven women made no mention of chil-
dren, and did not provide a response to a direct inquiry regarding children and
income. All but seven women in the sample expressed a clear desire to remain
in their primary partnership for the remainder of their lives. Of the seven who
didn’t, three women stated openly they wanted to exit their primary relation-
ships at some point in the future, but were not ready to do so at present or
 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where Did You Find Them?) 9

the foreseeable future. The other four were ambivalent about remaining their
primary partnerships.

WHY ARE THESE “BAD GIRLS” CHEATING?

The women in this study had a variety of circumstances leading to the deci-
sion to create a profile and seek an outside partner. Twenty women in the
sample reported being in a sexless marriage. Women spoke of years and
years passing without sexual activity between their primary partner and them-
selves, or even attempts to initiate sex on the part of their primary partner.
Another six reported their primary relationship as sexually incompatible and
themselves as nonorgasmic within it. Ten women reported seeking outside
partners due to reasons other than something amiss within their primary
partnership. These women essentially voiced a desire for variety in sexual
partners. Eight women reported being in emotionally unsatisfying primary
partnerships, lacking intimacy and attention. For those women, seeking an
outside partner was an attempt to get their emotional needs met. Contrary to
our current “commonsense” positioning of women’s infidelity, these women
were starkly in the minority in this sample.
Every woman in this study described an extended deliberation process before
making the decision to seek out an outside partner. For many, it was a pain-
ful one. Brinley (33, married) said, “I begged and pleaded for my spouse to
change for 5 years. As soon as I heard about AM I thought it could be the thing
I needed.” Gabrielle (45, married) described that moment: “I was on my knees
sobbing and the decision came: I have to cheat or I will leave him. Done.”
Marlo (46, married) echoed this sentiment: “The decision to participate in an
outside relationship was not sudden or spontaneous. I reached the decision after
much pondering, turmoil and soul searching before proceeding with breaking
my marriage vows.” Sophie (53, married) explained, “The last time my hus-
band touched me was [more than a decade ago]. There was a rainy night years
ago when my husband forgot [an important life event]. I tossed up a profile.”
The women perceived outside partnerships as a means to avoid divorcing
or leaving their primary partners, which was an event they wanted to prevent.
The reasons given for this desire were nebulous, seemingly pat responses,
such as “I love him,” and “We have children together.” Perhaps the women
had never fully articulated the reasons to themselves. It is possible that fully
delving into those reasons might be akin to pulling on the threads of a blan-
ket: you run the risk of unraveling the whole thing. Also, their seemingly glib
answers may have been self-protection and protection for their families—and
the very fabric of their lives. Or maybe the answers really are that simple.
10 Chapter 1

Thinking about our own primary partnerships, what reasons would we give
a stranger as to why we remain? “I love him” and concern for our children
would top our lists as well. These women are no different from us.
Ultimately, rather than formally end the relationship and pursue another
one, they chose to participate secretly in concurrent relationships. Leaving a
primary partnership is not an attractive solution to numerous women due to
many factors. Financial investment in a primary relationship that cannot be
easily recovered or salvaged may dictate that women must remain in unhappy
or unsatisfying unions. Additionally, as the outcome-interdependence theory
explains, the benefits of the marriage in other areas (emotional, social, shared
workload, intact family for children) may make her reluctant to leave and risk
finding all of those qualities and more in a new partner. Many people remain
in unsatisfying relationships for a host of reasons: financial, emotional, and
practical.
However, for each woman there was a tipping point that prompted their
action. As Tiffany (47, married) explained, “there was just so much of ‘tak-
ing care of yourself’ before a lack of sex drove me crazy.” Other women
described a similar moment of feeling they had to do something. Georgie (53,
married) explained, “As the sexual feelings became more intense, I finally
decided that I was tired of taking care of everyone else, and only thinking
about their feelings and needs. I decided that I deserved to have my needs
met.” Erica (46, married) said, “One day I had just had it. I really wish I could
remember what exactly caused me to search online for ‘someone’ because
that is not like me at all.” Parvarti (33, married) explained, “I just couldn’t
take it anymore.” Joy (34, married) described her reasoning as, “I was horny.
I snapped.” Regina (38, married) added, “I tried very hard to just ride it out. I
held out as long as I could. Once I gave in, I wondered what took me so long.”
The women in this study struggled to remain monogamous before turning to
infidelity as a workaround.
This moment did not prompt them to meet with divorce lawyers or initi-
ate separations. Instead, they opted to focus on getting their physical or
emotional needs met through an outside sexual relationship. Thus, for these
women, the conditions of the primary partnership were untenable to the point
of requiring remedy, yet they did not see permanently exiting the relationship
as a desirable option. This speaks clearly to both the elevated status of being
married—and even partnered in our society—as well as the desire to avoid
publicly admitting failure by the women in this sample. Thus, the women
in this sample demonstrate an “unwillingness to leave” (Whitton, Stanley,
Markman, & Johnson, 2013).
For some, a simple Google search of terms such as “married dating” led
them to Ashley Madison. Others heard of the site from friends or cowork-
ers, through a commercial, or talk radio/talk show discussion. They put up
 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where Did You Find Them?) 11

a profile on Ashley Madison with trepidation, unsure if anyone would even

be interested in them. Cecilia (42, married) said, “I only went on A.M. as a
joke. I actually posted a generic profile and was SHOCKED by the number of
responses I received.” Sophie (53, married) echoed that fear: “I am a demure,
curvy, older woman that no man looks at twice, so I assumed no one wanted
me.” This belies socializing experiences of emphasized femininity, where
attractiveness is determined by sexual interest from men. Since many women
in this study felt unwanted by their primary partners, they assumed no men
wanted them. Given the danger in initiating affairs and flirtations with those
in your social circle, they lived absent male attention and notice of themselves
as sexual beings. And they internalized that lack into their own self-concept.
Once on Ashley Madison, the women in this study discovered that many men
were interested, which they experienced as empowerment (Discussed further
in chapter 4).

RESENTMENT LEADS TO CHEATING

Twenty-five of the women in the study spoke of deep-seated resentment for

their primary partners. This resentment spilled over even in narratives of
women who assured me that their primary partners were “terrific,” and that
no deficit within their primary partnership drove them to seek out outside
partnerships. Some spoke of it plainly. Darcy (48, married) described her
marriage: “I also think that conflict-free is not necessarily good. We both had
a lot of built up frustration and resentment that we weren’t talking about.” For
many women, mundane, but unresolved conflict seethed under the surface of
the relationship. For these women, seeking outside partnerships served as an
attempt to manage the resentment they felt, but could not resolve with their
primary partner. Having another outlet for sexual expression, intimacy, and
friendship helped soothe the tension and bitterness many carried for their
primary partner.
Household dynamics also functioned as a source of resentment. Shana (33,
married) spoke about her primary partnership. She said, “For example, the
amount of responsibilities I have in comparison to his. The inequality of it all
is such an annoying factor that I am usually in a bad mood when my spouse
is in my presence.” The resentment regarding the division of labor in her mar-
riage struck the deathblow to her sex life. Regina (38, married) added, “Often
it is as though he thinks his sole responsibility is his job, and I’m responsible
for everything else. Like outside the house, he’s this competent adult, but at
home he is another child to clean up after and nag for their help.” For these
women, participation in a secret sexual relationship permitted them to remain
in their primary partnerships despite problems and disappointments.
12 Chapter 1

Other women’s resentment stemmed from the sexlessness in their primary

partnership. Luciana (53, married) stated her feelings plainly and tied it to
the sexlessness of marriage. “I feel resentful toward him for denying me
something I need.” Jamie (34, married) echoed this sentiment: “We had sex
I think 3 times in that year and it didn’t involve any kissing or any foreplay.
It was so frustrating and I resented my husband for not being able to please
me, especially when I was asking for what I needed.” Coco (43, married)
added, “I know it is irrational because I know he didn’t chose this, but at the
same time it really doesn’t seem to bother him at all. So, I feel alone with
the pain of losing any physical intimacy in my marriage. Like I’m the only
one who even cares that that happened.” Avery (45, married) explained, “It
is so painful to live with someone you love and want to have sex with, but
you can’t. But I also feel really resentful because he has just closed down,
won’t touch me, won’t talk about, and won’t do anything more in terms of
treating it.” Other women expressed resentment for a nonorgasmic sex life
in their primary partnership. Jackie (48, married) explained, “Sometimes  I
don’t even get off, and because he is so busy so often, our sex usually seems
rushed. In fact,  sometimes  he just wants me to get on my knees and give
him oral.” This kind of sexual incompatibility and lack of recognition of the
women’s sexual needs ate away at the foundation of the union. The decision
to seek an outside partner to remedy their sexual needs did not address the
problem within the primary partnership. However, it permitted them to con-
tinue ignoring it, which enabled them to remain in the relationship, and keep
their families intact.
Women whose primary partnerships were out of sexual sync struggled with
deep-seated and pervasive resentment. In some cases, the incompatibility had
been revealed over time and now their lives were enmeshed. For others, the
incompatibility had been obvious from the beginning, but they had found
themselves pregnant and married to “make things right,” or married because
they were “in love,” and were sure that would trump any incompatibility.
For others, the knowledge of the incompatibility came after they had already
married their primary partner.
Three women described unhealthy primary partnerships. Molly (41, mar-
ried) was more detailed in her discussion. She said:

My husband and I are mismatched. I know now. My shut down was caused
by a combination of resentment and exhaustion. And disgust. My husband has
always had a high sex drive and he would “make” me do things I wasn’t com-
fortable with. He used to have a porn addiction. He would get very angry when
I didn’t want to have sex. Call me names. Make me cry. So sex was not about
intimacy with him.
 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where Did You Find Them?) 13

Molly excused her husband’s tendency to demand sexual acts from her
­without her consent under the guise of “his sex drive.” For her, participation
in outside partnerships permitted the expression of sexual acts she enjoyed
with a partner who enjoyed them as well. Her outside partnerships also
functioned as spaces of consent and respect, things that were missing in her
primary partnership. However, her participation in these respectful outside
sexual relationships also insulated her from the inherent abusive nature of her
primary partnership, and enabled her to turn a blind eye to it. She did not have
to examine and deal with the conditions in her primary partnership because
she had another outlet for her own sexuality. Thus, while her outside partner-
ships met one set of needs, they were in essence enabling her to remain in an
unhealthy primary partnership.
Marta (61, married) echoed this sentiment: “After his accusations and
jealousy and refusing help, things weren’t the same for me. I realized that I
wanted a friend, companion, and lover, and I sought that out.” Marta’s pri-
mary partnership was not egalitarian, or built on trust. Alyssa (24, partnered)
described her primary partner similarly: “I have been with my boyfriend for
almost 2 years now and he does not meet my emotional needs AT ALL. In
fact, he is kind of an asshole.” She explained that things in the primary part-
nership had changed from him being fun and sweet in the beginning to the
more unsatisfying dynamic of today. “I feel like I can’t even walk down the
street the right way. He criticizes EVERYTHING. He makes me feel stupid
about the things that I am passionate about.” Her resentment and frustration
with her primary partner extended to her view of men in general. She related,
“It is shocking that men can be so ignorant of how great they have it. So
unappreciative filled with an unwarranted sense of entitlement. It’s repulsive
and I try not to think of it too much or else I start to get really upset.” For
women in unhealthy primary partnerships, outside partnerships served both
as a distraction and a relief from their primary partnership. Like Molly, the
distraction of her outside partnerships allows Alyssa and Marta to endure
their unhealthy primary partnerships.
While an outsider may respond to any of these women’s accounts with
“just break-up with him,” for the women in this study that solution was not
as simple as it might seem. Being legally bound by the state makes “breaking
up” more complicated. Custody and child support issues bring stress, uncer-
tainty, unhappiness, and a loss of control over one’s children and their well-
being. While most of the women were married to their primary partners, even
the women who were not married to their primary partners had intertwined
lives. They shared housing arrangements, social ties, and often financial
arrangements. If you’ve ever tried to extricate yourself early from a lease, you
know that’s no small—nor cheap—matter. If your salary simply isn’t enough
14 Chapter 1

to support you and your family, walking away from someone who’s paying
half of your lifestyle is difficult, and sometimes impossible. All but nine of
the women expressed love for their primary partner, which also complicated
“breaking up” or leaving as a solution. How many of us have stayed with
someone we should not have out of “love?” These women’s relationships
were no less complex than anyone else’s. Breaking up often requires a level
of autonomy—financial and emotional—that not everyone has.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the question, “How do
women with outside partners make meaning of that experience and how
do these relationships impact their primary partnerships?” I interviewed 46
women, who shared their stories about participation in outside partnerships
and how they affected their primary partnerships. Interviews were semi-
structured and I probed participant responses for meaning and clarity. All
interviews were conducted via email, which self-produces transcripts. Those
transcripts were member-checked and reread several times to analyze for
themes.
This overwhelmingly White, married, predominantly middle-class, pre-
dominantly sexless or orgasmless group of women provided insight into
the qualities of outside partnerships formed purposefully from online pro-
files for extramarital affairs. The narratives in this study illustrate women’s
meaning-making of their experiences seeking out and participating in outside
partnerships concurrent to their primary partnerships. The existing literature
on infidelity suggests distinct gender differences in approaching and navigat-
ing outside partnerships. Specifically, the literature implies that women enter
these associations for emotional reasons and value the emotional aspect of
them more highly. The sample presented here challenges the understanding
of women’s participation in infidelity. More than half of the sample reported a
sexless or orgasmless primary partnership. Thus, resentment for their primary
partner played a role in the women’s decision-making. However, the decision
to seek and enter outside partnerships was not made lightly.
The women in this study desired to remain in their primary partnerships
for the foreseeable future. Prior to participation in outside partnerships, the
women lacked confidence that doing so was actually possible. Many felt at
the end of their capacity to endure in their primary partnerships when they
turned to the activity of seeking an outside partner. Outside partnerships can
be spaces of sexual expression for women whose shared sexual lives with
their primary partnerships are restrictive. For women whose primary partner
is reluctant to delve into sexual activities that titillate her, outside partnerships
 Who are these “Bad Girls” Anyway? (And Where Did You Find Them?) 15

can fill that gap in her sexual life. Likewise, women with primary partners
whose sexual interests are far outside the realm of her interests and comfort
zone can find an outside partner whose preferences more closely mirror hers.
Without this stopgap, these women were existing in relationships where they
were shamed for the nature of their desires, or chastised for their unwilling-
ness to participate in undesired sexual activities.
For women whose primary partnerships are sexless, outside partnerships
provide a place to exercise their sexual impulses. For those who are in
orgasmless couplings, outside partners are an important site of release. The
importance of this cannot be understated for these women given that the
traditional configuration of marriage is that of monogamy. The current social
construction of the marriage/living together relationship as sexually exclu-
sive is tantamount to a sexual straightjacket for women who desire partnered
sex, but whose primary partner does not, or whose primary partner cannot
perform. Rather than live a life devoid of partnered sexual activity, these
women can enjoy the power of human touch as well as the resulting orgasms,
which the women in this study perceived as “better” than going without, or
relying on masturbation. While participation in an affair is certainly not the
answer for everyone, for the women in this inquiry, their outside partnerships
offered a way to keep their families intact while meeting their own previously
neglected needs.
 Chapter 2

A Large Penis is Always Welcome

When they created their profile, the women in this study sought partners
with particular requirements to participate in a very specific arrangement.
They went into this endeavor pragmatically and realistically. They adapted
to the environment and culture of Ashley Madison, and carefully navigated
the experience of meticulously selecting an outside partner. Their decision-
making was calculated and judicious, always with discretion in mind. Their
chief concern was to avoid bringing harm and shame to their families.

PANDORA’S BOX

While there is ample research demonstrating that many people “happen” into
affairs, the women who participated in this inquiry purposefully sought out
affairs online. However, not all of the women’s outside partnerships origi-
nated on the internet. Interestingly, 26 of the 43=6 women in this study met
and got involved with their first outside partner offline. After that relationship
ended, they eventually found Ashley Madison. Four of those women went first
to Craigslist, but quickly found that venue not to their liking. Then they found
Ashley Madison. Jamie (34, married) explained, “So, I decided to try my hand
at Craigslist. Let me tell you that was an experience all to itself. Most of the
men that were on Craigslist were crude, and they weren’t really looking for
the same thing that I was.” More than half of these women originally didn’t
seek out an affair. “It just happened” and once it ended, they wanted more.
Only 17 of the 46 women in the sample began their first affair with intent and
calculation by creating a profile online. For all of these women, having a taste
of what an outside partnership could do for their lives inspired them to seek
out a replacement partner when their initial association—whether entered

17
18 Chapter 2

into more organically or deliberately—ended. For the women in this study,

participating in outside partnerships was the proverbial Pandora’s Box. Once
opened, they could not envision their lives with it closed.
Their outside partnerships were carefully constructed and considered.
Among those women who had initially “fallen into” their first affair, once that
association ended, they purposefully sought out another one. Having found
they enjoyed the boost in self-esteem, empowerment, and sexual fulfillment
an outside partnership brings, they were unwilling to give up those things.
Thus, while the ending of an affair might be sad, it was never really “the end”
of their participation in outside partnerships. For these women, outside part-
ners were replaceable, and when one affair burned out, they simply entered
into a new partnership. From an outsider’s perspective, the women in this
sample were purposefully remaining in less-than-satisfying primary partner-
ships. Thus, the tendency to participate serially in outside partnerships makes
sense. If they were to refrain from the behavior, the flaws in their primary
partnerships would become more palpable, and might become impossible to
endure.

PARTNER SELECTION IS A SERIOUS AFFAIR

Once these women made the decision to post a profile online they faced
immediate decisions. Messages, winks, and requests for private keys poured
in nearly immediately. Given that women are so vastly outnumbered on Ash-
ley Madison, even the briefest of profiles generates hundreds of emails from
men on the site. Logging on to discover a mailbox full of potential sexual
playmates is a heady, flattering experience, to be sure; but it also necessitates
a plan of action. Women spoke of extensive and deliberate processes they
developed in an attempt to eliminate unsuitable and incompatible partners
without having to meet so many men in person, or worse, bed them. After all,
none of these women were game to have sex with every man who messaged
her. Therefore, some kind of appraisal for quality assurance was essential.
For its members, Ashley Madison operates as a sexual economy, where
women perceive themselves as more in control than in the dating market in
the “real world.” The process of vetting often began when the woman looked
at the man’s profile, an activity akin to catalog shopping for a potential part-
ner. Women always checked profiles before responding to messages, and
sometimes prior to even reading the message itself. The presence or absence
of certain things on a man’s profile could tip the scales. Trudy (33, married)
explained that even the absence of things on a man’s profile was an important
clue. “If he really can’t be bothered to write something in his profile, why
should I bother to talk to him?” When pressed as to why the amount of text
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 19

in a profile was important, she elaborated, “I’m very serious about what I’m
doing. My profile carefully explains what I’m about, and what I’m looking
for. And I update it periodically, too. If he’s so lazy that he can’t fill out a
profile, then he’s probably lazy in other areas too! And who wants a guy
who’s lazy in bed? I don’t!”
Darcy (48, married) echoed this sentiment. “If his profile is sparse, then
what are we going to talk about?” She also explained that in her geographical
area many men’s profiles read in a way that belied dangerous sentiments. “If
his profile comes across like he’s angry with women, or that he just doesn’t
really like women as people, I can’t delete and block fast enough.” (Note:
blocking keeps the other party from contacting you. Your profile is still vis-
ible to them.) Nearly every woman in the study spoke of blocking men on the
site whose messages were rude, too aggressive, or otherwise creepy. (This
will be discussed further in chapter 4). Placed in context, these reactions
make sense. Many of these women exist in sexless or orgasmless marriages.
Finding an outside partner who is willing to put in the work necessary to
ensure her pleasure is important.
The women approached the vetting process pragmatically. Women devel-
oped an interview protocol for themselves to try to streamline the process
of selection. Their questions were honed and refined over time through
trial and error with potential suitors. In the men’s replies, they watched for
telltale signs that he was either purposefully misrepresenting himself or sim-
ply lacking self-awareness. The former was a recipe for hurt feelings. The
latter was a recipe for aggravation, at best. But the worst-case scenario of
becoming entangled with such a man was the vulnerability to having their
lives dismantled, should he decide to reveal her activities to her husband. A
potential sexual partner’s lack of self-awareness resulted in lies that were not
easily detected. After all, it is quite difficult to discern that someone is lying
if they believe their own fictions. These men often presented themselves as
ideal candidates, but in reality were the very men who stood them up for
initial meets, or slept with them once and then ceased contact. When men in
this situation were pressed, they revealed that they had underestimated their
own ability to participate in an affair and were withdrawing from the process
entirely. Sometimes these men just never again responded to the woman’s
messages, and their profiles would vanish from the site. A far worse pos-
sible outcome of involvement with a man who lacks self-awareness: the man
comes to believe he is “in love,” and subsequently oversteps the boundaries
negotiated at the onset of the association. Therefore, properly and thoroughly
vetting a potential outside partner was a matter of survival, both for these
women and their families. Considering many of these women’s primary part-
ners underestimated their own willingness or ability to meet their needs, the
caution exercised makes sense.
20 Chapter 2

Aside from the profile itself, women were measuring men from their first
contact. Attempts to distinguish potential suitors who lacked self-awareness
from more promising partners often included, “Have you done this before?”
and “What brings you to search for an affair?” followed by “What happened
to cause your previous affair to end?” Men’s answers were often quite reveal-
ing. For example, a man who insisted he was interested in only a sexual con-
nection, and then explained that his last affair ended because he suspected
his outside partner of cheating would be a red flag. Avery (45, married)
explained:

Let’s face it: if you’re worried about what I’m doing outside of our time
together, then either you’re trying to make your affair into another marriage, or
you want something beyond just sex, and don’t realize it. Either way, I just don’t
have the energy, interest, or time for that kind of guy. This isn’t a marriage. And
I’m cheating in my marriage, so why are you expecting monogamy in an affair?
You don’t own me. I don’t own you. It’s that simple.

Likewise, a man who claimed to understand the boundaries of the outside

partnership, but then said he ended his last affair due to the failure of his
outside partner to pay enough attention to him, or give him enough time
was a caution sign as well. Coco (43, married) said, “If you need a woman
to be all about you, then you’re not looking for an affair. You’re looking for
a wife, a mistress, a Sugar Baby, or a prostitute—and three of those broads
expect to be compensated for their time! I’ve got a whole life going on
over here. You’re just a side dish. I can’t make time for you like you’re the
main course.” We could try to explain the women’s unwillingness to give
themselves completely to an outside partner solely by the fact that she has a
primary partner. However, these boundaries are also an exercise of personal
authority (discussed in depth in chapter 3).
Men’s messaging behaviors could be another red flag. Many women spoke
of being put off or irritated by brief and uninventive opening emails. For
some women, sending a generic email (e.g., containing only a greeting, or a
“line,” such as “Hey, pretty lady”) was cause to delete the man’s email unan-
swered. The women explained that they swiftly deleted without response the
messages men frequently sent containing only a vulgar “come on” (e.g., “let’s
fuck” or “I’d like to eat your pussy”). Avery 45 (married) explained, “Look,
we’re all here for sex, but how boring! If you’re this dull and to-the-point in
your attempt to make a first impression, how lazy are you in bed?” Coco (43,
married) echoed that sentiment: “I mean, what, he thinks that line is a panty-
dropper? Try again, bub! He probably doesn’t know dick about women, or
how to make them orgasm.” Trudy (33, married) added, “I’m looking for an
affair. But I’m not desperate or easy. There’s a huge difference between those
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 21

things.” Likewise, receiving a lengthy email that did not reference anything
specific about the woman herself—for instance, something she mentioned in
her profile—created suspicion that the man was cutting and pasting a form
email, and sending it out by the hundreds. This practice also did not inspire
a response from the women. Elizabet (26, partnered) explained the concern
with such a message:

I have friends who date on Match or Plenty of Fish [traditional dating sites], and
they tell me all the time about getting these seriously long, flowery messages
from men only to find out that their friend got the exact same message from the
same guy. He’s so dumb he thinks if his message is long and complimentary,
then he’s going to get lucky with someone. He’s just throwing out the chum and
waiting for the feeding frenzy. Basically, the “throw it against the wall and see
what sticks” approach. I’m not that stupid.

These women expected an outside partner to work to establish a connection

just as one would in “real life.”
Initial emails were an important point of contact because once a woman
responds to a man’s message she opens herself to potential negative treat-
ment. For example, if a woman responds even once to a man’s messages,
he can leave “feedback” on her profile—even though they have never met.
Essentially, responding to a message is tantamount to consenting to that
man leaving a public rating of you. Ashley Madison’s feedback options are
not flattering to women, and include selections such as “gives good chat,”
“pursues fantasies,” “worth the time,” “better in person,” “hot to trot,” “sala-
cious,” “better over time,” “keeps promises,” and “popular.” A profile shows
all options at all times with a number in parenthesis indicating how many
people have left that feedback. Although some of the feedback options imply
not only a face-to-face meet, but also a sexual encounter, you need only to
have exchanged messages with a member for them to be able to leave you
feedback. The presence of any rating implies the woman has met someone for
sex, and he is “reviewing” her performance. In other words, once a woman
responded to a man’s message, he could leave her feedback implying that he
has had sex with her. The most commonly left feedback on women’s profiles
by rejected men was “salacious,” “hot to trot,” or “popular,” the subtext being
that the woman is promiscuous. Women can contact Ashley Madison to have
the offending feedback removed, but there is no option to have the feature
itself permanently removed from your profile. There is also a time-lapse
between requesting its removal and the disappearance of the feedback. Thus,
replying to any man’s initial message opened women to retaliatory feedback,
which could be seen by any number of potential suitors in the 24–48 hours
(or more) the feedback would remain.
22 Chapter 2

Men often used these ratings vindictively when upset that a woman had
rejected him. Even his perception of rejection could trigger negative feed-
back. Multiple women spoke of men who had lashed out because their mes-
sages did not receive immediate response. First, the men sent messages laden
with verbal abuse. Esme (31, married) shared, “I’ve been called everything
you can imagine by total strangers. Men haven’t even seen a picture of you
and they’ll say you’re ‘a fat cow no one would fuck anyway.’ I mean, seri-
ously? How childish!” Coco (43, married) added, “I’ve had every insult you
can imagine, but my most favorite was that I was a narcissist psychopath.”
After sending these hateful messages, the men then left feedback on the
women’s profile. Elizabet (26, partnered) said, “They do it immediately
afterward, like they want you to know it was them. Joke’s on you! I’ve had
ten guys today alone call me a bitch. So, could’ve been any of you!” Avery
(45, married) grew tired of the practice: “I’ve contacted AM to tell them they
need to remove that feature, or require my consent for someone to rate me.
They claim they can’t do it. And, you know, it’s a ‘service’ that members
enjoy. Riiiight.”
The feedback system and options appear geared toward the benefit of the
male members on the site. Further, they appear to have been written and
developed from a male perspective without concern for the potential hazards
to female members.
Often the delay in response was because the women were not online at the
time of the message’s delivery. Esme (31, partnered) explained, “I’ll log on
and see all these insulting messages, and the dumb thing is that if he hadn’t
worked himself up and attacked me, I would’ve been interested. But because
he assumed I’m tethered to my computer and invented a reason to be upset,
he missed out.” Other men could be provoked to leave feedback because he
deemed the women’s message to lack “enthusiasm” for him. Avery (45, mar-
ried) explained:

These men will get their feelings hurt because I don’t sound like I’m dying to
meet them and jump into bed. Seriously? You’re a STRANGER. And a bunch
of them don’t even have pics up, or just a pic of like their chest or something.
How enthusiastic can I be about a computer screen or a random chest? And then
they like to complain that women have unrealistic standards!

Coco (43, married) added:

The guy who thinks I’m a psychopath? My crime? I wasn’t falling all over
myself about this guy who was, in all likelihood, lying about his age by a solid
15 years. I mean, his picture looked like he’d been rode hard and put up wet.
And the clothing he was wearing [in the picture] was not the current style. So,
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 23

I’m pretty sure that was an old pic on top of that. Why would I be super excited
to talk to someone who’s probably catfishing me?

(The term “catfish” refers to someone who misrepresents themselves online.

Catfish typically use pictures of other more attractive people on their profile,
or older pictures of themselves, and they can misrepresent a number of things
about themselves [e.g., age, location, intent] in an effort to lure more people
into talking to them.) The women in this study approached vetting cautiously
and with awareness that people online are not always who they claim.
These stories of men’s bad behavior were extremely common, and, to the
women of this study, smacked of male entitlement. Elizabet (26, partnered)
added, “If his self-esteem is SO low that he needs me to sound like I’m des-
perate to have him inside me when we’re a dozen messages in, then he’s too
much drama for me.” Bobbie (33, married) echoed this sentiment, “It’s like
a little girl’s fantasy of being a fairy princess. He’s sitting over there ‘adore
me! Adore me!’ It’s exhausting, and not hot.” Coco (43, married) grew
pragmatic about it. She reasoned, “Hey, at least they’re weeding themselves
out. Less work for me.” In this arena, women were unwilling to endure
unpromising suitors. Time spent online vetting was time taken away from
primary relationships. Since even responding to indicate disinterest opens
her to this feedback—which can be seen by any other potential playmates
on the site—women must be as careful as possible about vetting men before
even responding to messages. Thus, the women attempted to read red flags
early and exercised self-protection by not responding to men they deemed
“trouble” at the onset.
When they deemed an initial email worthy of a response, women tended
to trade emails with the man for a period of weeks to months before deciding
whether to move to the next step: meeting in person. During these exchanges,
women reported seeking clues as to what the man actually sought from an
outside partner, as well as his sexual preferences. Women were seeking
men whose desires and schedules were compatible with theirs. Avery (45,
married) described her process: “I open talks with a series of very blunt
questions. I ask penis size, availability, what kind of association they are
looking for, what sex acts they enjoy. And that’s all in the first emails. Some
men are very put off by it. I figure, hey, they just took themselves out of
consideration. I’m a direct girl. If that bothers you, you’re not the guy for
me.” Coco (43, married) echoed this sentiment: “If his schedule, interests,
or what the good Lord blessed him with don’t align with my needs, then
there is no reason to waste time getting to know each other. So, those ques-
tions have to be answered first.” Bobbie (33, married) added, “This isn’t
personal. It’s about filling a specific opening. Either you’ve got the required
skills and traits, or you don’t.” Thus, discussions tended toward the graphic
24 Chapter 2

and explicit. These exchanges were important to allow women to determine

which men had more promise as a potential partner. If men expressed a desire
for sexual acts that did not interest the woman, or vice versa, the talks would
often end abruptly—no matter how attractive the man had seemed otherwise,
or how great the conversation up until that point had been. Erica (53, mar-
ried) explained, “Ultimately, this is about meeting certain sexual needs and
desires. A guy can be the nicest of the nice guys, but that doesn’t bring me to
orgasm, now, does it?” Women expressed a pragmatic approach to vetting.
They framed their perception of themselves, their potential partners, and their
experiences in economic terms and jargon. This market view of their outside
partnerships ran through the narratives like a thread connecting them. They
entered into these relationships much like contracts, and women were very
aware of their own waning value on the extramarital market.
Other times a man’s demeanor might result in the woman withdrawing
from the conversation without further comment. Conversation was brusquely
discontinued with men who came across as controlling, pushy, a know-it-all,
too whiny, or depressed. Likewise, women quickly pushed men who seemed
threatened by accomplished or educated women out of the “under consider-
ation” pool. Women reported that men they dismissed due to this trait often
reacted quite badly. Thus, the best approach was either to delete the message
without replying and block him, or if they simply had to respond (feedback
be damned) because of the egregiousness of his behavior, they had to block
him immediately afterward. Blocking had to occur soon enough to prevent
his response, which would undoubtedly be littered with personal attacks,
cruelty, and insults. Women kept a pool of potential playmates who were
“under consideration” because of the realization that even the guy who
seemed “perfect” could explode and reveal a truer, less desirable self at any
moment.
While vetting, woman each had their own preferences for what personal-
ity types they found attractive or unattractive in an outside partner. Many
women admitted that character traits that might be problematic in a primary
partner could be overlooked in an outside partner. For example, a potential
playmate’s job, earning potential, or financial stability were not concerns in
an outside partner. Some women specifically pointed out that honesty was not
a requirement. As Brinley (33, married) rationalized, “I already know that we
are both liars, so honesty is not on the table.” Other negative personality traits
could be ignored as well. Emma (51, married) explained, “My OPs [outside
partners] can be difficult people. I don’t spend enough time with them for
their disposition to matter.” Joy (34, married) described her partner: “Current
OP is a Catholic Republican. After the first time we had sex I said, ‘Well, I
guess I should tell you this now . . . I’m a member of the Green Party.’ And
he laughed. We get along fine.” But other personality traits were required.
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 25

Heather (33, partnered) added, “I need a guy (or girl) that I can have fun with,
be myself around.” Alyssa (24, partnered) said, “Someone who will laugh at
my jokes and tell me I am pretty.” However, the women were not without
standards. This was not an “anything goes” crowd. Joy (34, married) clarified,
“I do have boundaries. If a guy dropped the N-bomb that would be the end.”
Acceptable traits for outside partners varied from those of primary partners,
or those that these women might seek in organic dating.
Many women admitted that although they had a preferred physical “type,”
in their “real lives,” in their outside partners that could be overlooked. The
women were not asserting that looks did not matter. In fact, some of the
women in the sample spoke plainly of the importance of a clear physical
attraction to the outside partner. Sheila (41, married) explained, “Good looks
and physical attraction are more important since that’s really the purpose.”
Coco (43, married) added, “He’s got to get the juices following, otherwise
we’ll never end up in bed.” Avery (45, married) echoed the sentiment, “He
may not be my exact type, but he’s got to be attractive to me physically. If
he isn’t, then it’s all going to be forced. And that doesn’t exactly lead to an
orgasm.” Gemma (45, married) explained, “In my mind, if I’m cheating, it
better be worth it.” Still, some physical traits could be deal breakers. Coco
(43, married) elaborated, “More than once I’ve encountered a guy who was
initially suitable, even promising, but then I discover he removes all of his
body hair. That’s a no-go. I’m not looking for a little boy. I want a man.”
However, many women had outside partners, who were not at all their typi-
cal “type,” but with whom they had satisfying sexual encounters. Darcy (48,
married) explained, “That’s some of the fun: sampling from the parts of the
menu I wouldn’t normally order.” Coco (43, married) added, “There was
a guy who wasn’t my type at all. For one thing, he was all tattooed up and
pierced. I’m just not into that. But we clicked online, and then in person there
was serious heat. The sex was HOT. So, there can be surprises.” For some
women, this was part of the excitement of outside partnerships: variety. This
buttresses the work of Ryan and Jethá, who found that women are wired to
prefer variety (Ryan & Jethá, 2010). Our commonsense understandings of
sexuality permit us to imagine (and excuse) men’s desire for variety, but this
is not a concept we often permit for women. These women’s narratives chal-
lenge those taken-for-granted assumptions. For many of the women of this
sample, there was much value in experiencing variation in sexual partners.
All of the women in the sample desired to vet successfully to wind up with
a sexually talented outside partner. However, they all admitted that it was
impossible to vet sexual prowess solely based on conversation. As a result,
they had previously had bad sexual encounters with outside partners. Trudy
(33, married) put it best: “Getting someone bad in bed is a damn drastic
letdown.” Avery (45, married) added, “It is disappointing on multiple levels
26 Chapter 2

to have bad sex with one of these guys. First off, you’ve had bad sex! But
you’ve also wasted time: not just the time for sex itself, but all the weeks and
months you’ve spent contacting and vetting. It’s like ‘back to the drawing
board’ when that happens. You’re just kind of crestfallen and discouraged.”
Other women talked about the fact that not only can sexual prowess not be
determined ahead of time, sometimes they had to have sex with a potential
playmate more than once to be able to decide whether to bail on the associa-
tion. Darcy (48, married) explained, “The first time is never the best time.
It takes a few tries to learn someone’s body and responses and have them
learn yours.” Often we position women’s sexuality as more concerned with
connection than orgasm. We regard women’s interest in sex as emotional and
psychological first, pleasure second. However, the women in this study spoke
very clearly about the importance of orgasm and good sex.
If an outside partner continued to underperform, then the woman would
dump him unceremoniously and without sentimentality. Luciana (53, mar-
ried) described her current outside partner: “When we do get together, he
comes in about two minutes, and I wonder why I even bothered.” As a result,
she was back on Ashley Madison to find a better, more fulfilling outside part-
nership. Most of the women had endured less-than-stellar sexual experiences.
They regarded this as simply the price of the search. Coco (43, married)
summed it up:

I have honestly had the very worst sex of my life during this search. It is
extremely difficult to vet lovers virtually. Before the internet, I had honestly
never had bad sex. I always had at least a few orgasms every single time. Then
I find myself in a sexless marriage, having to find partners online. I mean, I can’t
shit where I eat to protect my family. So where else is there? Suddenly, I’m
enduring ALL this bad sex! It is rather frustrating to be honest. I look at these
men and think, “if I weren’t in this fucked up situation, I wouldn’t give you the
time of day. You only got this ass because I’m in this horrible situation.” And
the worst thing is? They don’t even know! They probably left thinking they are
just SO good in bed because they didn’t seem like they had ANY idea that I
didn’t have a good time. In fact, they’re usually shocked when I have no interest
in seeing them again. And the real tragedy of it all is that before my husband’s
issues, I had amazing sex with him. But because I chose to legally tie myself to
the love of my life, I’m relegated to this terribly shallow pool of men, most of
whom couldn’t fuck their way out of a wet paper bag.

Still Coco persisted in her search, as all of the women did. Many said they
simply tried not to dwell on the instances of bad sex, so that they could con-
tinue their search. As Avery (45, married) explained, “If I give up on this,
then I’d have to face the possibility that I can’t keep living like this. And
then I might have to go about the intensely sad task of dismantling my life,
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 27

and breaking my husband’s heart as well as my own.” Thus, while there was
always the potential of ending up in a bad hookup, the women in this study
did not see another choice for themselves.
Given these potential partners were strangers, the women always con-
sidered safety concerns when planning an initial meeting. Women reported
meeting men in public only after having spent time vetting them electroni-
cally. As Coco (43, married) explained, “It’s always in the back of my mind
when I’m setting up a coffee meet that, ‘this guy could be a serial killer. I
could end up dead someplace.’ So, safety is a concern, always.” It should also
be noted that many women chose coffee as an initial meet. Bobbie (33, mar-
ried) rationalized this decision: “Coffee is the perfect first meet. You aren’t
stuck waiting for a check from a busy waitress while you’re ready to chew
your own arm off to get away from someone. You can just abruptly get up
and leave. Hell, you can take your cup with you if you want! It’s low pressure
should I meet a guy who seems hinky or creepy.” Determining the where of
an initial meet was a strategic decision with safety convenience in mind.
Women dropped and blocked men whose behavior seemed erratic, control-
ling, or otherwise “off” in person. None of the women in the study reported
a face-to-face encounter resulting in violence or a threat to her safety, but
all acknowledged the fear of potential violence. While the women reported
encountering many impolite and verbally abusive men online (which will be
discussed in chapter 4), as well as meeting in person with many men who
were not-as-described, boorish, rude, or otherwise not to their liking, most
of the men the women chose to meet in person were simply other partnered-
people seeking something missing in their lives, and posed no physical threat.
Having been once-burned from selecting a primary partner who did not ulti-
mately meet their needs sufficiently, women undertook the vetting process
methodically and calculatingly. Despite these careful measures, women were
frequently disappointed with the performance and behavior of their outside
partners, resulting in the abrupt ending of the association (discussed further
in chapter 4).

SEARCHING FOR WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

Amid these carefully considered processes, which were always in a state of

refinement, there was a self-realization. As Molly (41, married) explained,
“I’m pickier now with outside partners than I was when I chose my hus-
band. I probably look for the things in my outside partner that I should have
looked for in my husband.” Twenty women in the study reported that they
were searching for traits in their outside partners that they then now believe
they should have sought in their primary partners. Helen (53, married) said,
28 Chapter 2

“I think with my spouse, I ‘settled.’” Many of them were now vetting partners
through a method they wish they had utilized when dating before getting mar-
ried. Molly (41, married) explained, “When I met my husband I was young
and was attracted by physical appearance. I wanted to share his interests to be
compatible with him. His interests were different from mine, but I thought I
was going to be able to add his interests to mine. It became a one-way street,
and I found that I gave up my interests.” Darcy (48, married) echoed this
sentiment:

I got pregnant and married at 18. I don’t think I knew what I was looking for,
life just kind of happened. The marriage stuck. We are very different though. He
never finished college, and although he has a good job, it is more of a job than
a career. He is also not much of a risk taker, and I guess I am. :-) In my outside
partners, the one defining characteristic [in outside partners] has been [that they
are] “successful.”

Outside partnerships represented a taste of a path not chosen. Andrea (35,

married) explained, “My husband and I are opposites when it comes to
personality for the most part. And I don’t know that there was a particular
criterion I had set for who I married. We just fell in love and got married,
nothing else really mattered.” By contrast, she vets carefully in her outside
partnerships. She said, “I look for someone who is more like myself person-
ality-wise.” Trudy (33, married) spoke about this as well:

I guess when I married my husband I was in love with him. Well, the idea of
him anyway. And by the time I figured out what I wanted in a husband, I had
already been married for a long time and had kids. So, I guess I look for in a
partner someone who I would like if I got to pick my husband now.

For these women, their lack of knowledge and skill in partner selection
resulted in unfortunate pairings that they now felt bound to remain. If they
were choosing a primary partner today, they would choose very differently.
Yet they did not want to go through the process of uncoupling and try their
hand in the marriage market again. Perhaps because they still doubted their
own mate-selection prowess. These narratives support previous studies that
found that a common justification given for infidelity was dissatisfaction with
their relationship and/or fear that they were with the wrong partner (Barta &
Kiene, 2005; Yeniceri & Kokdemier, 2006).
The exercise of participation in outside partners allowed these women to
experience other types of relationship dynamics, associations, and personali-
ties for themselves. Four of them married quite young, which may have cut
short their dating period, during which they may have gone through trial and
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 29

error experiences that might have resulted in making more calculated choices
in their primary partner. The women expressing this sense of having chosen
poorly valued the experience of “dating wiser” and vetting according to the
traits they now knew they preferred. Most lamented that in their youth and in
the prime of their participation in the marriage market, they did not yet have
a real sense of what traits would be most compatible and desirable to them.
Given the dearth of instruction on this process, it is not surprising that so
many people feel they have chosen poorly.

QUALITIES OF OUTSIDE PARTNERSHIPS

The women in this study described their outside partnerships in depth. While
the commonsense construction of affairs often positions women who partici-
pate in them as either next-husband-shopping or having fallen “in love,” the
women in this study challenge those ideas. The quality and composition of
their associations were varied and complex, but there were commonalities
among the participants as well.

“A Large Penis is Always Welcome!”

Ten of the women in the study spoke specifically about their primary part-
ner’s lack of genital size, specifically his lack of length. In this group, one
of the women had married what she intended to be a one-night stand after
an accidental pregnancy. Others had assumed “love” would work out the
sexual issues in the pairing. Still other women had married not realizing
that they preferred a larger penis. In fact, it was only through the exercise of
participating in outside partnerships that they discovered that size mattered.
Some women spoke of learning their own capability for orgasm during inter-
course only after encounters with a well-endowed outside partner. (They had
assumed themselves incapable of orgasm up until that experience, or at least
incapable of orgasm from intercourse alone.) Some of them had had well-
endowed partners before their current primary partner, but had not realized
the significance of size in terms of their pleasure until years after coupling
with their primary. They assumed themselves easily orgasmic and did not
recognize that, for them, their partner’s size played a critical role. Others
partnered with a previously well-endowed man whose health had rendered
the marriage sexless. Coco (43, married) explained:

I realize now that all of my previous partners were large guys, including hubby.
I guess since that’s all I had ever slept with. . . . Stupid, but I just never thought
about size because it was never an issue. There had always been enough dick
30 Chapter 2

before to get the job done. Just thought everyone had enough. I was young and
dumb. But I found out from finding partners online that that’s not true. The total
shock of seeing an average penis the first time was a lot. I mean, I think I cov-
ered it well, so I didn’t hurt his feelings. But, wow, so small. But, you know, I’m
digging him otherwise, right? We’re vibing. And the kissing was SO hot. So, I
go for it anyway. Yeah. That didn’t work out too well. In fact, every single time
I’ve been with an OP [outside partner] who is smaller, it has really just been a
waste of time for me. So, I’ve learned the hard way, that I need a longer penis.
That’s just how it is. Call me a size queen if you must. I’ll be over here smiling
with my multiple orgasms on that big stick!

For these women, the perspective of Atia of the HBO hit, Rome, who said, “A
large penis is always welcome!” holds true. This challenges previous work
claiming that women tend to not place importance on size (Eisenman, 2001),
or place significance primarily on girth (Lever, Frederick, & Peplau, 2006),
and buttresses the work of those who find a significant minority of women
care very much about penis size (Costa, Miller, & Brody, 2012; Francken,
Wiel, Driel, & Schultz, 2002).
These women wouldn’t even consider an outside partner who was not well-
endowed. Given the problems size was causing them at home, their resolve to
consider only outside partnerships with well-hung men made sense. Heather
(33, partnered) explained her criteria for an outside partner: “In an OP I want
(this sounds shallow) a big cock, stamina, knowledge of female anatomy, and
discretion.” For her, this was a much-needed break from her situation with
her primary partner, whose performance she described as: “He could barely
go for 5 minutes, or take a blowjob longer than 2 minutes. Coupled with the
small penis, it is pretty terrible.” For these women, their husband’s small
stature greatly compromised their sexual enjoyment. Shana (33, married) had
a similar situation at home. She explained:

My spousal unit’s entire stature, including his genitalia, is challenged in regards

to size and abilities. I may be comparing my spouse sexually to past relation-
ships and/or my current outside relationship on a sexual level that he will never
be able to reach/maintain because he is lacking in girth/length/skills and abili-
ties with his male genitalia. I understand it is not his fault that he is so small;
however, I also feel that it is not my fault that I cannot feel him. Why should I
be punished for his shortcomings?

After years of orgasmless sex, these women were simply uninterested in a

man whose genitalia was average to short in length. Several women pointed
out: “I’ve got that at home! Why would I go out for more of the same?” Since,
for these women, outside partnerships were a workaround to solve a specific
sexual deficit, they were strict about the physical requirements for the job.
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 31

For them, being able to get their sexual needs and preferences met while
keeping their complicated primary partnerships intact was a relief. They
spoke of not being able to endure in their marriages without this outlet. These
women shared that if they were shopping for a new primary partner today,
they would not consider anyone who was not well-endowed. There is much
public discourse disclaiming women’s interest in penis size. The common-
sense understanding of women and sex is that “penis size simply does not
matter” to women (e.g., “it’s not the size of the boat, but the motion in the
ocean”). Thus, this is a sentiment we are unaccustomed to hearing. It stands to
reason that a woman would only discover her preference (or even “need”) for
larger size after some experimentation with partners of various sizes. Given
that women are encouraged to keep their number of sexual partners low to
avoid being slut-shamed and to remain an attractive candidate for marriage,
as well as the prevalence of average and below penises in circulation, many
women may not get such an opportunity. For the women in this study, the
realization that size does indeed matter for them resulted in their unwilling-
ness to settle for anyone coming up short.

Rose-Colored Encounters
The women of this study were not naïve by any definition. None of them
labored under delusions of riding off into the sunset with their outside part-
ners. In fact, they spoke about a realization of the polished presentation of
self during the time outside partners are together. Twenty-five women in
the sample spoke specifically of their understanding that their time with the
outside partner was not reflective of what things would be like on a day-to-
day basis. Victoria (24, married) said, “I know it is real life and we are real
people dealing with real problems, but our relationship isn’t real per se.” Her
statement echoed the sentiments of many women in the study.
Just like a literal vacation, outside partnerships take place in a space that
isn’t representative of the reality of their lives. Erica (46, married) explained,
“It’s easy  because we have no responsibility toward each other, which is
probably the reason most relationships experience trouble: not living up to the
expectations of their spouse.” Many elements of the outside partnership give
it this unrealistic aura, which many women admitted allow the associations to
last longer than they would if the outside partners had more frequent contact
with one another. Women spoke of the fact that if these associations were
subject to more than the fleeting hours allotted to sexual play, things would
unravel quickly. Coco (43, married) explained, “Sharing a life with anyone
is a struggle. There are things to work out. I’m not stupid. These guys aren’t
wonderful and my husband isn’t terrible. In reality, my husband and I are
quite suited to one another, and these guys would annoy me to no end if we
32 Chapter 2

had to share a space.” These women realized that daily living with a partner
is a very different proposition than casual contact.
Not having to share a living space with an outside partner alleviates every-
day strain between outside partners. Cecilia (42, married) said, “You don’t
live with them so you don’t see all their gross habits; you don’t hear their
flatulence. You don’t have to do their laundry, hear about their sports teams
ad nauseam, or family issues.” Luciana (53, married) echoed this sentiment:
these partnerships do not “have to face the daily drudgery of bills, problems,
disagreements, and a growing list of topics you can’t agree on, so you never
bring up.” Day-to-day relationships, such as marriages, conducted in a shared
living space do not lend themselves to romance or the ability to imagine your
primary partner as “perfect.” These women were aware that the limited access
to their outside partners allowed them to see the men in the best possible light.
As Erica (53, married) pointed out, “Who can’t hold it together for a few
hours at time?” Coco (43, married) echoed that sentiment: “My goodness, if
he couldn’t seem great in the short amount of time we spend together, he’d
have to be really messed up. And he probably thinks I’m great, and the real-
ity is sometimes I’m a real pain in the pants.” Other women recognized that
outside partners were merely a poor substitute for their primary partners, and
that they absolutely preferred their primary partner. The need for sex/orgasms
alone drove those women into another bed. Avery (45, married) explained, “I
would never date any of these men seriously. None of them are half the man
I have at home. If he were functioning sexually, I wouldn’t bother. If I were
single, I’d be off AM [Ashley Madison] in a heartbeat. I’d just date regular
guys. None of the guys on the site are great catches.” These narratives chal-
lenge the positioning of women’s affairs as “emotional” rather than sexual,
as well as the notion that women “fall in love” with outside partners. These
women enjoyed the time spent with outside partners, but were not left pining
for them to ride in on a White horse and sweep them away into the sunset.
Rather, they saw these men as quite human, fallible, flawed, and not suitable
for full-time relationship partners.
Luciana (53, married) pointed out that outside partnerships are trapped in
the courtship phase: “It’s the exciting process of getting to know someone
new and seeing him at his best.” The outside partnerships spent a long time
suspended in the courtship phase, where both parties were wooing the other.
Vanda (65, married) spoke about this as well: “It’s not as difficult for each
partner to give me complete attention [when they interact], since they don’t
spend all their free time with me.” Coco (43, married) added to this: “The
attention they lavish on me, who wouldn’t want that? Some days my husband
can barely muster up a response to me, but my OP is constantly contacting
me and telling me I’m beautiful, can’t wait to see me again.” They were all
seeking an outside partner who brought excitement and exhilaration to their
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 33

lives. Jordan (34, married) explained, “I’m looking for that feeling when you
first meet someone, and your heart is all jibbly, and your stomach is all wob-
bly, and every time they touch you about jump out of your skin.” Lori (30,
married) echoed the sentiment, “I have never been kissed the way my outside
partner kisses me.” It is not difficult to grasp the appeal of the intoxicating
early courtship phase.
Many women ended outside partnerships when they ceased to function in
that heady phase. The limited time outside partners spent together created the
conditions under which they could present their most desirable, likeable self
to the women in the study—and vice versa. While the social construct is that
women get swept up in a fantasy presentation of the early stages of getting
to know someone and courtship, the women in this study were cognizant of
those conditions. In fact, they sought out those conditions and managed their
outside partnerships in a way so as to keep that exhilarating phase going
as long as possible. They maintained outside partnerships fully aware that
if they were to turn an outside partnership into a primary one, the things
about the association they valued would likely be lost, or outweighed by the
negative dynamics created in a shared living space. For these women, the
association worked because the relationship remained suspended in the realm
of “best behavior” and fantasy. The women were already aware from being
married or partnered in a long-term living arrangement that sharing a space
and a life increases how much you know about someone, and that includes the
good and the bad. Limited access to outside partners meant they never saw
things that would serve as a “turn off” because their brief time together was
scheduled, giving both parties time to prepare their most attractive presenta-
tion. Avery (45, married) said, “He doesn’t wake up looking and smelling
that good, and it takes me a couple hours to look like the gorgeous woman I
am when I see him.” The women’s narratives were absent accounts of being
swept away by the fantasy of the affair. They realized that this was a fantasy
they scheduled for themselves.
Ten of the women in this study also recognized that the street ran both
ways: while their outside partner was presenting his best self, so were they
themselves. Marta (61, married) explained, “I’m on my best behavior. I don’t
bitch or complain. But the time you spend together is so short, everyone is
perfect when together. No talk about paying bills, cleaning the house, etc.”
Thus, just as the outside partners were on their best behavior, the women
were also engaging in impression management. They were self-policing
what they shared and how they acted. Certain behaviors were absolutely
off-limits in front of the outside partner. Joy (34, married) said, “I’d say
we keep an element of fantasy in the form of mystique. I don’t pee or fart
in front of him. I don’t tell him what I’ve done to get ready for our dates. I
was just born this good looking!! We maintain the playful/flirtatious banter
34 Chapter 2

that has an expiration date.” Trudy (33, married) said, “The person they want
doesn’t even really exist. Just in my mind and their imagination. I have to put
out some serious effort to be the person they got to know.” But as she also
pointed out: “If they were the perfect guy, they wouldn’t need me. Probably
if I talked to their wives they would say the same shit about them that I say
about mine. So, really, the person I get attached to doesn’t even exist either.”
The women of this sample realized the entire outside partnership functions
as a fantasy space. Both parties are being the self they could be, but a self
that could not realistically be maintained in close quarters around the clock.
During the brief time they were together, both the women and their outside
partners brought a more interesting self to play, and left their less desirable
selves at home. Cecilia (42, married) pointed out the benefits of the limited
contact with her outside partners. She explained, “Same goes for me with
them and their spouses. The other partners do not have to deal with my bath-
room breaks, ‘time of the month,’ the flu (seriously), pharyngitis, sinus infec-
tions, my absolute delight with makeup and hair products, my obsession with
Brooks Brothers clothes, etc.” Trudy (33, married) added to that sentiment.
She described herself as: “I am beyond White. But I like rap music. And I
say ‘Yo’ and ‘Gangsta’ a lot. But like in the I-drive-a-minivan-and-my-kid-
wears-preppy-clothes-but-I’m-fun kind of way???” She went onto to explain
that her outside partners might not appreciate these things about her. “These
guys may think they want me all the time. But the reality is they are just like
me. I want the dick, but not the shit that goes with it.” For these women, the
bounded relationship with the outside partner created a mystique and a level
of anticipation impossible to maintain in a shared life where partners become
privy to the other’s routines, eccentricities, and habits.
The women recognized that the phase of heightened excitement, flirty ban-
ter, and idealized presentation could not last forever. True intimacy does not
permit us to continue presenting an idealized presentation. For the women,
this idealized presentation included emphasized femininity (discussed fur-
ther in chapter 3). Inside outside partnerships, the women were continually
presenting themselves at their most beautiful, sexual, and available. In the
women’s primary partnerships, both partners were aware of the more mun-
dane things about one another. The women and their primary partners were
privy to the backstage of one another’s life, where the less attractive self
dwells. They saw the beauty routines, grooming, hair removal, and upset
stomachs. Thus, there was no mystery or space for imaging the other party as
perfect. By contrast, with their outside partners, both parties present all front
stage performances, and performing only their front stage self was part of the
fun. Outside partnerships functioned as spaces of dress up and pretend, where
they dusted off and put into action their most optimal selves. The women real-
ized that the intimacy of “real life” does not permit extended performance of
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 35

an idealized self. More often than not, you see your primary partner’s back
stage, and he yours.
Even when an outside partnership was treasured, there was an underly-
ing realization that the magic was unsustainable. The women realized that
the limited ability to see one another helped create and continue the magic
between their outside partners and themselves, but even with that buffer in
place eventually the enchantment would dissolve. It was only a question of
when. Thus, while they enjoyed the results of this bounded relationship, they
remained unseduced by its excitement and heady quality. They recognized
that if the relationship changed so that they spent more consecutive hours
together, or shared a living space, then so would their impression of their
outside partner—and likely, his impression of them as well. They knew well
that the drudgery of shared daily life wears on the excitement of the marriage
and one’s idealized view of their partner. Outside partnerships are absent that
toil. For these women, the very fact that these outside partnerships functioned
as a space of unreality meant they served as a break from the challenges and
disappointments of unmet needs in their primary partnership and their “real
lives” (discussed further in chapter 4).
The recognition that turning an outside partner into a primary partner
would only destroy the positives of the association was among the common
reasons to stick with their primary partner. Nearly all of the women in the
study desired remaining in their primary partnerships for the rest of their
lives; only eight women in the sample expressed a desire or plan to extricate
themselves at some point in the future. The reasons given for keeping pri-
mary partnerships intact included the desire to have their children living with
both parents; financial stability; and shared social ties. However, the primary
stated reason was “I love him.” While it may seem curious that these women
would plan to remain with a primary partner with whom sex was absent or not
satisfying, several women explained that although sex was important enough
to seek outside partners, it was not everything. Joy (34, married) said, “There
are so many things that need to fall into place when choosing a life partner.
I don’t want to throw it all away because of one sliver of the pie.” Among
these women, there was a recognition that a marriage is many parts, and while
going without sex was not something they were willing to do, trading all that
their primary partners had to offer simply for good sex was also not on the
table. These women were unwilling to toss the dice a second time on marriage
and risk ending up with a lesser hand than the one they currently held.
For the eight women who planned at some point to leave their primary
partnerships, they cited financial concerns and anxieties regarding the effect
upon their children as reasons they had not yet exited the primary relation-
ship. The recognition that their outside partnerships were at their best within
these bounded spaces prevented the women from imagining a future where
36 Chapter 2

they exited their primary partnerships to form new lives with their outside
partners.

Boundaries Make Good Outside Partnerships

One of the strategies the women of this sample used to navigate their outside
partnerships was to specify rules and boundaries. These boundaries served
as both an attempt at redefining commitment within their primary partner-
ships, and an effort at self-protection. The boundaries clearly defined that the
women would not be leaving their primary partnerships for the outside part-
ner. Frequency of contact, how much information was exchanged, and what
topics (e.g., the primary partnership) were off-limits all bounded their “real
lives” from the outside partnerships. The other lines for these boundaries
hinged upon what was missing from their primary partnership. For the bulk
of the women in this study, whose primary partnership was lacking sexually,
outside partnerships were focused on sex; “love” within those associations
was taboo.

Sex Only; Hold the Mushy Stuff

Twenty-five of the women in the study spoke at length about the importance
of vetting partners for a lack of emotional attachment equal to “love.” To
be clear, these women’s purpose in seeking an outside partner was purely
sexual. Their desire in limiting emotional attachment was specific to making
sure no one “fell in love.” These women were in love with and/or loved their
primary partner, and had no interest in expending unnecessary emotional
energy in outside partners, whose sole purpose was to fill sexual gaps. Having
an outside partner fall in love with them, or vice versa, would serve only as
a complication in their already complex lives. They sought out affairs solely
to fill a sexual need.
These women did at times develop the intimacy of friendship and cama-
raderie with their outside partners. If they met someone with whom they
developed a caring friendship, they viewed that as an unexpected benefit.
Friendship, trust, and camaraderie were not a source of concern. However,
that was not the purpose of their search. For the participants, there was a
clear distinction between “intimacy” and “connection,” and “love.” This is a
nuanced distinction, but an important one. The women recognized that having
a connection to an outside partner—feeling that they could confide in them,
and trust them, and even have a friendship with them—was conducive to
good sex within these associations. However, for these women, the line that
should not be crossed if their “real lives” were to remain intact was “falling
in love.” The women in this study clearly delineated emotional connection,
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 37

friendship, and intimacy from their more dangerous cousin, “love.” In their
minds, falling in love with an outside partner or having him fall in love with
them would be disastrous. After all, if the goal of the outside partnership is to
allow her to remain in the primary partnership, there is no room for falling “in
love” with the outside partner. Doing so would create untenable conditions,
where extremely difficult choices might be forced.
The narratives consistently referred to avoiding “emotions,” but that was
actually a euphemism for avoiding “falling in love.” (This phrase should
not be interpreted as a desire to keep their outside partnerships as one-time
encounters, or a desire for encounters with total strangers.) Luciana’s (53,
married) first outside partner limited their contact, which she believed was
done out of a fear “that he might get emotionally attached to me.” She later
found a different partner, whom she described as: “single, but doesn’t want
a committed relationship. He just wants to have fun, and has no problems
with his conscience since he’s unattached. That makes the experience much
more satisfying for both of us.” Generally speaking, she had concerns and
vetted carefully because, as she explained, “the men I sleep with actually get
addicted to me.”
While this may read as arrogant or conceited, Luciana spoke of this qual-
ity as though it was mysterious to her. Further, her description of herself was
anything but arrogant: “I am not a great beauty.” Her explanation for men’s
response to her was that it was first genetic: “I must have inherited some
of the charisma my mother had (and she had it in spades).” But she then
explained that it likely stemmed from her approach to the men in her life. “I
think what they like is the fact that I don’t put pressure on them, I am sexually
uninhibited, and I always build them up by saying encouraging things.” She
even extended this attitude toward her husband: “Even though my husband is
being somewhat neglectful, I always try to build him up and never criticize
him.” [Luciana’s marriage was sexless, and doctors diagnosed her husband
with low testosterone, but then told him this was “normal,” and due to aging.
Thus, he was not treated. However, the doctors credited his lack of interest in
sex on this condition.] Luciana’s experience with outside partners provided
validation of her appeal and worth as a sexual and romantic partner, but she
limited associations purposefully, and chose men who could serve a sexual
purpose in her life. She made sure things did not progress beyond that.
Maintaining enough emotional space began with careful partner selection.
Priscilla (37, married) laid out her vetting requirements: “I make sure to steer
clear of the men essentially wanting second wives; I have no interest in filling
an emotional void.” Proper vetting of outside partners was critical to prevent
emotional complications. Helen (53, married) explained the necessity of her
“no emotion” vetting. She remarked, “I can’t be with someone who is ‘needy.’
THAT would complicate my life!!” She went on to explain that aside from
38 Chapter 2

a daily “thinking of you” or “hello” text, “they don’t complicate my life and
I don’t think I complicate theirs.” There was a clear, recognized importance
to the act of limiting the emotional entanglement between themselves and
outside partners. Regina (38, married) explained the bounds of her outside
partnership: “While we may go out, our time together is typically spent in
sexual activity.” Other women echoed this sentiment. Luciana (53, married)
said, “I hold myself to that standard: I don’t get emotionally involved with
anyone else; it’s just sex.” Priscilla (37, married) put it simply: “I strongly
identify with an approach to sex stripped of sentimentality.” Finding a man
who was clear on these boundaries was an important task for these women.
Heather (33, married) explained, “I try to find guys who won’t be clingy, and
just want great sex.” Ensuring that outside partnerships remained firmly out
of the realm of “love” was important to these women.
Alyssa (24, partnered) approached her outside partners similarly, prefer-
ring casual and light to anything heavy. “I ended up joining AM because I
wanted someone who would not try to lock me down.” The allure of a site
where most of the members were married, or interested in someone married,
held great appeal for these women. Andrea (35, married) had a strict “no
emotion” rule as well. [Again, defined as “no love,” not “no friendship.”]
She explained that two men she had met elsewhere “fell in love” with her
and that complicated things: “One that even left his wife for [me]. Some
thought I too would leave my husband for them. I decided I should probably
go to a place where the ROEs [rules of engagement] are pretty clear from the
go.” Establishing clarity of the purpose and scope of the relationship before
embarking upon it was important to women who had previous experience
with misunderstandings regarding the capacity of the association. These
women sought bounded relationships from which they drew benefits. For
them, an emotional entanglement akin to “love” added complication, stress,
and strife. Given that the intended role of outside partnerships was to be a
space where the women could relax, let go, and have fun, they had no use for
emotionality within them.
The women reporting this viewpoint were very opposed to what they
deemed “unnecessary” emotional attachment. Thus, emotional proclama-
tions or constant texting/emailing/phone calls did not litter their outside
partnerships. The emotional intensity of these associations was low. When
we consider the circumstances driving these women to seek outside partners,
this was a reasonable approach. In their primary partnerships, their needs
were not met, but they felt compelled to stay. Part of the reason most stay
was “love.” “Falling in love” with an outside partner could create yet another
dynamic where they felt obligated to remain. Just as a primary partner had
stopped meeting all of their needs, the women realized their outside part-
ners could one day as well. Given their histories, their practice of avoiding
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 39

putting themselves in another situation where they felt emotional obligation

to stay makes sense. Their intention for their outside partnerships was to
permit them to remain in those primary partnerships, and avoid the stigma of
divorce. Considering the toll of “love” in their primary partnerships, falling
“in love” with an outside partner would be a catastrophe. This challenges
cultural assumptions about women’s nature in general and what they want in
relationships more specifically. For these women, such a complication could
jeopardize their primary partnerships.
The reasoning for avoiding emotional [love] attachments was often just the
desire to reduce complications, but five women distinctly stated they had no
interest in emotional attachments because emotion and sex do not have to be
tied. Jamie (34, married) described herself as, “one of those rare women that
has the sex drive of a man.” Luciana (53, married) added, “If you come home
from work and there’s no food, you go out to dinner. You don’t get emotion-
ally attached to the restaurant and go there every day. Sex is a need and a
physiological function like eating or sleeping. I have no problem separating
the physical and the emotional.”
Georgie (39, partnered) explained, “If sex were in the Olympics, I would
watch.” Joy (34, married) echoed the sentiment, “Sex is like cooking. I like
to cook. I like to eat great food.” But she didn’t want to eat the same meal
all the time, or go home with the chef. This challenges existing stereotypes
about women and their attitudes toward sex. The commonsense positioning
of women’s extra-relational connections is as an attempt to meet emotional
needs. The bulk of women in this sample challenge that understanding.
These findings challenge studies claiming that women expect and desire
an emotional attachment prior to sex, and that women value the emotional
connection of outside partnerships above the sexual element (Atkins et al.,
2005; Barta & Kiene, 2005; Træen & Stigum, 2007). However, it supports
the findings of Edwards, Barber, and Dziurawiec (2013) that the party who
is more emotionally invested in the relationship has less power (Edwards,
Barber, & Dziurawiec, 2014). Some of the women in this study wielded
their own emotional divestment as a weapon of power, and were careful
not to entangle themselves with men who seemed inclined to emotional
investment themselves. This supports Hatfield’s (1984) research on the risk
of intimacy (Hatfield, 1984). The danger in being intimate with another
person includes shame of judgment and abandonment, but also that some-
one may be able to use their knowledge of us to hurt us. In the case of
these women, revealing too much to an outside partner could threaten the
very fabric of their lives should that person decide to tell their husband.
Overall, clearly bounded relationships prohibiting emotional connection
enabled women to keep a balance between their “real lives” and their fun
with outside partners.
40 Chapter 2

There was a self-protection element for most of the women who took this
approach. Cecila (42, married) pointed out: “The distinction between sex and
love needs to be made to protect oneself from being hurt emotionally.” For
the women in this sample, love was treacherous, and synonymous with hurt
feelings and loss. Their experiences with their primary partnerships, which
for many were a site of hurt as a result of love, colored their approach to out-
side partnerships. The person who loved them most had failed to meet their
needs. They had no faith that someone else would not do that as well. Their
approach also protected them from becoming vulnerable, and protected their
families. Limited emotional connection meant no risk for getting “confused”
and leaving their primary partner. After all, staying with the primary partner
was the initial goal of seeking outside partners initially. Their experiences
echo those of clients of sex workers whose sexual lives are more easily and
honestly managed as a straightforward financial arrangement (Pitts, Smith,
Grierson, O’Brien, & Misson, 2004).
Since the women in this study were committed to remaining in their pri-
mary partnership for the rest of their lives or for the foreseeable future, they
negotiated these outside relationships in such a way so as to ensure they could
continue to function in their “real” lives. As a result, outside partners simply
could not occupy so much space that they jeopardized the primary partner-
ship. Such an arrangement was just not feasible. Doing so meant failing to
live up to their redefinition of commitment to their primary partner. Their
love was reserved for their primary partner. Only sex could be shared with
their outside partner, not love and devotion.
Finding good sex was paramount, especially for those going without at
home. And many of them were acutely aware of how much they were miss-
ing out. Trudy (33, married) said, “Yeah, I get all agitated when any woman
tells me about their awesome ass sex life. I tell myself ‘that bitch wishes she
was getting it like that.’ LMAO. It does make you feel left out.” Vivi (46,
married) echoed that sentiment: “I have always wanted good sex, satisfying
sex.” Lori (30, married) added, “Everywhere you look, on magazine covers,
on television, in movies, everything seems to be screaming that sex should
always be passionate and awesome.” Shana (33, married) explained, “The
illusion of great sex is everywhere. I am an AVID reader. I read over 200
romance books last year. And all of those books have a love scene that isn’t
plausible. But I do believe most people enjoy sex with their partner. I want to
at least enjoy it. Otherwise it’s like eating something you dislike just because
it’s on your plate.” Shelia (41, married) pointed out that all the focus on sex
has an impact: “It becomes a ‘holy grail’ to be sought.” And Marlo (46, mar-
ried) added, “I believe that others are having better sex than I am.” And many
of them had memories of previous sexual experiences that reminded them of
the fact that better sex was out there and could be had. Brinley (33, married)
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 41

explained, “I expect sex to be mind-blowing ridiculous out-of-this-world,

insane. That is what I had before I was married. It is what makes me happy;
it is what I know is possible every single time and I expect as much.” Amanda
(38, married) reiterated that attitude as well. “I’ve experienced the euphoric
feeling before and definitely want to relive it again so I strive to find a partner
that can deliver.” Coco (43, married) described her situation poignantly: “I
ache with the longing for good sex. Some days I wish I’d never had it, so I
wouldn’t know what I was missing out on now. What’s that saying? It’s the
having of a thing and its loss that makes you bitter? I feel like I’m hovering
on becoming bitter.” Their friends’ tales of terrific sexual experiences with
their primary partners exacerbated the women’s frustration with their less-
than-stellar sexual lives in their primary partnerships.

Some Need the “Mushy Stuff”

Nine of the women in the study specifically sought out emotional attachments
in their outside partnerships. In these narratives, emotional does not neces-
sarily mean “love.” But it does mean intense emotional connections. These
women desired a closer connection with their outside partners to compensate
for the lack of intimacy in their primary partnership. Their vetting process
weeded out those men who were only interested in sexual associations. Marta
(61, married) explained that she vets for this quality in an outside partner:
“Will he be able to give me the emotional and physical fulfillment?” For
these women, involvement with a man who was only seeking a sexual con-
nection was a sure path to hurt feelings, and ultimately only mimicked what
they already had at home. Molly (41, married) explained, “I think all my
nurturing of the children had filled a place of intimacy that I didn’t feel with
my husband . . . [primary partner] would get very angry when I didn’t want
to have sex. Call me names. Make me cry.” She wanted to avoid a similarly
unpleasant experience with an outside partner. Erica (46, married) spoke of
her desire for the relationship to “go deeper than what it is” but her outside
partner’s refusal to “allow it to go that direction.” She internalized this as a
rejection of her, much like her primary partner’s rejection and withholding.
Although sexual fulfillment was still an important facet of the relationship,
the emotional fulfillment they sought took priority over the sexual aspect in
terms of their partner vetting. Molly’s (41, married) outside partnership fills
an intimacy and emotional deficit in her life, and that’s what she wanted.
She described their relationship: “We try to see each other for lunch or a
walk in the park to just connect once a week to keep each other nurtured and
email or call multiple times a day in between.” Erica (46, married) spoke of
her intention when seeking an outside partner. She said, “One of the things
I love about our relationship is the sex, and that is true. But it wasn’t what I
42 Chapter 2

was looking for. I was looking for someone to care about me: the thing that
hurt most about (and was missing from) my marriage.” Allison (33, married)
explained her longest outside partnership began as an emotional connection.
They exchanged their real names and even friended one another on multiple
social media outlets. She said, “Our relationship was very deep and emotional
and I found myself thinking about him all the time.” Although they are now
no longer sexually involved due to schedule changes, she explained, “We are
still in contact through Facebook, so we were still a part of each other’s daily
lives.” For these women, the intense, caring friendship was the most impor-
tant aspect of the outside partnership. While “love” may not be an accurate
for the emotional attachment, it is certainly on the spectrum of that emotion.
For some women, their primary partnerships seemed fine until they
encountered a man who made them realize there were significant emotional
deficits. Esme (31, married) described this realization: “I was unaware that
my marriage was lacking emotional intimacy” until she met a man and “we
started seeing each other several times a week. It was very emotionally inti-
mate: we were revealing things about our lives that we had told few people,
if not no one.” It was only through the presence of an example of “what could
be” that her primary partnership’s shortfalls were made obvious. But now that
she knew what she could have, vetting for an outside partner who was seeking
the same thing was essential to her search.
However, the emotional element of these associations took a toll on the
women who did engage in emotional connections with outside partners.
Allison (33, married) spoke of being “heartbroken” when these partnerships
ended, and living in a state of “missing” her outside partner. Additionally, she
resented and struggled with her “limited access” to them. Her current outside
partner made her feel “alive when I am with him,” but she saw him so rarely
that the rest of her life was lived in suspension, waiting to feel alive again.
Molly (41, married) spoke of “depression,” “despair,” and “disappointment”
when she was not with the outside partner, or when plans fell through or
schedules became too crowded for a meeting. Likewise, Gabrielle (44, mar-
ried) talked of the “torment” of being parted from her outside partner, as well
as living with the knowledge that they can never be together despite being
so in love. Erica (46, married) expressed tremendous concern and emotional
turmoil stemming from her belief that her outside partner may have other
outside partnerships in addition to her. This thought distressed her greatly and
caused her much anxiety. Additionally, she described a life where most of her
energy was spent thinking about or preparing for a meeting with her outside
partner. She had taken up 5 a.m. trips to the gym to stay fit, and described an
instance where she shut her hand in a car door accidentally because she was
distracted with thoughts of her outside partner. Marta (61, married) spoke
of constant worry regarding when the relationship might end. For these nine
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 43

women, outside partnerships were not solely for sex, although they included
what the women described as great sex. The biggest thing they were looking
for was someone to fill an emotional need. However, these outside partner-
ships were more difficult to navigate, and more likely to bring hurt feelings,
much like their primary partnerships. Additionally, the women seeking them
were in the minority in this sample.
It is also worth noting that those nine women reporting a desire for an
emotional connection with their outside partner also described inequitable
primary partnerships. They described emotionally disconnected primary part-
ners. Some even detailed primary partners who were prone to name-calling,
and unkind comments about their bodies, sexual preferences, or personali-
ties. The nine women who pursued emotional connections sought emotional
refuge within their outside partnerships, but navigating outside partnerships
was exponentially more complicated. They were open to love with an outside
partner, but at minimum required a much more emotional attachment with an
outside partner than the bulk of the women in this sample. However, falling
in love with someone was also very dangerous for these women.
By contrast, the women who strictly limited their partnerships to sexual
associations described primary partnerships that, while lacking in sexual sat-
isfaction, were otherwise happy relationships. Thus, the state of the women’s
primary partnerships drove the decision to limit outside partnerships to sex
or to seek emotional intimacy. In both groups, the women were bounding
their relationships in an effort to meet the needs left unmet by their primary
partnership, and in an effort to redefine their roles and commitment in their
primary partnership. For some women, “love” was reserved for their primary
partnership. That’s what being a “wife,” “girlfriend,” or “fiancée” meant. For
women who sought emotional intimacy with their outside partners, their com-
mitment became defined solely by their decision to stay within their primary
partnership. Their engagement in both sex and emotional intimacy with an
outside partner did not, in their minds, threaten their commitment to their pri-
mary partnership. For this small group of women, the emotional ties with their
outside partner did not weaken their resolve to stay with their primary partner.
Most of the women in the study spoke of purposefully limiting emotional
bonds between themselves and their outside partners, which challenges both
conventional wisdom and research showing that women must “fall in love” in
order to have extramarital sex. The small group of women seeking emotional
connections in this sample support the work of Glass and Wright (1985),
which posited that extramarital affairs enact the same-sex roles as premarital
and marital relationships—specifically, that men are more sexual and women
more emotional (Glass & Wright, 1985). The authors’ findings showed that
in extramarital relationships women valued emotional connection over sexual
events. However, the study sample overall challenges these findings.
44 Chapter 2

Boundaries are Not Made to be Broken

Three of the women in the sample who sought outside partnerships solely
for sexual associations and specifically vetted partners for an ability and
willingness to limit relationships emotionally reported having experienced
a miscalculation. Blake (35, married) described her secret to maintaining
emotion-free associations: “I think it helps that I’ve never had a problem
separating sex and love.” However, even she once experienced an error. She
explained, “I did fall in love with a man I met through AM, but that recently
ended. Didn’t mean for it [falling in love with him] to happen since I always
had the mindset of going into these affairs for pure physical satisfaction and
not emotional attachment.” As a result, Blake came out of that affair wiser
and more cautious. She expressed an even stronger commitment to not having
an emotional [love] attachment with an outside partner. True, she originally
desired no emotional [love] connection to outside partners, but her apprecia-
tion of such an arrangement increased once she misstepped and “fell for” an
outside partner.
This is the underbelly of the desire for caution in terms of emotional con-
nections with outside partners. While having their outside partner “fall” for
them threatens their ability to maintain the two worlds they occupy (their
“real life” and their “play time”), falling for their outside partner is even
more dangerous. It threatens their locus of self-control and ability to balance
their outside partner and primary partner. Further, it threatens the balance of
power in the outside relationship. This is especially true if they “fall” and the
outside partner, who initially also agreed the relationship should be free from
emotional entanglements, did not also “fall” for them. This was further com-
plicated for women who felt sexually or emotionally rejected by their primary
partners. Not only were they dealing with feelings of rejection in their “real
lives,” they were navigating the same experience in their fantasy life.
Marlo (46, married) had an unintended emotional experience as well,
­having recently found herself in love with an outside partner. For Marlo, her
commitment to sex-only associations was challenged when a former partner
from 20 years prior (previous to her current primary partner) showed back
up in her life. Their previous relationship had been a monogamous and emo-
tional one. “We shared a strong connection then, true love, but it didn’t work
out into something permanent.” His reappearance in her life complicated mat-
ters. She remarked, “Other outside partnerships I had prior were strictly for
sex and not love, so this is an exceptional situation for me to be in.” Marlo’s
decision to seek outside partners on Ashley Madison was not one she made
lightly. She explained, “I reached the decision after much pondering, turmoil,
and soul searching before proceeding with breaking my marriage vows. I
tried marriage counseling with 2 different counselors and let it be known that
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 45

my needs and wants were not being met within the marriage before reaching
that decision to go outside.” These women did not step into outside partner-
ships on a whim. They agonized over the decision, and tried other avenues
of relief first.
Until her ex’s reappearance, Marlo’s solution had worked well for her, and
she could not imagine her life without it. In fact, she believed without these
outside partnerships, her marriage would not make it. “If I had to remain
monogamous, it would make me look more closely at divorce.” Although
prior to his reentry in her life, she had sought out strictly physical associa-
tions, this man’s reappearance created an entirely different dynamic for her.
She elaborated, “Now that we’ve recently reconnected, all those old feel-
ings returned and then some as we have found out how similar a path our
lives have taken, how we both never forgot the other, and how we wish we
could be together all the time.” For the woman who has previously avoided
emotional [love] outside partnerships, falling for an outside partner, who
has also fallen for her was uncharted territory. Marlo’s approach had always
been to maintain emotional distance, but a previous lover coming into the
picture upended her rules. Blake had a misstep with an outside partner she
met on Ashley Madison, and afterward she returned to her mindset of emo-
tional detachment with a renewed commitment. Marlo, however, was deeply
embedded in the current sexual and emotional affair with her ex.
In addition to her general practice of avoiding an association with men
who desired emotional [love] connection, Darcy (48, married) talked about
the need to remain emotionally uninvolved with specific partners. She said,
“During sex with my kinky, dominant lover, I am submissive, but outside of
bed I am aloof and fairly disengaged with him. He is too scary to get emo-
tionally entangled with.” For Darcy, this man represented an opportunity to
fall into an emotional [love] connection, but she self-policed because he was
“too scary.” Outside of this possible temptation, she too eschewed emotional
[love] entanglement, an approach many women reported as working for them.
Likewise, Georgie (53, married) had always sought sex-only outside part-
nerships as well. Her criteria for the last 20 years were always “someone I
liked and seemed to have a sexual chemistry with.” But she was paying the
price for the emotional connection she had with her current outside partner.
Her description belied the effort spent to try to deny her feelings. “I work very
hard to keep my emotions in check. It would get very complicated if I fell in
love with the outside partner.” Yet she was unsuccessful. “I do have feelings
for my outside partner, but neither of us would break up our marriages as
they stand currently.” While she was clear that neither party would ever con-
sider “tearing our lives apart to be together,” the relationship continued. She
described it as “an emotional bond,” a rarity for a woman with two decades
of experience in keeping things strictly sex only. Georgie’s (53, married)
46 Chapter 2

commitment to seeking sex-only outside partnerships was challenged by her

own inability to police and manage her emotions. She could not bring herself
to admit she was falling “in love” with an outside partner. So, she instead
couched it as “feelings,” but she was very conscious of the danger her emo-
tions posed. The boundaries enacted by the women seeking sex-only outside
partnerships also worked to protect the women because they limited their
vulnerability to being exposed by their outside partner, and the possibility of
“falling for” the outside partner. Doing so shifted the balance of power within
the outside partnership, left her vulnerable to hurt and rejection, and made
staying in her primary partnership much harder.
Ultimately, these strategies of the women—whether they focused outside
partnerships on sex alone or emotional intimacy—were designed to ensure
their needs were met in these outside partnerships, unlike their primary
partnerships, which were sites of disappointment and self-sacrifice. They
carefully negotiated the boundaries of their outside partnerships prior to any
initial face-to-face meeting with potential outside partners. Finding a partner
who wanted the same thing they did was challenging and time-consuming,
but vital to success.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELORS

These narratives clearly show that once these women tasted the fruit of mul-
tiple partners they wanted more. For the women in this study whose primary
partnerships lacked sexual fulfillment, outside partnerships functioned as
a welcomed workaround. Once they experienced the positive effects and
release they could bring into their lives, they were unwilling to give them
up. The common approach to treating couples where there is infidelity hinges
upon asking the “cheating” partner to end the outside relationship. Many
women in this study were in primary partnerships with a sexual disconnect
(e.g., incompatibility in desire of frequency or incompatibility in desired
activities or style), or in sexless/orgasmless primary partnerships, and were
thusly unwilling to end their participation in outside partnerships. These
findings challenge our commonsense understandings of infidelity, but also of
women’s participation in them.
These women crafted outside relationships with far more freedom and
fewer responsibilities than their primary partnerships. The gendered expecta-
tions associated with the role of “wife” and “mother” weigh heavily on the
primary partnership. The women of this study formed new relationships sub-
ject to their terms. It is likely that their primary partnerships were not. Given
most romantic relationships form without explicit conversations regarding
sexual preferences or expectations regarding emotion work and division of
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 47

labor, these women likely function in primary partnerships either modeled

after social norms, which dictate a high level of emotion work and surrender
of women’s selves, or designed haphazardly. These outside partnerships
provided spaces where women could mold a relationship to her liking. These
findings have implications for therapeutic intervention with couples.
These women spoke of boredom in the bedroom. Their associations with
outside partners revealed the importance of variety. We often think of vari-
ety and sexual boredom as a complaint specific to men caused by repetitive
sexual encounters with the same partner (Tunariu & Reavey, 2007; Watt &
Ewing, 1996; Wilson, 1988), but this study demonstrates that at least for
some women those issues are important as well. This challenges our thinking
on this topic and has implications for the therapeutic setting. Given the candid
discussions regarding the importance of penis size for many women, there
are clear implications for therapeutic interventions with couples. For some
couples, a knowledgeable therapist may be able to help devise alternatives to
accommodate for the size disparity, and perhaps assist with any resentment,
hurt feelings, or embarrassment the husband may feel given the socialization
regarding penis size in our society.
Part of the attraction to these outside partnerships was the fantasy aspect
of the relationship. However, unlike the current rhetoric surrounding those
involved in affairs, which claims the participants do not realize it is all a
fantasy, these women were fully aware of the unreal nature of these relation-
ships. They had no desire to transform an outside partnership into a primary
one because they understood that both parties in the relationship were merely
putting on their best face for the other. Addressing any affair in a therapeutic
setting includes making the individual in the affair recognize the artificial,
illusory quality of the relationship. By contrast, these women were cognizant
of that, and that was part of the appeal. This has implications for therapy.
The majority of the women of this sample describe highly bounded outside
partnerships, created with the goal of protecting their primary partner and that
relationship. These women were clearly committed to remaining in their pri-
mary partnership, and ending any outside partnership that encroached upon
the primary partnership. The women established clear boundaries regarding
time and level of revelation about themselves in an effort to preserve the
primary partnership. Rather than losing themselves within the heady excite-
ment of these couplings, the women were mindful in their design, making
sure to consider ways to reduce potential harm to their primary partners.
Many individuals participating in affairs lose sight of their spouse as they
fall deeper and deeper into the cocoon of the affair. But these women care-
fully navigated these relationships to prevent themselves from losing sight of
their priority: the primary partnership. While this seems counterintuitive and
even hypocritical, these narratives challenge commonsense understandings of
48 Chapter 2

women’s participation in infidelity. Additionally, they worked hard to prevent

“love” from developing between themselves and the outside partners. Their
commitment was solidly to their primary partnerships, despite their breach of
physical fidelity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER AND SEXUALITY THEORY

For these women, the practice of multiple partners brought so much to their
lives that they were disinterested in discontinuing the habit. Yet within these
outside partnerships, women exercised clear boundaries and protection of self
above all. Women were clear from the onset that they had no interest in mak-
ing their lives revolve around an outside partner. This boundary is likely not
set for themselves in their primary partnerships. These outside partnerships
function as spaces separate from their “real lives,” and thus may be safer
spaces to exercise self-care (e.g., putting yourself and your needs first) than
their primary partnerships, where they are expected to enact the functions
and attitudes of their roles (e.g., wife, mother). Those role expectations are
likely more stringent internally than any pressure from their primary partners.
Women are highly socialized from a young age to take on nurturing roles and
emotion work within relationships. For a woman to refuse to enact nurturing
likely induces guilt and shame regardless of whether anyone else expresses
upset. But in these spaces external to the primary partnership, these women
did not feel any pressure to enact the role of nurturer, to take on emotion work
for their outside partner, or to behave in any specific or prescribed manner.
While the appeal of sexual pleasure is obvious, there is much to be said for
the attractiveness of a relationship absent heavily gendered expectations. For
these women, creating relationships where performance of emotion work is
not expected offers something novel, rare, and precious.
The women in this study exercised as much caution in interacting with
potential suitors online as they might with men performing street harass-
ment. Their primary strategy was simply to ignore the man, but unlike in the
“real world,” they also had the power to block him, ensuring they no longer
had to subject themselves to his commentary. Shrewdly vetting their poten-
tial partners served as a self-protection strategy. Unlike in their “real lives”
where sentimentality likely plays a role in their decision-making and rela-
tionships, women vetted ruthlessly and cut any man without their preferred
traits. We tend to think of women as being rather charitable with potential
partners. But these women drew very clear lines, and let no exceptions cross
it. The experience of having chosen a primary partner—with whom their
lives were now entwined—who failed to meet their needs clearly shaped
 A Large Penis is Always Welcome 49

the practices, attitudes, and concerns with regard to searching for an outside
partner.
Many of the women in this study spoke of their desire for sexual variety,
which could mean variety of positions, acts, or even partners themselves.
This challenges much of the mainstream narrative surrounding women’s
sexuality, as well as some research claiming sexual boredom is an issue for
men rather than women (Boekhout, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1999; Tunariu &
Reavey, 2007; Watt & Ewing, 1996). Specifically, this assertion challenges
the notion that women’s affairs tend to be emotional, that women prefer the
security of monogamy, and that women do not enjoy casual sex. These find-
ings certainly support the work of Terri Conley, who found that if women are
assured of safety and a good time, they are open to casual sex (Conley, 2011).
Likewise, many of the women in this sample expressed a clear preference for
larger than average penises. Much of the existing literature makes claims that
penis size is largely unimportant to women. These findings have implications
for sexuality and gender research.
The women of this study challenge the research positing that women
tend to have “emotional” affairs, or tend to “fall in love” with their affair
partners (Banfield & McCabe, 2001; Glass & Wright, 1985; Spanier &
Margolis, 1983). The bulk of this sample not only reported sexual pleasure
as their motivation for seeking an affair, these women reported a disinterest
in replacing their primary partner with their outside partner. The women
clearly explained that their outside partners were limited creatures, and
that the entire relationship would fall apart if forced into the open and the
“real world.” The bounded nature of these relationships was their saving
grace. The women realized that with increased exposure to one another,
these relationships would devolve into a less satisfying association. The
women in this study talked at length about carefully constructing relation-
ships to insulate against falling “in love” with an outside partner, or vice
versa. These women withstood friendship and camaraderie with outside
partners, but drew the line at “love.” This challenges current conceptions
of women’s sexuality as primarily emotion-based and concerned with emo-
tional connection.
The pragmatic nature of these women’s narratives regarding divorcing sex
from emotional attachment echoes research around clients of sex workers,
who claim sex is simply less trouble with a financial arrangement (Pitts et
al., 2004). While no money is changing hands between the women and their
outside partners, among these women there is a very pragmatic, emotionally
divorced approach to the couplings. Falling “in love” with an outside partner
would exponentially complicate their lives. This challenges our understand-
ings of women’s sexuality as motivated by love.
50 Chapter 2

CONCLUSION

The women in this sample described prolonged vetting processes, which

served as an effort to weed out undesirable and incompatible partners. Some
women in the study specifically sought outside partners with large penises
and cited this as a source of discontentment within their primary partner-
ships. Women talked about vetting outside partnerships for traits they should
have considered when selecting a primary partner. They were also inclined
to break up with partners who fell short of their expectations or did not meet
their needs. Outside partnerships were a space of fantasy and being on one’s
“best behavior,” and this was true for both the women and their outside part-
ners. Most women in this study sought outside partnerships absent of heavy
emotional [love] connections that might lead to “falling in love.” However,
nine women specifically sought an emotional level of connection with their
outside partners because of that deficit within their primary partnerships.
Thus, whatever boundaries the women set for their outside partnerships
were an attempt to navigate their dissatisfaction within their primary partner-
ships, while remaining within those relationships. Overall, women shrewdly
navigated outside partnerships, and exercised decision-making absent senti-
mentality. Their pragmatism is evident in the market language they used to
discuss their partners and arrangements. Outside partnerships functioned as
spaces where women focused on pleasure, but exercised self-protection.
 Chapter 3

You’re not the Boss of Me

The women in this study were highly personable, charming, and likeable.
They were intelligent and well-spoken. They had no difficulty clearly articu-
lating their thoughts and opinions. Many were gregarious, droll, and enter-
taining. I could easily imagine them at parties with a crowd gathered around
them, hanging on their every word. Many were “large-and-in-charge” in
their work lives. More than one described herself as a “badass bitch.” These
women were not wallflowers. Yet when they spoke about their home lives,
those dynamics stood in sharp contrast to the women with whom I was talk-
ing. There, they were not the center of the action. These women spoke of
their primary partnerships as spaces of constraint, and their roles (“wives,”
“girlfriends,” and “fiancée”) as limiting and restrictive.

POWER

Our typical conception of power is the scenario where one person has power
“over” someone else. However, there are other manifestations of power
to consider. For one thing, our cultural definitions of power elevate men’s
power over women’s (Miller & Cummins, 1992). To fully embrace women’s
experiences, we need to add the concept of “personal authority,” including
the autonomy to resist the will of another person, to our efforts to theorize
about power (Miller & Cummins, 1992, p. 427). Women may report personal
authority and autonomy more frequently as forms of power they personally
exercise as a result of their lack of experience with having “power over”
someone else. Ultimately, every woman in this study expressed their percep-
tion of outside partnerships as an exercise of power through autonomy and
personal authority.

51
52 Chapter 3

This is significant when we consider that autonomy and personal author-

ity are critical for a woman’s sense of power within relationships (Miller &
Cummins, 1992; Pulerwitz, Gortmaker, & Dejong, 2000). A woman’s sense
of relationship power—including her autonomy to resist her partner’s will—
increases her levels of marital satisfaction (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Puler-
witz et al., 2000). The social exchange theory grounds relationship power in
interpersonal interactions. Within this framework, power may be recognized
as your ability to resist against another person’s wishes within a relationship
(Emerson, 1981; Pulerwitz et al., 2000). Researchers have utilized this con-
ception of power in contemplating how much autonomy a woman has, and
how much of her husband’s dominance she is able to withstand (Pulerwitz
et al., 2000). Power can also be manifested in relationship dynamics and
controlling actions, such as taking action without the consent and knowledge
of your partner, or taking action that is against their wishes. This is typically
presented as either: decision-making dominance, i.e., making decisions for
both of them; or relationship control, meaning one partner controls both their
own actions as well as the actions of their partner. One could argue that when
one partner makes the decision to participate in a covert outside partnership,
they have effectively executed a controlling action.
As sociologist Anthony Giddens points out, “sexual freedom follows
power and is an expression of it” (Giddens, 1992, p. 39). With monogamy
as an unchallenged norm in U.S. society, ways of loving and living situated
outside the bounds of normative, sanctioned sexual behavior becomes a site
of oppression and domination. Thus, for many women, simply practicing
non-monogamy is an exercise of both power and freedom. For others, it is an
attempt to recreate the “ideal” in a traditional sense. In an assumed-monog-
amous relationship, non-monogamous behavior is a challenge to the social
norms surrounding paired relationships, which demand monogamy. Indeed,
Joris Lammers and his team (2011) found an association between power and
incidence of sexual nonexclusivity, as well as intention to engage in outside
partnerships (Lammers et al., 2011).
Empowerment is different than power, but is a related concept. Empower-
ment has to do with both rejecting and freeing one’s self from oppressive
mechanisms of domination, both systemic and interpersonal (Collins, 2000).
Patricia Hill Collins explains that “speaking for oneself and crafting one’s
own agenda is essential to empowerment” (Collins, 2000, p. 36). Interper-
sonal power includes the freedom from and the power over the influence of
other people, as well as the individual’s entitlement to decide their own fate
(Fehr, Herz, & Wilkening, 2013; Lammers et al., 2011). Power is not a static
concept, but instead dynamic. Our balance of power in a relationship shifts
and changes as circumstances transform. Another form of power includes
Hooker and Wilmont’s concept of intimacy power, specifically referring to
 You’re not the Boss of Me 53

the influence we hold because we provide a source of love, friendship, and

warmth for someone else, who depends upon us for social support (Hocker
& Wilmot, 1985). Sexual subjectivity is related also to power. Sexual
subjectivity is the ability to experience yourself as a sexual being, and to
believe yourself to be entitled to sexual pleasure and desire (Tolman, 2002).
Elizabeth Sheff points out that “sexual subjectivity is integrally linked with
power” (Sheff, 2005, p. 4). Sexual subjectivity is linked to relational power,
as well as the power to define for yourself a sexuality that falls outside what
is normatively defined as acceptable (Ramazanoglu & Holland, 1993; Tan-
nebaum, 2000). The women in this study described circumstances of seeing
themselves as sexual beings entitled to sexual pleasure. And for many, an
outside partnership was the only place they could/were exercising their sexual
subjectivity.
Women expressed their perception of outside partnerships as an exercise of
personal authority in different ways. Some women expressed specific facets
of personal authority: setting boundaries; ending partnerships at their own
inclination without guilt or concern; expressing sexual preferences previously
deemed inappropriate by their primary partner; and focusing on their own
pleasure rather than that of their partner.

The Power to Set Boundaries

For all of the women of this study, the very creation of the rules and boundar-
ies of these outside partnerships was an exercise in power. Ten of the women
in the sample explained that the bounded nature of their outside partnerships
permitted a freedom to be a sexual self they normally did not enact. In other
words, in contrast to their primary partnerships, their outside partners were
relationships entered into with the understanding that sex was the primary
purpose of the association. From the onset of communication with a potential
outside partner, women established clear rules and boundaries. Also pres-
ent in these initial communications were frank discussions regarding the
women’s needs, desires, and preferences. The women quickly and coolly
discarded any men who did not respect these boundaries.
These were spaces where women were pragmatic, candid, calculating,
and often emotionless in their decision-making. These outside partnerships
served a specific purpose, and if they did not meet their objectives—or did
not show enough potential to do so—they were summarily discarded. These
clear conversations between the women and the outside partners were key to
vetting for potential, and making sure the relationship developed into what
they envisioned. The clear boundaries of the relationship resulted from frank
discussions undertaken before the onset of the relationship. Luciana (53, mar-
ried) articulated this well:
54 Chapter 3

I like making a set of rules at the beginning, actually, because marriage isn’t like
that. An actual romantic marriage-type relationship is much more confusing,
and often you don’t know where you stand until you get married. Then society
imposes an arbitrary set of rules on you that you may or may not agree with and
you’re afraid to discuss some things for fear of losing the person (because of
the emotional attachment).

The women spoke of the expectations of the role of “wife” and the ways that
limited their autonomy and behavior. Luciana explained that her rules with
her outside partners centered upon the boundaries of discretion, and the fact
that the relationship would never go farther than an extramarital connection.
All of the women in the study mentioned that their rules for these out-
side partnerships included both a discretion mandate, and a recognition of
the highly bounded nature of the association. Other boundaries sometimes
included limits on avenues of contact (e.g., email and text only), limits on
when contact could take place (e.g., during the workday only), or even limits
on the manner of contact (e.g., making preliminary contact before sending
explicit messages or pictures to ensure the intended recipient was in pos-
session of their phone). These varied greatly depending upon the women’s
personal situation and degree of freedom and privacy. Women aimed to find
partners with similar levels of freedom around communication. Thus, if a
woman was free to text at all hours, she didn’t want a partner who could only
communicate between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Coco (43, married) explained:

I have had guys where everything is going great online and then we move
to text. So far, so good. UNTIL he drops that btw he can’t text at all on the
weekend. Or can’t text after 5 p.m. It’s like he’s clocking out of the outside
relationship, like a job. I’m a grown woman. [her husband] treats me as such and
doesn’t touch my phone. I don’t touch his. I don’t have time for men who obvi-
ously don’t have the freedom to have an affair anyway. If you can’t get enough
privacy to text, you can’t have sex with someone else! It’s not that I want to text
nonstop. I have a life. It’s the principle of the thing.

Avery (45, married) added, “Guys who really think that they can manage to
cheat, but they can’t manage the privacy to email or text from home are a
big red flag. Those would be the guys who would just have sex with some-
one once or twice and then ghost. Or regret it afterwards and start crying.
Or something equally frustrating and childish.” For these women, equity in
these outside partnerships was important. Having an association with an out-
side partner who placed such limits on communication could easily translate
into him placing limits between the sheets. These women already functioned
in highly constrained primary partnerships. At minimum in their outside
 You’re not the Boss of Me 55

partnerships, they wanted equity. The women clearly perceived a man’s com-
munication limitations (e.g., no weekends, never after 5 p.m.) as a potential
power action in the relationship. One party restricting the communication of
another could be a slippery slope into other areas of restriction or control.
Boundaries also served to create the circumstances conducive to height-
ened sexual compatibility. Andrea (35, married) explained that while her
primary partner balked at her sexual preferences, her outside partners knew
what they were getting into because of the explicit and comprehensive dis-
cussions of her sexual interests and logistics of the relationship before ever
meeting one another. She said, “Sexually I am much more free [with outside
partners] because they know the kinky things I’m into from the go and are
typically into them as well; the sex can get pretty wild and is a lot more fun
[than with her primary partner].” She also talked about her decision to find
a group of men who would adhere to her rules for outside partnerships. For
these women, being able to verbalize clearly the boundaries of the relation-
ship from the outset created a relational space that assured their autonomy.
Since they had their pick among outside partners, they demanded these rela-
tionships meet their needs, and only selected those partners who agreed to a
relationship centered upon the women’s preferred sexual activities, desires,
and pleasure. This resulted in a more honest sexual dynamic. The relation-
ship became a safe space where they could easily express their sexual desires
and curiosities without shame or embarrassment because the outside partner
signed on with a full understanding of the specifics of his participation. Thus,
rather than the typical configuration where a woman’s sexuality exists for the
pleasure, convenience, and service of the man in her life (Dworkin, 1981;
MacKinnon, 1986; Ramazanoglu & Holland, 1993; L. B. Rubin, 1990), these
relationships were spaces of sexual subjectivity for these women. In other
words, the sexual activity here existed for the women’s pleasure, rather than
their male partner’s sexual whims.
In this way, the interactions mimic the sentiments expressed by men who
pay for sex (Jordan, 1997). The specifics of sexual activity and the limits of
the relationship were clear and transparent to both parties before any intimate
contact took place. The emotionality and sentimentality commonly present in
primary partnerships were absent in these frank discussions during the vet-
ting process of a potential outside partner. Thus, the outside partner’s feelings
were of no concern because neither party perceived these conversations as an
attack on the other person. One side’s disinterest in a specific sexual act or
approach to sex was not a rejection of the stranger with whom they are talk-
ing. The discussion was merely a straightforward revelation regarding expec-
tations without an evaluation of the other party as a person worthy of love,
respect, and affection. These discussions were not tethered to an emotional
connection, and they took place previous to any sexual contact—typically
56 Chapter 3

prior to even the initial face-to-face meeting. In other words, if consensus on

boundaries and sexual compatibility could not be established virtually, then
no face-to-face ever occurred.
Therefore, these initial talks commenced more freely and honestly than
attempts made with the primary partner to address sexual needs and desires,
who may certainly internalize the woman’s desire for a sexual act with which
they themselves are uncomfortable or disinterested in as a reflection of their
partner’s assessment of them as a lover. With the potential outside partner,
there was no basis for this response since neither party really knew the other,
and would not venture to get to know the other in the absence of compat-
ibility in areas of sexual expression. This compatibility was an absolute deal
breaker. Coco (43, married) recounted an incident with a potential outside
partner that would have went very differently had they met organically. She
explained:

He’s gorgeous, and packing. My type. If I saw him out someplace I would’ve
talked to him. But when we start talking about what we like, he’s super into the
50 Shades stuff. And I’m really not into that. So, that ended that right there. In
one single afternoon over the course of 20 or so emails, I saved myself all kinds
of time. In the “real world” it would’ve taken me months to discover that about
him. And what if, God forbid, I’d already fallen for him? (This is, of course,
assuming I’m single and dating normally—honestly not sure I’d ever do that
again after having done this.) I might have talked myself into staying with him,
“trying,” and wasted even more time. I mean, how many times have we clung
to relationships where there was sexual incompatibility?

The absence of emotional entanglement with their outside partners granted

not only sexual autonomy, but also relational autonomy. These women could
and did exercise the right to walk from any partnership that failed to meet
their needs without guilt. The normative strings of “real world” dating did
not apply here. So, women wasted much less time, energy, and less of them-
selves in unsatisfying couplings. Given the explicit nature and timing of these
discussions, there is a transactional quality to these pairings. These initial
conversations mimic a corporate contract negotiation and aim to make clear
everyone’s expectations and capabilities.

Power through Shelf Life of Pairing

Thirty-six of the women in the study spoke specifically about the temporary
nature of these associations. Part of the safety of an outside partnership is the
recognition that the relationship has a shelf life. This permits the association
to work as a space where women can experiment by “trying on” different
aspects of themselves.
 You’re not the Boss of Me 57

In the beginning, the impermanence can be a jarring realization. Erica (53,

married) spoke of the rules as a lesson she had learned early on in her outside
partnerships: “[my first outside partner] taught me different rules about extra-
marital relationships that are tough to take: that it doesn’t ‘go anywhere,’ or
mean we’ll live happily ever after.” She explained that in her first affair, this
truth was unsettling. However, she grew not only to accept this fact about
outside partnerships, but also to use that quality to her advantage. With the
realization that the relationship is deeply constrained, there is much less to
lose—in terms of both the risk of being your true self, and trying on a differ-
ent self. After all, whatever self you enact with your outside partner is one
you only have to perform for short periods at a time, as opposed to an around-
the-clock performance with a primary partner in a shared living space. Addi-
tionally, the outside partnership is entered into with the understanding that it
will eventually end—and likely sooner than later. Rather than experiencing
this as a frightening or upsetting aspect of outside partnerships, most of the
women in this study found it empowering. Unlike in their primary partner-
ships, where the role they chose early on proved binding, whatever role they
choose to enact in their outside partnerships is impermanent.
The knowledge that the outside partnership by necessity lacked permanence
altered those partnerships immeasurably. In more organic relationships, we
do not know going in which unions will be lasting and which will burn out
more quickly. As a result of that uncertainty, in a pairing of opportunity (that
is, a union we’ve created organically), we may settle for less-than-ideal con-
ditions; overlook our partner’s undesirable traits when they initially appear to
be outnumbered by desired ones; prioritize the overall connection; consider
how good the match is “on paper”; and perhaps even take into account any
shared social ties. Ultimately, we compromise much in our pairings of oppor-
tunity, in part, because of their uncertain future. In our organic dating life,
any first date can be a potential “the one.” We may even be subject to social
pressure from peers “to not be too picky,” so we may adjust our want list,
and ignore unattractive qualities of our new suitor. After all, we don’t want to
remain unpaired, unchosen, and undesirable for selection into a relationship.
Then, once we invest ourselves in these subpar pairings for which we have
settled, we may grow less and less willing to sever the connection. Relation-
ships where we have invested weeks, months, or years now become even
more difficult to let go of when these incompatibilities come to light. After
all, we may be still unsure of their potential and promise. Thus, we may feel
internal pressure to preserve any possible potential of the union. And if we
have legally partnered with them, we may grow even less willing to uncouple
because of the hassle, the expense, and the stigma.
By contrast, an outside partnership is limited in its scope from the begin-
ning. There is no compulsion to overlook unattractive qualities, no peer
58 Chapter 3

pressure to “not be so picky,” and no reason to keep investing in an outside

partnership that is not meeting your expectations. There is no sitting politely
through awkward first date dinners, no awkward silences in the car together,
and no concern that if you pass on this potential partner another may not
come around. None of the norms and expectations of organic partnering exist
in this space. Free to blaze their own trail, participants make their own rules.
And since women are in shorter supply online, they tend to set the pace and
chart the course. They can be quite selective, and hold out for a partner who
is closer to their ideal, if not their actual ideal. The ability to not settle serves
as a source of power for women in this arena. Coco (43, married) explained,
“I am not beholden to any of these guys. They either cut the mustard or I
keep looking. In fact, I never close my account even when I’ve got an ongo-
ing thing. Why? Because he needs to know he’s on borrowed time.” Bobbie
(33, married) echoed that sentiment: “This isn’t a customer loyalty program.
I don’t care how long we’ve been talking, how long we’ve been seeing each
other, whatever. If it’s not doing what I need it to, it’s over. Plain and simple.
‘Next!’” Avery (45, married) added, “Some of these guys who are new to the
site think they’re going to win by ‘default,’ you know? Like, if they hang in
long enough I’m going to settle for them. That’s not happening. I can keep
going without until I find what I want. And I’d rather go without than waste
my time on sex that’s not good for me. Hell, I can do that at home!” Unlike in
the “real world,” where we often “settle” out of fear of living single forever,
or a sense that it’s “time” to couple up, these women held out for partners
who could meet their needs.
Since these associations are doomed to be short-term and bounded by
discretion and time limits, some women felt more able to speak freely, set
boundaries and expectations, and make demands in a way they had never felt
able in their primary relationships. Georgie (39, partnered) verbalized this:
“Why should I worry about offending or pissing this person off? I mean, I
don’t go whips and chains nuclear nympho on the poor guy, but why withhold
your own needs? Right? Ha! Self-sacrifice is what marriage is for, damnit!”
Vivi (46, married) echoed this idea as well: “I am way more open with my
[outside partner] because it isn’t a forever relationship. I can explore and be
myself. I can’t be as free at home, because my husband is not an out-of-the-
box kind of guy.” Trudy (33, married) explained, “I don’t need to put up with
anyone’s shit except my husband’s.” Coco (43, married) added, “Why not be
honest about what curls my toes and makes me hot? If I leave it to chance or
for him to guess, I’m going to be disappointed. So, might as well put it on the
table. If that ends the conversation, oh well. There’s another guy waiting to
talk to me anyway. Maybe he’s what I’m looking for!” Outside partnerships
are by their nature not “the one.” Rather, they are partners who are suitable
“for the moment,” Mr. Right Now. Lacking the potential and promise of
 You’re not the Boss of Me 59

pairings of opportunity with potential primary partners, these associations

produce a more honest and straightforward site of relations. Both parties enter
the pairing in fully cognizant that it has a short lifespan. As such, it must serve
its intended purpose, or it is ultimately a waste of time.
In outside partnerships, time together is limited: both consecutive minutes
in one another’s company and overall length of association with one another.
All of the women in the study acknowledged an awareness that there was a
ticking clock on their outside partnership. All of them knew the relationship
would not last the rest of their lives. The awareness of this simple fact pro-
vided an openness and freedom for these women, who realized that there was
nothing to gain by holding back. If who they really were, or who they wanted
to be in that association was not to the outside partner’s liking, they would
survive the parting because they had been prepared to terminate things with
this man from the beginning. Granted, either partner could end the relation-
ship. And women did at times report having been on the receiving end of a
break-up. But more often than not, the women themselves ended the asso-
ciation or scheduling conflicts between the two contributed to a fizzling out.
Once the fire went out, the women moved on—no exceptions.

Expression of Closeted Desires

The women in the study described primary partnerships where their primary
partner dictated the terms of sex. Their primary partners determined what and
how sex acts would happen, as well as how often, where, and when. After
years of sitting in the sexual passenger seat, outside partnerships operated as
a space where women could do the driving. The women in this study greatly
enjoyed these opportunities to exercise sexual freedom and personal author-
ity. For some women in the study, personal authority came in the form of
expressing closeted (for years, sometimes decades) sexual preferences and
desires. Twelve of the women in the study indicated that within their primary
partnerships they sublimated desires and preferences to please their primary
partner’s conception of their sexual identity, and his preferred sexual dynam-
ics of the relationship. For these women, the desires, attitudes, and percep-
tions of their primary partners tempered the role they played in the sexual
arena of their primary relationships.
Avery (45, married) spoke about her experience with her outside partners:
“We tried positions and activities that I had not explored with my husband.
I wanted more.” For these women, being able to unleash their hidden sexual
selves was a relief. Priscilla (37, married) said, “I have submissive and mas-
ochistic tendencies, and while my husband is willing to be more adventur-
ous in these ways, someone who is genuinely more dominant and sadistic
gets into it in a more satisfying way.” For women whose primary partners
60 Chapter 3

are sexually incompatible, an outside partner who shares an affinity for the
same sexual acts, positions, or style can bring much-needed relief in the
form of sexual expression. Gabrielle (45, married) explained, “Nothing is
taboo. We get really nasty in bed. I don’t have to act in a certain way. There
are no boundaries or rules.” Georgie (53, married) added, “I am much freer
sexually with my outside partner. Trying new positions, techniques, using
toys, more  aggressive, and more vocal.” For these women, the opportunity
to act out sexual desires they had shelved in their primary partnership out of
respect for their partners’ comfort was freeing. It placed them back in control
of their sexual expression, rather than feeling they had to ignore their desires
to please someone else. At home, the preferences of their primary partner
guided and constrained their sexual expression. By contrast, their experiences
with outside partners were a site of total freedom of sexual expression. For
these women, having a taste of the sexual autonomy and sexual subjectivity,
they could have made it impossible to go back to keeping their desires under
wraps all the time.
While 20 women reported having knowingly paired with primary partners
who did not share their specific sexual desires, other women’s association
with and exposure to outside partners awoke new sexual desires and prefer-
ences. That is, deficits within their primary partnerships drove the women to
seek outside partners in lieu of a divorce, and their experiences with those
partners awakened new desires in which their primary partners had no inter-
est. These women took full advantage of the opportunity presented via out-
side partners. Stella (51, married) explained, “My OPs give me passion and
variety in sexual and sensual activities. Extended foreplay, using mutual mas-
sage as foreplay. Some of them are submissive and will go to great lengths to
please me. If I say I am getting an orgasm today and you are not, so be it.” For
Stella, the ability to call the shots in bed was empowering and emboldening.
Experimentation was important among the women reporting this mindset.
Joy (24, married) said, “My husband says I should only do to his balls what he
can do to my eyeballs. So when an OP lets me touch, cradle, suck, basically
have any contact with his balls, I feel like I’m breaking some rule. ‘Really?
I can touch your balls? Oooh, how novel!’” Their outside partners provided
a safe space for this sexual exploration. Elizabet (26, partnered) explained, “I
feel like I can be so much more honest with my [outside] relationships than
I can be with my primary partner and past primary partners. I have nothing
to lose with my [outside] partners. I don’t have to worry about getting my
feelings hurt, being rejected, them judging my sexual desires etc.” Darcy (48,
married) described the spice in her life from outside partners: “One of my
partners was uncircumcised and was very sensitive. He required a much gen-
tler touch, which was new for me. Another partner is totally kinky. Pinching,
slapping, hair pulling, bondage, rape play, you name it.” These women shared
 You’re not the Boss of Me 61

a life with primary partners whose ideas regarding sexual expression not only
did not match their own, but whose disapproval of their preferred sexual prac-
tices was clearly communicated, creating a small box within which sexual
expression was approved. Those acts falling outside the confines of the box
were off-limits in the primary partnership.
But outside partnerships were constructed to function as spaces of unlim-
ited personal authority. This personal authority to explore closeted desires
also led to more personal acceptance. Esme (31, married) explained, “It gives
me more freedom to be myself without fear of judgment because the relation-
ship doesn’t have many consequences. I experience a full range of emotions
and can express these in an affair, but not as much with my husband. It has
helped even more with being comfortable with my body, and feeling less
inhibited sexually.” The safe space created within this illicit relationship also
became a place to embrace and accept her own body. No such space had not
been created in her primary partnership.
These women spoke of their outside partnerships as a space where they had
the autonomy to express their sexual yearnings without fear of being shamed
for their desires. Helen (53, married) said, “My outside partners allow me to
be a woman and make me feel alive inside. My outside partners look at my
sexuality as a good thing and not that I’m ‘oversexed’ or ‘insatiable,’ as my
spouse believes. So, with them, I’m very open. I don’t have to feel guarded
about anything I do or say.” For Helen, being able to fully verbalize and act
on her desires without stigma was valuable and liberating. She did not expe-
rience that same freedom in her primary partnership. Amanda (38, married)
further explained, “My OP [outside partnership] helps me remain in my PP
[primary partnership] by giving me an outlet to express myself sexually in a
way I currently can’t in my PP. Plus, it satisfies my curiosity about being with
a man other than my PP, and relieves the boredom I had felt.” For women
who have been socialized to associate their own sexual desires with stigma
and shame, it is powerful to discover a space where those desires can be fully
expressed without humiliation or fear.
The experience of having their sexual desires policed by their primary part-
ners was salient and hurtful. Ultimately, the women internalized their primary
partners’ criticism of their sexuality as legitimate. Prior to participating in an
outside partnership, these women had processed their primary partners’ com-
ments as a negative evaluation about themselves. That is, their reaction was
not to believe the problem may be with their primary partner, but a problem
within themselves. This is a highly gendered response. Typically, a man char-
acterizes as “inhibited” or a “prude” those female partners who are disinter-
ested in or unwilling to participate in certain sexual activities he desires. He
would not likely problematize himself because of her disinterest in the sexual
acts he enjoys. However, women’s socialization and social positioning as
62 Chapter 3

disinterested in sex, needing an emotional connection to be interested in sex,

and less sexually experienced than her partner create conditions conducive
to internalizing a partner’s criticism of your sexual desires as “over-sexed,”
“gross,” and even “depraved.” In their primary partnerships, the women’s
desires and interests became a site of criticism and critique. Thus, the women
of this study reveled in sexual experiences with their outside partners, men
who valued their preferences. An association with someone more sexually
like-minded helped heal their damaged self-perception, and gave voice and
expression to their sexual preferences.
Gone are the days of the blushing bride, naïve of sex and its wonders, and
without previous partners with whom to compare their husband. At present,
women tend to go into marriage more sexually experienced than ever before
(Finer, 2007). Women now have previous lovers and previous experiences to
draw on—both for inspiration and evaluation of their present sexual dynamic
in their primary partnership. Women may come into marriage with more sex-
ual knowledge than their husbands. Sadly, this can lead to his criticism of her,
especially if he feels threatened by this disparity in experience. Perhaps for
some women whose premarital sexual experiences are vastly more satisfying
than their marital sex lives, participation in outside partnerships is an avenue
to recapture a previous higher level of sexual satisfaction. This may be espe-
cially true if their primary partnership is deficit in meeting her needs overall.
For one woman, outside partnerships were a bounded space for sexual acts
she simply did not wish to engage in with her primary partner. Victoria (24,
married) verbalized a desire to separate the kinds of sex she had into two
categories: what was appropriate within her marriage, and what was not. She
said, “There are things that I want from my outside relationship that I do not
want to be a part of my marriage. I am able to curb my cravings for interest-
ing, kinky, dark, different things that I don’t feel comfortable doing in my
marriage through the sexual activity in my outside relationship.” For Victoria,
there were sexual acts she enjoyed in her marriage, and then there were other
acts that, for her, belonged squarely outside of her primary relationship.
Again, this verbiage is similar to that we hear from men who utilize the
services of sex workers. Studies show men who buy sex often explain their
behavior in part as an effort to get a certain kind of sex, a kind of sex they
believe they cannot—or that they should not—ask of their significant other or
a nonprofessional (Brewis & Linstead, 2000; Sanders, 2008). For those men,
the emotionally divorced nature of the transaction—made further obvious by
the exchange of money for sex—allows them to request the sexual acts they
desire but do not feel they can express to the women they interact within their
daily lives. However, this is not a position we are accustomed to hearing from
women. While previous studies have reported sexual pleasure as a justifica-
tion for infidelity participation (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Glass & Wright, 1992;
 You’re not the Boss of Me 63

Yeniceri & Kokdemier, 2006), the present inquiry’s finding of women feeling
powerful through their exercise of personal authority is a new explanation for
infidelity participation.
Full sexual expression was a source of personal authority for these women,
and the fear of social sanction in response within their primary relationship
was very real. This supports research showing that socially men are presented
as sexually aggressive and sexually focused, but when women express sexual
desire, they are viewed negatively (Lees, 1994; Tannebaum, 2000; Wolf,
1997). After all, chastity is a nearly universal requirement of women (Har-
rison, Howerton, Secarea, & Nguyen, 2008; Marttila, 2008). Promiscuity in
a woman is such a nebulous label often assigned for a variety of social sins
that do not even involve sex. The label is so damaging both socially and
emotionally that women often self-police to avoid risk of people perceiving
her in that light. In fact, once labeled promiscuous, people typically dislike
her and do not respect her (Harrison et al., 2008; Prentice & Carranza, 2004;
Rajecki, Graaf-Kaser, & Rasmussen, 1992). This gender socialization affects
women’s experiences of sexual agency and participation in sexual relation-
ships and encounters. Moreover, Wolfe (1997) explains that this socialization
teaches women early that they must legitimate and justify sex. Sometimes,
this is accomplished by calling their sexual desire “love” (Wolf, 1997). The
constraints and social sanctions women experience limit and confine all wom-
en’s capacity to act with sexual agency (Wolf, 1997). Outside partnerships
offer women a space without limits on their sexual agency or sexual desires,
and space where their sexual behaviors need not be justified by emotional
attachment. For these women, that was a space of freedom.

Power to Make Sex “All About Me.”

All of the women in this study described their outside partnerships as a space
where they exercised the personal authority to focus solely on their own plea-
sure. Women are often socialized to care for everyone else by putting their
own needs last. And for women whose primary partnerships do not prioritize
their needs, the power to say “this is about me” proved to be both an over-
whelming and appealing experience. Andrea (35, married) explained, “Sexu-
ally I am much freer [in my outside partnership]. In a way it was a lot like
being a rebellious teenager, and it allowed me to create a more dominate and
aggressive side than I was unable to fulfill at home.” Heather (33, partnered)
clarified her situation: “With my OP, I act like a dominant sex goddess and
take what I want. I don’t care about feelings, just cock and skills.” The clar-
ity in terms of the purpose and scope of the relationship brought personal
authority through autonomy. As Brinley (33, married) said, “I am different
when I am involved in an outside relationship because I take ownership over
64 Chapter 3

my own sexuality and libido.” The increased personal authority they experi-
enced through the freedom to focus on their own pleasure brought a different
dynamic into the bedroom. Regina (38, married) described her experiences:
“Sex with [her outside partner] tends to be passionate and intense. He is tal-
ented between the sheets, so we have a very good time.” Sofia (39, Hispanic,
married) explained, “What I was missing in my life was more orgasms. Earth-
shattering, body shuddering orgasms. With my outside partners, I get them.
Hell, I take them like a greedy bitch. And I make no apologies.” Avery (45,
married) described her philosophy:

Oh, mama gets hers. You’d better know that, or she won’t see you again. And
if, “oh, you wore yourself out giving me an orgasm and now you’re too tired for
yours?” Well, too damn bad. Push away from the bacon and run a mile every
day, so you’ll be better prepared for next time. Improve your stamina. Your
orgasm isn’t my problem.

Coco (43, married) added, “This is all about me and for me. I’m upfront with
my OPs that honestly I don’t give a damn about their orgasm. Why? Because
we both KNOW they’re going to get off. I mean, come on. It’s never hap-
pened in the history of my sexual world that a man left my bed without his.
So I’ve got to make sure I do, too. More than once!” The women of this
study explained that in their sexual history, there had been no issue with their
male partners reaching orgasm. This reflects national data; men tend to con-
sistently orgasm (Frederick, John, Garci, & Lloyd, 2017). However, women
do not. Thus, focusing on their own pleasure makes sense given their past
experiences.
In their primary partnerships, their love and respect for their significant
other sometimes motivated them to push aside their own sexual pleasure.
Women chose not to ask certain sexual acts of primary partners if they did
not really enjoy or value them. For other women, keeping the peace in the
house began in the bedroom. Not expressing these unmet needs was a path
to avoid unproductive conflict when previous expressions of discontent had
been futile. The marriage bed existed as a site of negotiation and compro-
mise. But outside partnerships were about not settling for less than what they
wanted. Outside partnerships were about sexual satisfaction, gratification and
fulfillment. Marta (61, married) spoke about the impact of having a lover
focused completely on her. She shared, “Someone just willing to please me
and make me happy in any way he can is beyond empowering.” Trudy (33,
married) added, “I get to have someone be all about me with these meetings.”
The focused nature of these associations liberated women to concentrate their
energy on their own sexual response, rather than relationship maintenance
or the emotional well-being of their partner. Coco (43, married) explained,
 You’re not the Boss of Me 65

“In my real life, I come last—literally and figuratively. But in my outside

partnerships, it’s all about my pleasure all the time. In fact, he knows that if
he doesn’t bring it each and every time, he’s gone. I’ll replace his ass with
someone who can get the job done.” Bobbie (33, married) echoed this senti-
ment: “My time with [her outside partner] is time for me to just enjoy the
physical sensations of being touched, having him worship my body, and the
many, many orgasms. It’s all about me.” Avery (45, partnered) explained,
“You know how you feel when you get a really good massage or spend a day
at the spa? Now imagine that with orgasms. I couldn’t get it better if I paid
for it.” Harlee (63, married) added, “What’s more appealing than a man who
worships your body and works hard to be sure you get multiple orgasms?
That’s how my husband got me to marry him. But now he’s stopped doing
that, so I’ve got to go elsewhere for that service.” Women exercised consid-
erable power in fashioning these outside partnerships so that their focus and
purpose was their own pleasure. These couplings stood in sharp contrast to
their primary partnerships.
The data of this inquiry challenges the findings of Glass and Wright (1985),
which posited that extramarital affairs enact the same gender roles as
premarital and marital relationships (Glass & Wright, 1985)—specifically,
that men are more sexual and women more emotional. The authors’ findings
showed that in extramarital relationships, women valued emotional con-
nection over sexual events. In this study, few expressed this desire. Sexual
expression that prioritized their pleasure played prominently in their decision-
making about outside partnerships. They entered into outside partners pur-
posefully and consciously to create a relationship where their sexual needs
and desires were prioritized.

PLAYING A DIFFERENT “ROLE”

A unifying thread throughout the narratives was the sense that an outside
partner provided a level of freedom to “be” someone different from the self
they enacted in their everyday life. This experience stood in sharp contrast
to their primary partnerships, where their roles had “normative expectations
attached” creating a sense of responsibility to be a certain person within those
relationships (J. M. White, Klein, & Martin, 2015, p. 83). Women repeatedly
spoke of being able to “be” someone with their outside partner that they felt
was forbidden with their primary partner. The women in this study spoke of
both being “more” themselves as well as enacting a previous self they had put
aside in order to fulfill the duties of their roles as wives/fiancées/girlfriends
and mothers. The women perceived the enactment of different possible
sexual “selves” as “freeing,” especially given that they only had to enact them
66 Chapter 3

in specific spaces for limited periods. Because of the bounded nature of out-
side partnerships, they were not trapped in a role continually. Here there was
no drudgery associated with the role. If they got tired of the self they were
enacting, they could stop without apology, or even change outside partners
and create a new self to enact. They chose when, where, and with whom to
enact these performances. This was another form of autonomy and personal
authority they were able to exercise in outside partnerships that they could not
exercise in their primary partnerships.

Power to be “More Myself” or Another Self

Thirty-two of the women in this sample felt that they were more themselves
with their outside partner. For these women, the latent function of the process
of forming and maintaining their primary partnerships was a loss of their for-
mer selves, or aspects of their former selves. The persona they felt responsible
to enact within their primary partnership was incompatible with the persona
they deemed their “true self.” Each woman spoke of a sense of responsibility
to behave a certain way within her primary partnership. Specifically, they felt
they had to be a specific person, the person dictated by the role of “wife” or
“fiancée” or “girlfriend,” or simply from the tacit negotiation of roles within
the relationship dynamic. Simon and Gagnon (1984; 2003) explain that social
scripts serve as our models on how to interact in platonic and romantic rela-
tionships (Simon & Gagnon, 1984, 2003). These scripts create an expectation
of what is appropriate interaction within relationships according to our roles.
We learn these expectations through both our own observation and internal-
izing of similar situations. Romantic and sexual scripts are particularly salient
in these contexts because they shape and inform our beliefs, thoughts, and
actions (Alksnis, Desmarasis, & Woods, 1996; Paik & Woodley, 2005; Rose
& Frieze, 1993; Simon & Gagnon, 1984).
For these women, outside partnerships were a space where the expecta-
tions called only for whatever “self” they opted to enact. Women were free
to be anyone they chose without the constraints of social roles. They could
accentuate or deemphasize any aspects of themselves they choose within that
space of their outside partnerships. Jamie (34, married) explained, “I have the
opportunity to explore a side of myself that has been long forgotten by my
husband. I get to be a fearless adventurer and a seductive, desirable woman.”
Erica (46, married) described her experience similarly: “For me, it’s nice to
have a friendship with someone that I feel like I can say almost anything to,
who makes me laugh, and is really smart and very witty.” Luciana (53, mar-
ried) explained, “I feel freer to just be honest and say what I think and what
I want [than in my primary partnership].” Likewise, Trudy (33, married)
described her behavior:
 You’re not the Boss of Me 67

They are so open and it makes me feel open as well. It’s like I’m someone else
in my real life. But the real me gets to come out and play sometimes. With my
husband, I never feel like I am honest, or being myself with him. In these other
relationships, I can be totally honest. With them, I get to be sexy. I can say
things I might never actually really say.

The exploration of the self within the outside partnership was valuable to
the women of this inquiry. The freedom to try on different versions of them-
selves, or to bring back a previous version, was appealing.
Goffman’s dramaturgy (1959) is a useful concept to consider here (Goff-
man, 1959). Goffman explains that our identity is dependent upon our
interactions with others, the time, place, and the audience. He explains that
we carry out our roles in the way we are expected to according to current
social norms. In many relationships, the position of “wife,” “fiancée,” or
“girlfriend” in the primary partnership can become a role with its own expec-
tations or frames for interactions. Keeping your behavior consistent with
your partner’s internalized social expectations of appropriateness for your
role can become a constraining limitation. The level of impression manage-
ment required to maintain your partner’s idea of appropriate enactment of
your “role” can be taxing. When the requirement of impression management
extends to the bedroom as well, intimacy is threatened. Juline Koken and her
team (2004) study examining stigma and male escorts expanded on Goff-
man’s social identity theory (Koken, Bimbi, Parsons, & Halkitis, 2004). They
propose that we possess “virtual” and “actual” identities. Our virtual identity
includes those characteristics and traits we are assumed to possess according
to social norms and expectations. For some of the women in this study, their
actual identity—the traits they actually believe themselves to possess—was
much easier to enact with their outside partners. This difficulty resulted from
the role enactment in their primary partnerships. Since their outside partner-
ships serve as a space with no predefined roles, there was no expectations
other than those created by the women themselves.
Ten of the women explained that participation in outside partnerships
brought them closer to a previous self they had pushed aside in response to
the demands of their current roles with primary partners. For these women,
enacting the role of “wife” or “fiancée” or “girlfriend” requires an abandon-
ment of a more uninhibited self, which they felt they must put aside for the
good of the union or the household. In the hustle and bustle of the day-to-day
of their “real lives” with all of their responsibilities, there was no room for
these former selves. Their outside partnerships functioned as a space where
they could resurrect and enact that self. Shana (33, married) explained, “He
is almost like my gateway to what I used to be. Let’s me experiment. I feel
like I can do what I want to with him because we have such an open channel
68 Chapter 3

of communication.” Avery (45, married) added, “There is the me who existed

before I put that veil on, and became the person who puts everyone else first. I
miss her.” Coco (43, married) described her feelings: “I used to be audacious,
bold, fearless, a temptress even. I owned my sexuality and attractiveness and
commanded attention when I came into a room. Before my OPs, I really felt
homesick for her. Guess what? That bitch is back.” While these women had
taken on the responsibilities and expectations associated with their role in
their primary partnerships, they missed the person they had been prior to their
entry into that coupling. Outside partnerships permitted to access her again.
For these ten women in this study, their “real lives” were spaces where
there was no room for their former self, the self they perceived as their more
“true self.” But their outside partnerships were a space for play, exploration,
relaxation, and reconnecting with that former self. There, no rules under-
girded their choice of presentation of self. Rather, outside partnerships were a
space where a performance of a role was not required. There were no expecta-
tions of who to be in outside partnerships. Brinley explained it this way: “[her
primary partner’s] neglect changed me. I feel more myself than over the last
few years [with her outside partners].” Brinley saw herself changed by her
primary partnership’s decline. Participating in outside partnerships was like
accessing her old self, as opposed to the self she enacted every day in her
role as “wife.” Trudy (33, married) spoke about her outside dalliances as a
place of make-believe, where she could reinvent her reality for a period. She
explained, “My husband says he knows I can take care of myself better than
anybody he knows. So, he doesn’t ever worry. But sometimes I don’t want
to have to be the backbone of the operation. Sometimes I want to be saved. I
want to be the damsel in distress.” The dynamics established in her primary
partnership helped the couple function, but it left little room for surprise,
spontaneity, or the enactment of another self.
One reason the outside partnerships permit this abandon is the lack of real
world responsibilities bounding the relationship. There are no dogs in need
of walking, kids in need of shuttling, or chores in need of doing. This lack of
restriction permitted a different self to emerge. Lori (30, married) explained,
“I am much more free-spirited with an outside partner, because I don’t have
to think about bills, a mortgage, the job, and the family.” For some, this new
space and this release of a former version of themselves threw open the doors
to better sex. Daphne (44, married) explained that she also took more control
of her sexuality via her outside partnership. She explained:

Years ago I wondered. Is THAT what sex is like? Where do I sign up for
THAT? I tried to mimic the women on billboards rather than appreciate and
accentuate the assets I have. I had to learn to take a compliment. And I must say,
having [her outside partner] in my life makes that all much easier. As women,
 You’re not the Boss of Me 69

we are taught to suppress our sexuality and desires. I find myself re-thinking all
those things we are programmed to think.

A lover outside the context of her day-to-day concerns opened the door for
her to take ownership of her own pleasure rather than behave in the way she
thought she was “supposed” to. She was no longer playing a role she thought
was expected from her as a “woman” during sexual intercourse, but simply
feeling and enjoying the physical sensations. The fact that the context of these
sexual relationships is removed from the women’s daily lives, concerns, and
dynamic permits a space where new, previous, and different selves can be
retrieved, enacted, and tried out.
This validates Masters, Casey, Wells, & Morrison (2012), who found that
one of the styles for working with sexual scripts is to transform, or attempt
to reshape cultural-level gender scripts within dyadic levels (Masters, Casey,
Wells, & Morrison, 2012). The women in this study found an alternative out-
let in which to transform our cultural sexual scripts, which demand a more
“passionless” or “submissive” sexuality. While it is easy to suggest that these
women could simply transform the cultural script for gender within their
primary partnerships rather than forming outside partnerships in which to
do this, we must consider that once the dynamics of our relationships are set
it can be difficult to enact a transformation of those scripts. Gender bounds
our culture’s sexual scripts, and tell us how to act and what to do in sexual
encounters (Alksnis et al., 1996; Greene & Faulkner, 2005; J. L. Kim et al.,
2007). These scripts not only demand a passive and disinterested sexuality
on the part of women, it saddles them with maintaining the emotional health
of the relationship, and further dictates that the power in the relationship
lies with the man (Eagly, 2009; Felmlee, 1994; Greene & Faulkner, 2005).
Women who openly disobey normative gender scripts are subject to sanction
and social stigma (Breanne Fahs, 2011; Laws & Schwartz, 1977). Thus, for
these women, participating in secret outside partnerships is a shrewd exercise
of self-protection and empowerment, since their primary partnerships were
not sites of complete authenticity for them.
The realization that their outside partners did not exist as a permanent
fixture in their lives created a safe space for these women in which to enact
a self of their choosing. Knowing that whatever personality you paint for
yourself with your outside partner is not one you will have to enact con-
sistently is freeing, and permits more self-awareness and self-expression.
The explicit conversations between the women and their potential partners
clarified the terms of their relationships, and helped both parties vet their
potential lovers. Once matches were settled upon, these conversations set
the groundwork for the dynamics of physical encounters, as well as the
relational aspects of the associations. This supports research findings that
70 Chapter 3

communication is an important determinant of sexual satisfaction, and that

communicating sexual preferences increases satisfaction (Bridges, Lease, &
Ellison, 2004; Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997; MacNeil & Byers, 1997).
The women in the study reported that they had not had similar graphic and
forthright conversations with their primary partners prior to coupling with
them. In their outside partnerships, they did not want to take their chances
and hope the outside partners could read their mind to discern their wants
and needs. Sara K. Bridges and her team further found that communication
not only increases your odds of having your needs met, it also enhances
emotional closeness (Bridges et al., 2004). However, for the bulk of the
women in this study, intimacy in terms of sharing information regarding
sexual desires was desirable and conducive to a productive and satisfying
outside partnership, but emotional closeness as defined by feeling loving
feelings was not desired.

EMPHASIZED FEMININITY AS POWER

Connell (1987) explains that emphasized femininity is an exaggerated

form of femininity that functions as “an adaptation to men’s power”
(R. W. Connell, 1987, p. 88). It is femininity as compliance to “men’s
desires for titillation” (R. W. Connell, 1987, p. 183). This socially accepted
presentation of femininity presents “real womanhood” as “fascinating,” and
instructs women to use their femininity to “wrap men around their fingers”
but only by observing the “rules,” which necessitate her to maintain the
illusion of emphasized femininity (M. Kimmel & Aronson, 2004, p. xxiv).
Connell (1987) explained that while emphasized femininity is the most
socially accepted femininity, it remains inferior and subservient to mascu-
linities. At its core, it “accommodate[es] the interests and desires of men”
(R. W. Connell, 1987, p. 187). A mandate of emphasized femininity includes
the presentation of the self as effortlessly attractive for a potential partner
(M. Kimmel, 2000). This pressure to be “attractive” is tied to being desir-
able on the heterosexual market, and is often exploitative (Thorne, 1993).
This concept of emphasized femininity as powerful is salient and pervasive
imagery in advertising, which often presents women’s sexuality as a tool of
power (Gill, 2009; Sivulka, 2008). More specifically, the power presented in
these ads is “the sexual power to bring men to their knees,” and “the ability
to attract male attention and sometimes female envy” (Gill, 2011, p. 258).
Given the ubiquity of advertising, it is not surprising that the women of this
study internalized their own exercise of emphasized of femininity as power.
After all, cultural presentations of emphasized femininity position this as a
form of power.
 You’re not the Boss of Me 71

For many of the women in this study, their perceptions of dynamics and
experiences as empowering were sharply juxtaposed to the stark realities
of those situations. Some of these women recounted experiences that to an
outsider may smack of objectification and exploitation. Yet they did not
internalize those experiences as such. For the women, these experiences
were “empowering.” The women reinterpreted their experiences of making
someone want them sexually as empowering, but they also worried about a
future where they might lose their sexual attractiveness due to aging. While
an outsider may judge the women’s perceptions, it is important to keep in
mind that our perceptions become our reality. Thus, for these women, these
experiences were empowering.

Femininity via Making Someone Want You

Thirty of the 43 women in this study spoke explicitly about the value of an
outside partner in terms of feeling wanted sexually. Much like socialization
over the life course that teaches women to believe their best validation comes
from being sexually desired by men—as many men within whom you can
inspire desire—these women both wanted and needed to be found sexually
desirable by men. It is akin to the cultural mandate of masculinity for men
to demonstrate sexual prowess again and again, and to rack up high num-
bers of sexual partners with no “finish line” pronouncing them “masculine”
(Fields et al., 2015; Fine et al., 1997; Flood et al., 2007; Halkitis et al., 2004;
Pascoe, 2011). There is no moment where men are rewarded with the status of
“manly enough.” They must reproduce and reify that status continually, and
constantly perform masculinity (M. Kimmel, 2000; M. Kimmel & Aronson,
2004; M. S. Kimmel et al., 2005; Pascoe, 2011). Likewise, emphasized femi-
ninity requires women to inspire desire in as many different men as possible.
This mandate also knows no bounds. There is no moment where she is deemed
“feminine enough,” “sexy,” and “powerful” via her femininity for life. She
must continue to work at her performance of femininity over her lifetime.
The women expressed a sense of having missed that feeling for some time.
Erica (46, married) stated it simply: “It’s the closest thing to feeling wanted
I’ve had in a long time.” Even in marriages that weren’t sexless, feeling
wanted by someone different was a plus. Daisy (36, married) echoed that
sentiment: “It feels great to be wanted by another man.” The spark of being
the object of a new person’s desire reawakened them. Marlo (46, married)
explained that her outside partner provided something that had been missing
a long time: “The need to feel beautiful in the eyes of someone else. The need
to be listened to and heard. These are the needs going unmet in my marriage.”
For women whose primary partnerships no longer provided this validation, an
outside partnership filled those gaps.
72 Chapter 3

This feeling of being wanted had the power to soothe hurt feelings and
help things at home. Helen (53, married) explains, “I get the attention and
affection from my outside partners, which makes my home life more work-
able. It’s very flattering when this man could’ve had his choice in women
yet he wanted me.” For the women in this study, life with their primary part-
ner meant they starved for the validation of being wanted. Life without the
boost of feeling desired felt empty. These women experienced the attention
provided by potential outside partners as empowering. This justification sup-
ports previous findings showing that a common rationalization for infidelity
is the desire to feel wanted by someone else (Barta and Kiene 2005; Glass
and Wright 1992). Glass and Wright (1992) found that a desire to improve
self-confidence is often cited as justification for an affair.
For these women, this renewed feeling of being wanted was enticing
and seductive. Trudy (33, married) explains the seductive quality of feeling
wanted sexually: “When my phone buzzes, I get excited because I know
someone is thinking about me. I get pleasure from knowing that someone
somewhere wants me.” These women experienced men’s sexual desire as
accomplishment. For them, it was proof of their ability to inspire sexual
desire and response. This should come as no surprise given how social-
ized women are to find validation in men’s sexual desire, and to view being
wanted as an accomplishment. Gabrielle (45, married) drew enormous sat-
isfaction from knowing her outside partner wanted her when her primary
partner hadn’t demonstrated desire for her in years. She said, “As a woman
I have a great need to feel lusted after, wanted sexually. I want him to think
of me sexually, and get an erection every time.” Consistently evoking sexual
desire within their outside partners was valuable to these women and they
experienced it as empowering. Blake (35, married) spoke of a deep-seated
need being addressed by her outside partner. She explained, “I have always
needed male attention for whatever reason, and the extra boost I get from my
friend is perfect.” In their primary partnerships, the feeling of being wanted
had long been missing. Thus, the attention of the men on the site provided a
much-needed psychological boost. The women’s conception of themselves
was bound up in the male gaze. They were sexy if men deemed them so, and
the more men who wanted them sexually the greater their desirability. Their
own sense of themselves as attractive was externally located, which is typical
in U.S. society. This idea that as a woman you are only attractive if a man
says so is a pervasive concept reified throughout media and gender socializa-
tion. The women of this study were not immune to these messages.
This was especially true for the twenty-eight women in this study whose
perception of themselves as attractive and sexual had diminished as a result
of the dynamics of their primary partners. These women internalized a lack
of sexual activity with their primary partners not only as rejection, but as
 You’re not the Boss of Me 73

evidence of their lack of desirability to men in general. Alyssa (24, partnered)

explained that all she wants is “someone that will laugh at my jokes and tell
me I am pretty.” Heather (33, partnered) went a bit further and delineated
that “it feels good to be desired, and better to actually orgasm.” Sophie (53,
married) echoed that for her the boost came from the physical interaction. She
said, “Someone to touch me, which lets me know someone wants me sexu-
ally.” This attention and feeling of being wanted increased the women’s own
perception of themselves as a sexual entity. Aurora (41, married) explained,
“I think I feel sexier and more desirable in general.” Esme (31, married) elab-
orated, “My outside partners remind me that I am sexy.” Jamie (34, married)
explained, “He rounds out my life. He gives me a reason to ‘try,’ whereas my
husband couldn’t care less if my hair is curly or straight. OP [outside partner]
notices my hair.” It may be easy to dismiss these statements as “silly” or
“trivial,” however, in a culture that screams continually about the importance
of capturing the attention of men, this was no small thing to these women.
The sense of someone else desiring them boosted to their egos. And the
attention went a long way toward repairing a lost sense of themselves as a
sexual person, especially within a primary partnership that was sexless. Molly
(41, married) explained, “He and I were getting along well outside of our
sexual relationship. But no intimacy. And I was alone. And then, something
magic happened: someone brilliant paid attention to me.” This attention
helped these women recapture their own belief in themselves as beautiful,
desirable, and sexual. Shana (33, married) elaborated, “I wanted to feel like
I could be desired, and although my body was ruined from childbearing, I
could still be wanted by a man worth wanting to be wanted by. I didn’t want
to be wanted for love/companionship, and all the other obligatory aspects of
being married.” The women internalized the knowledge that someone else
desired them as empowering, and it further gave them a greater sense of
autonomy over their sexual lives than they previously imagined.
Tiffany (31, married) said, “I feel like a happier person overall because
my affair life boosts my self-esteem, confidence. My sex drive was higher
than my husband’s, and that hit my esteem pretty hard.” Years of a sexless
primary relationship was often the source of low self-esteem. Sofia (39, mar-
ried, Hispanic) explained, “I felt so unwanted and so alone in my marriage.”
Helen (53, married) echoed that sentiment: “Rejection coming from a spouse
is hard to take, and I never bring up things that I know will get rejected. My
advances have been turned down too many times to count so I quit trying.”
Coco (43, married) added, “Even though I know there’s a physical problem
I can’t shake the hurt of the early years when he was still hiding it from me.
I’d make advances and he’d shut me down, and it hurt very badly. It still
stings all this time later.” For the women in this study reporting a sexless pri-
mary partnership, the experience of being rejected repeatedly had shaken not
74 Chapter 3

only their confidence, but also their sense of control over their lives. Before
their outside partnerships, their sexual expression seemed under the reign of
another person, who more often than not, rejected their advances. In their out-
side partnerships, they were in control of their sexual expression again, which
was empowering. Alongside that, a man who owed them nothing found them
sexually attractive and that made them feel powerful as well.
Even in marriages that weren’t sexless, but where there was sexual incom-
patibility, the women’s self-esteem was depleted. Alexa (45, married) spoke
of this: “Our sex life had deteriorated to him expecting a hand job and then
using a vibrator on me while I was fully clothed. It just about killed my self-
esteem.” In a society that holds marriage in such esteem and imposes upon
it such high expectations, our spouses are supposed to love us, and desire
us more than anyone else. When their primary partnerships failed to live up
to the ideal, these women internalized that as a problem within themselves.
After spending years feeling “damaged,” and “beyond undesirable,” their out-
side partners reaffirmed their status as “sexually desirable.” Sexual activity
in their primary partnerships that did not result in orgasms or even increased
intimacy took a toll on women as well. Despite technically having sex with
their primary partners, they felt undesirable and unattractive. Thus, for these
women, being wanted by outside partners was a godsend.
This was the case even in the case of an outside partnership that had
ended. Vanda (62, divorced) spoke of an early affair where an outside part-
ner abruptly ended things. Although she was hurt at the time, she still saw
its value. She explained, “That brief affair did boost my ego and lift my
self-esteem.” So while the association had come to an end, rather than serve
as a source of pain, the memory of her encounters with that outside partner
still served as a reminder of her sexual appeal. Helen (52, married) also
found power in the experience even once the outside relationship ended. She
explained, “When I am the one who stops the outside partner relationship, I
am not bothered by it at all. Many times the OP will continue to make contact
via email or txt, trying to change my mind. I may decide to keep them as a
‘contact,’ but I don’t go back into the relationship.” Thus, the power of the
experiences of outside partnerships did not end once the association between
the partners ended.
For the women in this study, life in a sexually incompatible marriage,
where their needs were not prioritized or met took a real toll on their self-
esteem.  They internalized their partners’ rejection of their desired sexual
activity as a rejection of them as a partner and a sexual being. Thus, the
experience of sexlessness in their primary partnership had far-reaching
implications beyond simply being denied sexual release. In that respect, the
experience of having men clamor for their attention was healing.
 You’re not the Boss of Me 75

Even when these women were in between outside partners and vetting
new potential men, the sensation of being wanted sexually functioned as a
powerful draw. The women described logging on and the nearly immediate
crush of admirers vying for their attention as empowering. Lori (30, married)
verbalized it: “These men had never met me in person, but they were spew-
ing compliments. It was like a drug. I had forgotten how nice it was to be
complimented and interesting to the opposite sex.” This attention could act
as a salve for hurts and rejections within their primary partnerships. Luciana
(53, married) said, “My husband may lack interest in me, but if other men
desire me, I feel really good about myself.” They internalized as validation
the sexual interest from other men, and a sign that they possessed something
other women did not, and that their primary partners were wrong not to desire
them and cherish them. Another benefit was that the vetting process offered a
space where the women felt they had a lot of control and power over the situ-
ation. Tiffany (31, married) felt empowered as a result of the circumstance
of being able to choose from a large number of admirers. She described the
experience: “The attention I received as a woman on the site was astounding.
So many men were flooding my inbox, it was empowering at some level.
Suddenly, I could have my pick and men were jockeying to win my affec-
tions. At first I had no intentions of meeting anyone offline. Now I’ve met
more men than I can even remember.” Coco (43, married) added, “Living
in a house where my husband looks away when I’m naked, my self-esteem
takes a hit. On one hand, I get that it’s the fact his health won’t let us have
sex. But on the other hand, I get to feeling like I’m hideous. Having a man
remind you that you’re a good looking woman is a big boost.” While these
narratives may sound insignificant, it is important to recognize the power of
the ability to get their needs met finally after years of going without in their
primary partnerships.
After years of feeling undesired and nearly invisible as a sexual being,
the sudden onset of attention from multiple men was a rush. Interestingly,
the women are still being “chosen,” as men are still primarily the initiators
on the site. As previously discussed, this is in part due to the fee schedule.
So women are really choosing from men who have already chosen them via
sending a message to them. Yet their experience of this process was that they
were choosing. The volume of men messaging them made the process feel
as though the women themselves did the selecting. When we contrast this to
organic dating, the empowering effect the women report becomes clear. In
organic dating, one rarely has 50–100 potential suitors vying for your atten-
tion on any given day, month, or even a year. Thus, it would feel like you
were choosing in that scenario. And in reality, they were choosing from a
large pool. In organic dating, you are only ever choosing to accept an invi-
tation from the one person asking, and you’re unsure whether another will
76 Chapter 3

come along. That situation often feels like you are being chosen rather than
do the choosing.
Throughout their search, they found their inboxes brimming with messages
from men hoping to catch their eye. This dynamic served as a daily boost of
confidence and feeling of empowerment and validation. Whether these men’s
adulation was genuine, or simply attempts to secure a sexual partner is impos-
sible to discern. While only five women specifically mentioned the possibility
that these men may not be sincere in their flattery, that realization did not dim
the effect it had on their egos. In other words, women chose to internalize
the flattery as though it were true, which boosted their self-esteem. Flattering
comments were nice to hear, but the women still deleted and blocked without
further communication many flatterers. Thus, men who were obviously flat-
tering only to increase their chances were not gaining much from their efforts,
if anything.
The women experienced the realization of their value on the extramarital
dating market as empowering. Having so many men showing interest made
the women feel in control of the situation. The women in the study held
the power to determine the dynamics of their associations with potential
partners. Unlike in their “real” lives, where they often felt powerless to
effect change, here was an arena where they were in charge. This echoes the
findings of Wesley (2002) whose study of exotic dancers revealed that, for
women, emphasizing your sexuality and getting attention from men can be
a source of power. As Giddens (1992) points out, “sexual freedom follows
power and is an expression of it” (39). Twenty-two of the women mentioned
that in their previous dating life they did not feel that they chose suitors, but
that they were chosen. They went from passive partakers in organic dating
to active participants in the Ashley Madison market. Those who noted this
dynamic went on to say they had largely undervalued themselves in their
previous couplings. Their online life on Ashley Madison demonstrated that
they were much more of a commodity in the dating market than they would
have ever guessed. Thus, they claimed power in both being consumers in this
sexual economy (carefully picking the men) and as commodities with a high
value. As a highly valued commodity on the Ashley Madison market, women
exercised the power to control the relationship boundaries, pacing, and goals.
While we may interpret the descriptions of these experiences as less than
freeing, the women in this study perceived their experiences as liberating.
Other people may read these descriptions as smacking of traditional gender
conformity, yet these women see their experience as boundary-crossing, out
of the ordinary, and freeing. For the women themselves, these events were
experienced as empowering. Our own interpretation of our experience is the
most powerful, most meaningful, and most real to us.
 You’re not the Boss of Me 77

Fear of Aging Out of Sexual Desirability

Four of the women in this sample mentioned a perception that their market-
ability as a desirable sexual partner for someone other than their primary part-
ner had a shelf life. Darcy (48, married) explained that her decision to take
the plunge and create a profile on Ashley Madison was in fact driven by her
own awareness of her aging. She said, “At 47, the ability to attract a sexual
partner may be a limited-time offer, so I think I kind of felt like it was now
or never.” Darcy’s statement belies her consciousness of the market nature
of the sexual economy in which she participates. This fear was not limited to
women in midlife. Dionne (37, married) echoed this sentiment:

I know that my window for these opportunities is limited. I am more physically

attractive than average, and I follow a healthy diet and exercise program to
ensure I am the best I can be. I am well educated, intelligent, and an engaging
person. But as I age, the quantity and quality of potential partners will diminish.
I am enjoying the moments for now and will have memories later on.

These 4 women believed aging reduces sexual desirability. They navigated

their outside partnerships under the awareness that the ability to call the shots,
garner an abundance of attention and offers online, and find fulfilling outside
partnerships would likely be limited as they aged. They were determined
to make the most of their current circumstances. As Luciana (53, married)
explained, “At my age, I need reassurance.” For these women, their sense of
themselves as sexual agents and sexual beings was wrapped up in the male
gaze, and cognizant of society’s youth worship and the invisibility of middle
age women.
Age played another role in their experiences. Two women described their
current exercise of outside partners as a “midlife crisis.” Jill (39, partnered)
explained her behavior:

I’ll freely admit I’m having a midlife fling. Decided that life is far too short to
settle, dust settles, I won’t. So I’m going to have fun, and if I have to be the
grey haired ol’ bat in the nursing home at 100 years old, I’m gonna be the one
with great stories to tell. NOT the 99 year old bitch, who taught Sunday school,
cooked dinner, outlived her hubby and raised 5 kids, who never come to see
her. Just saying.

Jill did not talk explicitly about her own shelf life in terms of sexual attrac-
tiveness, but she embraced the idea that sex is an activity associated with the
young, and that there would come an end to her extracurricular escapades.
Her sense and awareness of her own mortality drove her behavior. She feared
“missing out.” For her, outside partners served as a means to ensure she was
78 Chapter 3

not wasting her life or “settling,” especially in her less-than-satisfying pri-

mary partnership.
Awareness of the fleeting nature of sexual desirability in our culture based
upon age prompted some of the women to seek out and engage in outside
partnerships. The women report the desire to avoid a “what if” mentality later
in life. For these women, there was very much a sense of urgency and a per-
ception of their time running out in terms of ability to attract quality partners.
Exercising outside partners was an act of living life to the fullest, ensuring
they had no regrets, and exploring previously unchartered sexual waters. It
also enacted social norms regarding sex appeal and age.
The women in the study saw their own value on the extramarital dating
market as a form of power, which mirrors the idea prevalent in our society
that a woman’s value rests on her prowess at drawing the male gaze. Com-
panies market so many products geared toward women under the guise of
increasing her attractiveness to men (e.g., wrinkle cream, hair color, lipstick,
perfume, clothing, shoes). Magazines, television shows, books, films, and in
public discussion reinforced as an important goal for women attaining the
attention of men. However, the women in this study experienced their own
commodification on the Ashley Madison market as empowering. So these
women responded strongly to the same stimuli they have been trained their
entire lives to crave: to be the sexual object of a man.
It could be very tempting to write off these narratives as simply perfor-
mances of emphasized femininity. However, the women of this study maneu-
vered within and against culturally valued femininity and its expectations.
They stepped out of suggested gender roles by seeking out an outside partner.
This extra-relational space was not without its tensions and contradictions,
much like other spaces in their “real lives.” The act of participating in outside
sexual partnerships and the act of demanding that their sexual needs be met
stands in opposition to emphasized femininity. These women are enacting a
competing script and playing it off other social scripts around gender. These
women exercise their agency, in part, by capitalizing on these contradictions.
As Davies (1991) explains, “agency is never freedom of discursive constitu-
tion of self, but the capacity to recognize that constitution and resist, subvert,
and change the discourses themselves” (Davies, 1991, p. 51). The women of
this study subvert the norms of gender in secret, but they are not wholly free
from the grip of gender socialization.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELORS

In the United States, women are socialized from a young age to surrender
their sexual autonomy to the men in their lives. Many women take on their
 You’re not the Boss of Me 79

partner’s pleasure as their own, in part because they do not see themselves as
a sexual being with agency (Benjamin, 1988; Luker, 1975; Martin, 1996). For
women who have discovered agency, personal authority, and empowerment
through outside partnerships, extricating themselves from those associations
may not only be difficult. Doing so may exacerbate their realization of what
their primary partnership lacks in those areas. This has implications for thera-
peutic intervention.
The women spoke at length about the practice of explicit and clear bound-
ary and rule setting in their outside partnerships, and the fact that this was
missing in their primary partnerships. With this clear communication about
preferences, needs, desires, and boundaries, the women experienced a sexual
freedom absent in their primary relationships. In these outside relationships,
frank discussions did not include hurt feelings because the women divorced
the sexual activity from emotional or romantic attachment. In primary part-
nerships, honesty was more difficult to come by as hurt feelings were a given.
Being able to discuss wants and needs without the other party internalizing
and personalizing them as rejection held tremendous appeal and charm for
these women. They felt empowered by being able to voice their true thoughts
without concern for the feelings of the other person. Their desires did not
need to be filtered through the feedback of their partner. Additionally, within
these outside partnerships, there was no judgment regarding the women’s
desires. Within their primary partnerships, their desires were curtailed by
the judgment and opinion of their primary partner. The double standard of
society is at play in these intimate relationships. For the women, having the
person who was supposed to care about them most dismiss their desires as
something “not normal” was beyond hurtful. In outside partnerships, their
desires were appreciated.
Women in the United States develop a sexual self within the shadow of
the “slut” label. The threat of being labeled a “slut” is an ever-present risk
for women, and its effects can be devastating. Even within a primary partner-
ship, women may not feel completely comfortable revealing their deepest
sexual desires for fear of their partner thinking negatively or them—or worse,
outright thinking they are a slut. Conversely, in these outside partnerships,
the women functioned without concern for that man’s opinion of her. This
could be in part because he often did not know her full name, and had no
social overlap with her. The secrecy enveloping the relationship may also
play a role. Primary partnerships where there is enough trust and open com-
munication would permit women to express their sexual desires without fear
of judgment or reprisal. These findings shed light on concerns for the couple
in therapy.
Additionally, the women here described as a quality specific to their out-
side partnerships—and largely missing from their primary partnerships—a
80 Chapter 3

focus on their pleasure. Women were permitted to focus on their sexual

desire, pleasure, and orgasm rather than expending concern, energy, and
focus on their partner’s gratification. The importance of this cannot be under-
stated. Much of heterosexual sex focuses on male orgasm and male pleasure.
Women’s sexuality is second chair to that of her partner, and she is expected
to make her partner’s pleasure a priority over her own (McClelland, 2011;
Nicolson & Burr, 2003). However, her orgasm is so central to men’s self-
concept and masculinity, women routinely fake orgasm or feel pressure to do
so (Breanne Fahs, 2011; Jackson & Scott, 2007; Lafrance, Stelzl, & Bullock,
2017; Rogers, 2005). Men rarely consider the likelihood that their partners
have faked orgasm or report that they cannot discern between faking and
authentic orgasm (Knox, Zusman, & McNeely, 2008; Roberts, 1995), yet
women consistently orgasm less often than men (Richters, Visser, Rissel, &
Smith, 2006). Thus, for women, a relationship where her authentic pleasure
is the focus and there is no expectation for faking is invaluable, and likely
contrary to other/previous sexual relationships. This has implications for
therapeutic intervention.
Couple dynamics are established early and often take on a life of their
own. The women in this study reported that the dynamics of their primary
relationship were so solid and static that the relationship lacked opportunity
for them to enact the self they were before they took on the role of “wife” and
“mother.” Others reported a desire to try on other selves, which was some-
thing they could do within these outside partnerships. This created a sense of
freedom that did not exist with their primary partners. Because primary part-
nerships often fall back onto familiar models with role expectations, they can
limit and constrain. By contrast, the outside partnerships made up whatever
rules they liked. This has implications for therapeutic intervention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER AND SEXUALITY THEORY

Current cultural definitions of power discount women’s power (Miller &

Cummins, 1992), but these narratives illustrate “personal authority.” The
women in this study also talk about feeling empowered through their partici-
pation in outside partnerships. Audre Lorde (1984) acknowledges the erotic
as a source of personal empowerment, and Deborah Tolman (2002) posits
that the ability to feel and acknowledge desire is a fundamental facet both
of being yourself and being capable of connection with other people (Lorde,
1984; Tolman, 2002). These narratives clearly support the work of both
researchers. From a young age, women are trained to associate their own sex-
ual desires with stigma and danger, and fear being labeled “slut” as a result
(Tolman, 2002). For the women of this inquiry, these secretive relationships
 You’re not the Boss of Me 81

functioned as spaces absent those concerns. Since both parties risked detec-
tion, their outside partners were unlikely to “out” them as deviant or “sluts.”
Additionally, the compartmentalized nature of the associations meant what
happened between themselves and their outside partners was confined to that
space. Their partners often did not even know their full names, and had no
common social ties.
Not only did these women perceive their participation in outside partners
as an exercise of power, they were unwilling to cede power to these men.
They spoke openly of the appeal of setting firm boundaries and rules at the
onset of these relationships, and the absence of that in forming their primary
partnerships. They perceived the very structures of their primary partnerships
as granting the balance of power in favor to their primary partners. These
findings have implications for gender and sexuality theory.
The ability to clearly communicate their sexual interests, needs, and desires
without filter was powerful for these women. In their primary partnerships,
these women silenced their own needs in deference to their primary partner’s
feelings. Thus, their own sense of themselves as a sexual being existed only
with permission of their primary partner’s reaction. This echoes previous work
positing that in U.S. culture, female sexuality is appropriated to the service
of men (Dworkin, 1981; MacKinnon, 1986; Ramazanoglu & Holland, 1993;
L. B. Rubin, 1990). The very structures of their primary partnerships and
the confines of their roles (e.g., “wife,” “girlfriend,” “fiancée”) locked these
women into a sexual existence constrained by the expectations and desires of
their primary partners. Their participation in outside partnerships granted them
sexual subjectivity, some for the first time. The outside partnerships described
here lacked the qualities that often drive women to remain in partnerships that
do not serve their needs. Rather than expend time trying to maintain a pair-
ing where the man’s interests do not overlap with hers, these women felt free
to walk away from any relationship at any time. Break-ups lacked the mess,
complications, and public shame of those relationships women experienced in
their “real lives.” The recognition of the impermanence of the outside partner-
ships enabled the women to recognize their own power in the situation. Since
regardless of how either party navigated the association it would one day end,
women felt empowered to make demands and—more importantly—to avoid
settling. Rather than function as the sexually passive partner in the pairing
(e.g., waiting for a partner to initiate, or grant permission), in outside partner-
ships the women drove the relationship. They determined the what, when, and
how of the sexual activity between the outside partner and themselves. This
taste of freedom was so delicious, the women had no desire to return to exclu-
sively sublimating themselves to their primary partners.
Despite the fact that on average women come into marriage older and
more experienced than ever before, the double standard is still alive and well,
82 Chapter 3

and can be seen within primary partnerships. Women constructed outside

partnerships as spaces where their desires were encouraged and valued. This
stood in sharp contrast to their primary partnerships, where their desires were
often stigmatized. Regardless of the cultural shifts around marital relationship
formation, virginity is still touted as a prize in U.S. culture. Men are often
threatened by a mate’s prior sexual experience. For the women in this sample,
the shaming of their sexual preferences played an important role in their deci-
sions to participate in outside partnerships.
The specter of the “slut” label often constrains women’s sexual behavior.
From a young age, women learn that the world expects them to be a walk-
ing dichotomy. They are to be “sexy,” “knowing,” and “up for it,” but also
“innocent,” all while their sexuality is both regulated and surveilled by fami-
lies, schools, the media, and peers (Egan & Hawkes, 2010; Epstein, Elwood,
Hey, & Maw, 1998; Renold & Ringrose, 2011). Women’s risk of this label
is not limited to the men in their lives; women frequently label other women
“sluts” as well (Tannebaum, 2000; E. White, 2002; Wolf, 1997). The only
protection against the label is to frame one’s sexual activities within the con-
text of a “love” relationship (Bell, 2013; Crawford & Popp, 2003; Hamilton
& Armstrong, 2009; Schalet, 2011). For women who eschew this protection
and have sex outside the confines of a committed love relationship, con-
sequences include the “slut” label, discrimination, stigma, and status loss
(Nack, 2002; Phillips, 2000). For the women of this study, secretive outside
partnerships existed as safe spaces without concern for negative labeling and
stigma. Primary partnerships did not afford the same freedoms. The secre-
tive nature of these outside partnerships likely granted that protection rather
than a specific trait of their partner. Were these women to meet their outside
partners in an organic context where both were single, and get romantically
involved with them, it is possible that these men would view the women’s
sexuality through the lens of “slut.” This has implications for gender and
sexuality theory.
These outside partnerships functioned as a space for women to approach
sex “selfishly,” to be primarily concerned with their own pleasure rather than
the pleasure of their partner. Cultural expectations require women to defer to
men’s pleasure (Brenda Fahs, 2014). Considering the considerable orgasm
gap between men and women (Frederick et al., 2017; Laumann, Gagnon,
Michael, & Michaels, 2000), and the fact that researchers posit sociocultural
factors account for much of that gap (Frederick et al., 2017), the construction
of sexual relationships where women have the freedom and trust to verbalize
and focus on their needs is vital to optimal sexual pleasure. For these women,
primary partnerships were not conducive to consistent orgasm, often in part
because of a lack of freedom of expression. This has implications for gender
and sexuality theory.
 You’re not the Boss of Me 83

Cultural scripts around the roles of “wife” and “mother” are loaded with
expectations, restrictions, and responsibilities. These constraints can leave
little room for elements of a former self, a self-enacted previous to taking
on these roles (Kingston, 2004). The social scripts surrounding women and
relationships come to bear on primary partnerships, and can create conditions
where women feel stifled and unable to enact a desired self—either previous
or new. In these outside partnerships, women reported an ability to try on new
selves as well as enact former selves at will. This was an attractive feature of
these relationships, and quite different from the dynamic within their primary
partnerships. The ability to construct whatever relationship dynamic they
chose was a source of freedom the women had not previously experienced in
romantic pairings. When building a relationship without an existing cultural
model, the women opted to eschew the expectations of the social scripts sur-
rounding romantic relationships. Their participation in these secret relation-
ships sidesteps the burdensome expectations of gender, and empowers them
to investigate their own preferences and desires.
Connell’s concept of emphasized femininity comes into play in these nar-
ratives. While we tend to view this as exploitation and objectification, the
women in this study experienced their enactment of emphasized femininity
as powerful. This could be because they have been socialized—like most
women in the United States—to see it that way. This could also because
they pulled out this performance when they felt like, and rejected it when
they did not. Regardless, culturally women are primed to require valida-
tion of themselves as attractive and desirable from the men with whom they
come into contact, and the women in this study were no less subject to that
socialization. For women whose primary partnerships do not make them feel
wanted and alluring, their outside partnerships provided a boost, which to
them felt empowering. For women in sexless marriages, this was especially
important. But the self-esteem of most of the women suffered because of the
conditions in their primary partners. The impulse may be to ignore these nar-
ratives, or dismiss them as frivolous, unfeminist, or even sad. However, the
reality remains that for these women, the experience of once again having a
man validate their sex appeal and provide reassuring sexual touch was vital
to their well-being. Additionally, for the women who had for years functioned
in a primary partnership where the primary partner ignored their sexual
advances, the women experienced this as the freedom to exercise sexual
autonomy. Rather than waiting to be granted sexual contact, they had went
out and secured what they needed themselves. Additionally, perhaps for the
first time in their lives, the women felt they were choosing rather than waiting
to be chosen, and that experience felt powerful. While the women reported
the enactment of emphasized femininity, they did so within a decidedly
unfeminine context: pursuing an extramarital affair. Women are socialized to
84 Chapter 3

deny their own sexual desires, and there is considerable stigma surrounding
women who dare to seek multiple partners.

CONCLUSION

Undergirding all of these narratives is a sense of women’s power. By taking

the step of actively seeking to meet their own sexual and relational needs
through an outside partner, the women in this study discovered a sense of
personal authority. Women spoke repeatedly of being more in control, feel-
ing freer in their self-expression and expression of sexual desire and prefer-
ences, and setting boundaries. Outside partnerships functioned as spaces
where women could “call the shots” in a way that their primary relationship
dynamics did not permit. This new sensation of sovereignty over their lives
sometimes left them feeling giddy. The sense of being in control of their most
intimate physical expression improved their mood, self-concept, and outlook.
By creating a profile on Ashley Madison, feeling free to exit relation-
ships that weren’t working, and even just knowing the that option to pick
up another partner was there boosted their sense of personal authority. The
women in the study created spaces for themselves where they held the bulk
of the relational power. They spoke of the freedoms of speaking their minds,
asking for their desires without shame, setting the terms of their relationships
to their own liking. These women found a space of control and autonomy in
these secret alliances at a level they believed to be impossible in their primary
relationship.
However, for the most part, the power they described was personal author-
ity rather than having power over someone else. This authority was expressed
in a variety of ways: the expression of sexual desires deemed taboo in their
primary partnership; concentrating on their own sexual pleasure as opposed
to being concerned about their partners’; autonomy to set relationship bound-
aries, including ending associations at their whim; and having the power to
select a partner rather than waiting to be selected. Additionally, the women
in this study described outside partnerships as a space where they could enact
forgotten and former selves, as well as try on other selves, rather than feeling
tied to performing a role, such as “wife” or “girlfriend,” as they often did in
their “real lives.”
For some women, the roles of “wife,” “girlfriend,” and “fiancée” were in
conflict with the role of a “lover.” The dynamics within their primary part-
nership constrained their ability to enact certain facets of their personality,
develop new ones, or investigate and explore sides of themselves. For some
women, the freedom of the bounded outside partnership in their lives created
a space where they were free to perform a role they may not want to execute
 You’re not the Boss of Me 85

all of the time. Within their outside partnerships, they reported the liberty and
autonomy of performing whatever role they choose for however long they
choose. They decide when to pull out this persona, and when to hold it back.
Should they tire of the sexual personality they have decided to perform with
their outside partner, they have the sovereignty to refrain from continuing the
performance. If their outside partner is unhappy with the change, he can be
replaced. This is vastly different than their lives with their primary partners
where early relationship dynamics establish and set the tone for interactions
for years to come (Surra & Gray, 2000). For many of the women in this study,
the dynamics of and the expectations of the roles expected in their primary
partnerships left no space for them to be themselves. The sexual personal-
ity the women had instituted with their primary partners was often the only
one they felt safe to perform with him. Outside partnerships permitted both
exploration of personalities they had never considered before—or never had
the opportunity to try out—and the opportunity to reacquaint themselves
with sides of themselves they’d long ago put aside. Participating in an out-
side partnership granted these women more autonomy and control over their
sexual lives, their happiness, and their ability to exercise different facets of
themselves, and enabled them to enact roles their “real” lives couldn’t accom-
modate. While the practice extorted a toll on them due to the required lying,
deception, and enduring break-ups, the payoff was a space of tremendous
empowerment. (The toll of their participation will be discussed in chapter 4.)
However, within the narrative, a small group of women described practices
of emphasized femininity as a form of power as well. Given the pervasive
socialization of women to see their own sexuality and sexual appeal as a tool
to use on men, it would be difficult for these women to interpret those expe-
riences in any other way. Overall, outside partnerships functioned as spaces
where women felt powerful in ways their “real lives” did not permit.
 Chapter 4

A Gift You Give Yourself, But

Nothing Comes for Free

Considering the time, expense, energy, and risk required to participate in

an outside partnership concurrent to a primary partnership, the payoff must
be immense to entice people to continue. After all, much is on the line. The
women of this study were acutely aware of the risks, and proceeded with open
eyes. They were practical and rational in their decision-making. The value of
these outside partnerships motivated women to continue their participation.
The women in this study reported deriving many benefits from participa-
tion in outside partnerships. The sexual satisfaction gained provided many
psychological and emotional benefits. The women believed their outside
partnerships did not just benefit themselves, but also their primary partner-
ships, and other social ties. For women whose lives had been sexless for
years prior to participation in outside partnerships, the ability to have their
needs met was invaluable in terms of the positive impact on their emotional
self-management. However, they were equally upfront about the costs of their
behavior. None of these women tried to present this practice as a perfect solu-
tion. Rather, they presented outside partnerships as a practice much like the
others we choose in our lives: having both positives and negatives.

BENEFITS

The women of this study talked about their outside partnerships as a space
from which they drew many assets. In their “real lives,” they compromised,
made concessions, put themselves last, and adjusted themselves to their
primary partners. By contrast, their outside partnerships served as a place
absent settling and compromise. They could get exactly what they wanted
and needed. It provided a much-needed mental health break, broke up the

87
88 Chapter 4

monotony of “real life,” and helped them keep a handle on their own emo-
tional lives so they could present their best selves to their families and pri-
mary partners.

“A Little Vacation for Me”

The women in this sample repeatedly verbalized the sense of outside partner-
ships as an “escape.” Twenty-seven women specifically described outside
partners as a vacation or escape from their “real” lives. Lori (30, married)
stated it simply: “It’s a vacation from reality. It’s a moment of relaxation.”
Coco (43, married) echoed that sentiment: “It’s an incredible break from
reality. When we’re together, the two of us are all that matters. No worries
about who is picking up the kids, who is paying the bills, doing the laundry.”
In our current double-income, high stress world, we often feel stretched to
their limits. For the women in this study whose primary partnerships were
not a space where their needs were prioritized, outside partnerships became
a space of relaxation. Joy (34, married) elaborated on the “vacation” value of
her outside partnership:

He’s like a vacation. I work full-time. We have [small] children; I am a [stu-

dent]; I’m [active in community]. I’m busy. When I’m with OP, we just have
fun, and it’s really the only time I can just focus on rest, relaxation, and social-
ization. The relationship is based on pleasure, not just physical. He’s also some-
one who finds me interesting and funny and looks forward to my company (and
vice versa). I can’t drink on the beach in Cancun for three hours, but I can see
him for three hours. And frankly, I think it’s more fun to see him.

Outside partners functioned as a place of respite from the stress and toil of
their real lives. Victoria (24, married) saw her outside partnerships similarly:

My partner in my outside relationship is my safe haven. Whenever I have any

issues at all, I know I can always go to him. If I need to get away for a while, I
know I can call him up, and go and hang out, and de-stress. It provides an escape
for me, a way for me to unwind and get away from reality for a while. I look at
my outside relationship as a fairy tale.

Outside partnerships operated as a hiatus from the pressures of “real life,”

including those pressures in their primary partnerships.
For the women in this study, these relationships function as spaces of
relaxation because they are bounded from the real world responsibilities of
these women’s lives. Shana (33, married) explained her outside partnership:
“In my external relationship, there are no expectations, no stresses. It is just
what it is: an external affair meant to be fun.” Vanda (62, divorced) described
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 89

her outside partners as “respites from daily problems and responsibilities.”

And, of course, the extra sex in their lives helped them relax as well. Shelia
(41, married) explained that the chief value of her outside partnerships was
the sex it provided. She explained, “Sex is sort of a coping mechanism, stress
reliever. Without it I’d have to go to the gym, or something drastic like that.”
Jamie (34, married) referred to her outside partner creatively: “He’s a great
escape whenever  we can  together. He is like Novocain for all the negative
emotions I have in my marriage.” Molly (41, married) used creative language
as well: “Having an outside partner is my antidepressant.” There was a sense
of an outside partner as something these women did solely for themselves.
Helen (53, married) conceptualized hers: “I look at my outside partners as a
gift I give myself.” Georgie (53, married) echoed the idea of giving yourself
a gift: “But as the sexual feelings became more intense, I finally decided that
I was tired of taking care of everyone else, and only thinking about their feel-
ings and needs. I decided that I deserved to have my needs met. So I gave
myself the gift that keeps on giving.” Vanda (62, divorced) shared that view
of these relationships as well. For her, an outside partner was a special gift.
She explained that her outside partner was “someone who was totally focused
on me.” Outside partners became a gift the women in this study gave them-
selves. It was something in their lives that existed solely for them, for their
pleasure. That differentiated these associations from their “real lives,” where
they allotted most of their time for the benefit of primary partners, children,
bosses, and primary partnerships, which were sites of disappointment and
unmet needs. Their “real lives” stood in stark contrast to the playgrounds of
outside partnerships. They anticipated these scheduled meetings from one
meet to the next, and women reported being able to talk themselves through
emotionally challenging, frustrating “real life” moments by reminding them-
selves that they had this mini-break coming up.
Ultimately, these women saw their outside partners as a safe space of
repose. Gabrielle (45, married) said, “I rest in my lover. All the family pres-
sures are gone. I can say anything to my lover, and it will not hurt him like it
would my [husband]. I don’t have to work hard at making my lover happy.”
Izzy (39, married) expanded on this: “I can self-talk through my primary
partner’s selfishness, laziness, or just annoying humanness because I have a
huge secret that’s just for me. Something no one can touch. It’s all mine and
it keeps me sane.” Coco (43, married) described a similar response:

Before I decided to do this, there were so many days where I would just lose it.
I’d have to give myself a time-out because I was so cranky and frustrated. Some
days, the smallest thing could just make me explode, you know? Because I was
seething with this resentment and sexual frustration, the tiniest thing would turn
into a big thing. But now, these things happen and I just close my eyes and take a
90 Chapter 4

deep breath, and I remember that I’ve got a treat coming soon. I can get through
this now, because later I’m doing something that’s just for me. I think everyone
is happier with “Chill Mommy” than they were with “Stressed-out Mommy.”

Erica (46, married) explained, “The sex keeps me relaxed, unwinds me. A
few weeks ago my outside partner  said that I only like him for his body.
He was joking, I think.” Outside partners provided a space of respite and
relief for women whose lives were stressful, packed, and otherwise devoid
of self-care, or a primary partner who cared for their needs. These scheduled
getaways with their outside partners were places of leisure, as well as experi-
ences of having someone focused on their pleasure, their release, and their
enjoyment. These meetings juxtaposed to the rest of their lives, where they
were responsible for children, jobs, and the emotional work and maintenance
of a partnership, as well as their own needs.

Adds Spice
Twenty-one of the women in the study talked about the ways in which their
outside partners improved their lives, and throughout these narratives the
women used the word “spice.” For some of the women, it was simplistic.
Vanda (62, divorced) said, “I get new ideas. I feel more alive.” Harlee (63,
married) spoke simply as well: for her outside partnerships brought “excite-
ment and variety.” Their outside partners allowed them to recapture things
lost after years of “real” life with their primary partner. Blake (35, married)
echoed that sentiment: “I guess what I get from my OP is that new adventure
feeling. With my OP it’s the feeling of discovery that is sort of gone from
my marriage I suppose.” This break from routine was a welcome break from
mundane days and primary partnerships that had gone stale. “Real life” had
worn away any sense of real excitement and incentive in their primary rela-
tionships. The deficit condition of some of the primary partnerships likely
heightened this effect. Ceclia (42, married) spoke of this: “Emotional, sexual,
mental and physical stimulation. All the romance that you feel before the
paint wears off [in your primary partnership].” Jordan (34, partnered) talked
about spice that had been lost as well: “Well, you know that feeling when
you first meet someone, and your heart is all jibbly, and your stomach is all
wobbly, and every time that they touch you, you about jump out of your skin?
Yeah, that.” Coco (43, married) explained, “My marriage is boring. My daily
life is boring. I am racing toward the nursing home, and what do I have? I’ll
be sitting there looking back on nothing but a lifetime of boring, and sexless
boring at that. My outside partnerships make my life not boring. I need that.”
The spice provided relief and excitement in otherwise predictable and bor-
ing lives. Bobbie (33, married) stated, “My outside partnerships may be the
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 91

most interesting thing about me.” Popular culture allots much space to men’s
concerns about aging, missing out, and needing a boost. The concept of the
“midlife crisis” is embedded in casual conversations. Rarely do we consider
the loss of the excitement of youth among women. The reality is that stress
of midlife and the accompanying concern regarding “missing out” is not
the domain of men; women are just as likely to suffer from these concerns
(Saucier, 2004; Shellenbarger, 2004; Wethington, 2000). Granted not all of
the women in this inquiry were in “midlife” (a concept whose definition is
by no means universal), but many spoke of concern that a future, older them
would experience regret regarding missing out. Additionally, journalists, Lia
Macko and Kerry Rubin, suggest that today even women in their thirties can
experience a midlife crisis. While the narratives do not support the view that
these outside partnerships were part of a midlife crisis, some of the narratives
clearly articulate concern that by simply remaining fidelitous in unfulfilling
primary partnerships they were missing out on things they would regret later.
The sense that “life is short” was strong here.
Outside partnerships provided an infusion of anticipation. Daphne (44,
married) explained, “He makes me feel good for a bit. Leaves me wanting
more and looking forward to my next fix.” Luciana (53, married) echoed that
sentiment: “An outside partnership does give me something to look forward
to. I work [more than 40 hours] a week, and although I enjoy my work, I need
a social life.” These women highly valued having something to look forward
to again. Avery (45, married) elaborated, “It fills the gaps in my marriage.
It’s something to look forward to. I get a ‘fix’ from it.” In the same way some
of us anticipate a film outing on the weekend, a special meal out, or a vaca-
tion weekend with friends to break up the monotony, these women regularly
scheduled these breaks from reality that added excitement and novelty to
their lives.
The spice from outside partners awoke other parts of them besides their
sexual selves. Darcy (48, married) explained, “My partners inspire me to
work harder and try new things out in my real-life world. They bring chal-
lenge, excitement, novelty.” But the sexual spice was clearly still very impor-
tant to these women. Brinley (33, married) spoke of it:

I feel that life is less mundane and that there are more unknown future possibili-
ties waiting to happen. I feel as though I am really living my life. I get variety,
change, the unknown. All things [primary partner] cannot possibly give me.
When I am in an outside relationship, I am sexually satisfied and happier from
the regular contact with more than one man.

For these women, participation in outside partnerships was like being resusci-
tated. Marrisa (31, married) said, “I feel alive again. They also bring a sexual
92 Chapter 4

excitement and awakening that was lost over the years of my marriage. My
affairs help me to explore myself.” The boost and novelty of outside partners
infused into their lives inspired women to open up other spaces of exploration
and growth. Women spoke of taking up writing, journaling, and new types of
fitness activities. The sensation and thrill of “trying something new” carried
over into other arenas of their lives. They grew other areas of their lives as a
result. Awakening (or reawakening) one aspect of their lives nudged awake
other aspects as well. Outside partnerships not only added spice in the bed-
room, but in the other “rooms” of their world as well.

Better Emotional Management in Primary Partnership

All of the women in the study made specific mention of the role their outside
partnerships played in helping them maintain their emotional life within
their primary partnerships and “real lives.” The phrase “makes me happier”
repeated throughout these narratives. Blake (35, married) went further to say,
“It does make it easier to be happy and cheerful.” The stress relief of sex and
orgasms played a role here as well. Shana (33, married) explained, “Makes
me feel less stressed. I am able to handle the annoyances in my marriage by
way of my outside relationship.” Sofia (39, Hispanic, married) explained, “I
felt like a teenager again, and I looked forward to the routine my lover and
I had created. So I was happy at home.” The reduction in stress alone posi-
tively impacted their ability to maintain an upbeat attitude. Georgie (53, mar-
ried) reflected, “Without the outside relationships I think I would be a much
grumpier, unhappy person.” Parvarti (33, married) went even further to say,
“An outside partner relationship helps me overlook the crappiness of married
life.” Throughout the narratives in this theme, women spoke of prolonged
painful periods in their “real lives” prior to the relief outside partnerships
provided. Molly (41, married) elaborated, “I overcame the dead feeling when
I entered into my first outside partnership.” For the women in this study,
entering into an outside partnership for the first time had an immediate posi-
tive impact on their state of mind. The relief and mood boost was instant and
sustained over the time period of the association.
Outside partnerships helped them mitigate their resentment within their pri-
mary partnerships. Jamie (34, married) explained her experience: “I resented
my husband for not being able to please me, especially when I was asking for
what I needed. When I see my OP, I am sexually satisfied and the anger that
I hold towards my husband is somewhat abated.” Coco (43, married) added:

I know I married for sickness and health, but who honestly thought that that
vow meant they were agreeing to a sexless life from age 35 onward? Certainly
not me. I love him, but I’m not the one who’s sick. His illness renders his desire
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 93

gone. But it doesn’t have the decency or kindness to do the same to me. I’m still
sexual. I still have sexual desire. I’m young. One day, I’ll be too old to want sex
(I guess). And I’ll look back on this time and regret wasting away. I know that.
So, I’m getting it while I can. Wish I was getting it with my partner, whom I
adore. But life has been cruel, so that isn’t an option.

Avery (45, married) chimed in, “It’s irrational, I know. But I struggle not to be
pissy and mean to my husband because his health is the reason we can’t have
sex. OPs help me not take it out on him.” Rising above that resentment to be
able to rediscover joy was important to the women and their other relation-
ships. Emma (51, married) described the change: “My mood has been more
light-hearted in the past few months, improving my relationship with my son.
When I was monogamous with my husband, I resented him for taking away
my sexuality. I would snap at him over nothing.” For women enduring within
primary partnerships that were not meeting their needs, their participation in
outside partnerships helped alleviate the underlying resentment in their “real
lives.” This echoes therapist, Emily M. Brown’s work: “[Affairs have] a lot
to do with keeping anger, fear, and emptiness at bay” (Brown, 2001, p. 21).
The women in this study were confident that outside relationships were
improving their lives. Trudy (33, married) elaborated, “If I didn’t get what
I needed outside our relationship I would be way, way worse. I am happier
because of my outside partnership.” The value of outside partnerships in
these women’s lives cannot be understated. Darcy (48, married) described
her response to having outside partnerships: “I definitely feel more content in
my primary relationship, less stifled and trapped.” The time away from their
families and primary partners served as “me time” for the women. Victoria
(24, married) explained, “In general, it allows for me to mentally reset. [Out-
side partner] allows for me to step away from any issues I may have at home,
and get my head straight before I return.” Among these women, the sense
was strong that outside partners help them treat their primary partners better.
Tiffany (31, married) explained the changes in her own behavior before and
after her outside partnerships: “My affairs allow me to be less controlling
and overbearing. Helps me to be easygoing with my husband and more eas-
ily able to forgive small things. I no longer challenge or judge him because I
don’t feel ‘stuck.’ They help me to reduce my expectations in my marriage.
I am more pleasant, and there is less tension.” Helen (53, married) echoed
that sentiment: “I think I have more patience and am more understanding of
my husband’s situation. I’m not expecting more from him than what he can
give.” This extended to more tolerable responses to the state of their sexual
relationship with their primary partners. Andrea (35, married) elaborated, “It
just helps take so much focus off my husband’s faults. I am more accepting
of the mediocre sex [in the primary partnership] because I know I can get my
94 Chapter 4

kink elsewhere.” Ultimately, this external sexual outlet altered the dynamic
between the women and their primary partners. Joy (34, married) explained:

Now that I have this amazing extra-curricular sexual outlet, I’m not demanding
sexual behavior that doesn’t come naturally to [her primary partner], so I’m not
disappointed and frustrated and taking those feelings out passive-aggressively
(or overtly) to him. So it may not be a healthy way to deal with issues, but it’s
effective. When I get mad at him and think about being mean, I remember that
I’m a cheating B-word and check myself.

Bobbie (33, married) added:

It’s pretty hard for me to get mad about much of what he does because of what
I’m doing. He’ll do something that in the past would’ve completely set me off.
We’re talking weeks of conflict about something, and now I just shrug because
I think, “I don’t need to stoop to his level of childishness because I’m fuck-
ing someone and he has no idea.” I just press my lips together and walk away
because at the end of the day there’s no one more selfish and fucked up than I
am. How could I ever make up for what I’m doing? I can’t. So, I just try to be
as easy to get along with as possible because at the end of the day I’ve got no
leg to stand on.

Getting their sexual needs met elsewhere meant they granted more emotional
charity within their primary partnerships. They reported being more capable
of sidestepping conflict, compromising, and ignoring things within their pri-
mary partnerships that they could not change.
Another way they treated their primary partners better as a consequence
of their outside partnership was the result of the conversations with their
outside partners. Jamie (34, married) explained, “It’s nice to have a neutral
male outlook to a fight I have had with my husband. Because of my outside
partner, I may have been offered advice or a perspective that I may not have
seen [without outside partner’s commentary].” Aside from the sexual outlet,
their outside partners provided another male perspective for them to consider
and learn from. Daphne (44, married) echoed this sentiment: “He and I talk
like friends do, but I have a man’s perspective on issues. A girlfriend is going
to offer advice one way, and he will offer a totally different way. That alone
helps with communication with my husband.” For some of the women in this
study, outside partnerships functioned as spaces of learning and growth, in
terms of understanding their primary partners and their motivations. These
women were able to talk through conflicts, issues, and misunderstandings
they were having with their primary partners, and their outside partners
were able to offer objective feedback that helped them return home and
better mend fences. As a result, they were able to better grasp their primary
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 95

partners’ vantage point. These narratives echo Elizabeth Sheff’s work on

polyamorous women. Some of the women in Sheff’s study reported that
regular sex helped them maintain a pleasant demeanor (Sheff, 2005). Unlike
the women in Sheff’s inquiry, the women in this study were not participating
in consensual non-monogamy. Some of the women in this project expressed
interest in consensual non-monogamy, but their partners were not open to the
idea (discussed further in chapter 5).
Five of the women in the study also stated that having an outside partner
influenced them to better take care of themselves. Shana (33, married) gave
an example: “I have more energy; I want to go to the gym, and eat better.
It enhances my overall outlook of everyday issues.” Participating in outside
partnerships provoked participation in other healthy behaviors. Molly (41,
married) echoed that sentiment: “It helps me take care of my health and fit-
ness. I want to be attractive to [outside partners], so I take care of myself.”
For these women, their participation in outside partnerships motivated them
to increase their efforts at self-care. After having felt taken-for-granted
in their primary partnerships, the feeling that someone noticed the little
improvements they made to themselves gave them the push they needed to
step up their efforts at better health.
Twelve of the women in this study believed that their outside partner
helped them manage their emotional life so much so that when one ended
abruptly, they pulled away from their primary partner in response. Marta (61,
married) explained the change: “When it ends I’m depressed, withdrawn,
grouchy, and distant from spouse. I just want to be alone and grieve the loss.”
In her case, she never worried that her primary partner realized. “Spouse does
not suspect. He knows the marriage isn’t great, but doesn’t care anymore,
too old to change.” The women experienced acute negative effects when the
break up was not their idea. Tiffany (31, married) added, “I may become
withdrawn, and disconnected from my husband while I grieve.” In fact, the
word “grieve” came up in all twelve of these narratives. For Molly (41, mar-
ried), when one outside partnership ended, it had a very drastic impact on the
primary partnership. She described the ending of her last outside partnership:
“It was very bad. I wanted to leave my marriage, and I told that to my hus-
band. We had a very rough several months where I was withdrawn from him
completely. He was hurting, and I felt dead inside.” The ending of an outlet
for getting their needs met created circumstances where continuing to ignore
the problems in their primary partnership became impossible. Thus, serial
participation in outside partnerships helped sustain their resolve to stay within
their primary partnerships.
However, for most of the women who spoke of this, it was much less
dramatic. Esme (31, married) described her reaction: “It is like losing any
long-standing friendship. It is depressing. With my primary partner, I can
96 Chapter 4

become a bit stand-offish as I try to work through my feelings, and move on

in my relationships.” The biggest challenge was to hide their hurt, so as not
to arouse suspicion. Helen (52, married) echoed this sentiment: “I know it
effects my demeanor at home, and I need to keep my ‘poker face’ on, and I
work thru the loss on my own, in my own time.” Having a strong emotional
attachment to the outside partner exacerbated this effect. Allegra (42, mar-
ried) described a similar dynamic. She said, “I am happier overall, with the
exception of the period when I fell in love with my outside partner and we
‘broke up.’ It was heart-breaking and it did adversely effect my marriage a
little bit because I had to work through it alone. I was a mess when it ended.
Keeping those emotions hidden has been a task unto itself.”
Here we can see the wisdom in the women who prefer to limit the emo-
tional connections in their outside partnerships. While those narratives may
read as callous, that strategy ultimately serves to preserve their primary
partnerships.
Although the pain of an unexpected loss of an outside partner could be
tough to bear, the women in this study took great pains to conceal their hurt
and disappointment from those around them. Bearing the pain silently and
secretly, they strove to maintain equilibrium at home when their outside
partnerships collapsed. But the women immediately felt the impact on their
emotional state. The ending of an outside partnership disrupted the women’s
ability to function well in the primary partnership because all of the slack
the outside partnership typically took up in terms of mood, emotional regu-
lation, and tolerance for less-than-ideal primary partnership dynamics was
once again let loose. In between outside partners, the women were forced to
confront and tolerate the conditions that originally provoked their search for
an outside partner without the aid of the release gained from those associa-
tions. Often women described breaking up with their outside partners in cal-
lous terms. However, when they are on the receiving end of a break up, they
tended to feel upset.
One of the women in this study had a very different experience, however.
Alyssa (24, partnered) felt that her outside partnerships perhaps interfered
with her ability to manage her emotional life within her primary partnership.
She explained:

It actually has been pushing me away more. I am able to realize how much other
men would love to be with me & how much my boyfriend does not appreciate
me. However, it does help me not feel sad about my boyfriend’s neglect. It helps
me not think about my boyfriend & everything that is missing when I am not
around him. But when I am around him, all I do is think of how I deserve better.

Thus, while her outside relationships helped take her mind off the state of her
primary relationship, ultimately they only served as a band-aid. For Alyssa,
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 97

they only highlighted the flaws of her primary relationship. While she was
not married to her primary partner, she was still opting to remain in the rela-
tionship. The primary partnership she described was deficient in emotional
intimacy.
The women in this study enjoyed a number of benefits from their par-
ticipation in outside partnerships. They felt better able to manage their own
emotions within their primary partnerships, which greatly improved their
home lives. Outside partnerships provided sexual release, which served as a
powerful stress reliever and better enabled the women to enact their role as
“wife” or “fiancée” or “girlfriend.” Meeting with their outside partner was
a gift they gave themselves, akin to a mini-vacation. Outside partnerships
brought excitement and spice to their lives. They also motivated women to
take better care of themselves through gym attendance. These benefits helped
offset the harsher realities of the costs of outside partnerships to their lives.
Most importantly, participation in these outside partnerships helped make
staying in their primary partnerships—which was important to the women in
this sample—an easier and more realistic task.
Overall, women believed their outside partnerships offered many benefits
that extended beyond the bounded spaces of their encounters. They perceived
their primary partnerships as functioning better, and their own emotionality to
be better managed because of these scheduled liaisons. The exercise of out-
side partnerships provided the women with the tools to better withstand the
things in their lives which could not be changed. Outside partnerships granted
these women more tolerance and the ability to compromise and negotiate
their roles at home. Overall, they felt better capable to function well in their
“real lives” in their deficient primary partnerships as a result of their time
spent with outside partners.

COSTS

Despite the many positives outside partnerships brought to the lives of the
women in this study, there were also pronounced costs to participation. Some
of the participants became emotional while discussing the toll these activities
took on them. However, none of the participants planned to give up relation-
ships with outside partners. For them, the benefits outweigh the costs. Never-
theless, the negatives of outside partnerships as perceived by the women are
worth considering.

Putting on a Public Façade

Every woman in the study spoke of secrecy on one level or another, even
those women whose social circle permitted disclosure spoke of concealing
98 Chapter 4

their behavior. Every woman in this study repeated the phrase “no one would
ever guess this about me,” or a version of it at some point in our conversa-
tion. At the conclusion of the interview, nearly all of the women expressed
appreciation for being able to discuss these experiences with someone freely
and completely. Because this is such a stigmatized behavior, there is an
expectation and need to keep this part of their lives secret from most or all of
the people in their lives.
Twenty-two of the women in this sample spoke specifically of the demands
to keep up a façade of a “perfect marriage” or at least a “good marriage.”
Shana (33, married) explained this: “The outside partnership allows me to
uphold an image that society deems appropriate, while still being able to feel
like I am actually living, and not living a stagnant life.” Gabrielle (45, mar-
ried) echoed this sentiment: “Lots of women talked about how [my] marriage
looked perfect on the outside.” Coco (43, married) added:

My primary partner seems perfect. He does. He treats me very well. I do not

want for any material possession if he can help it. He’d run any errand I might
request. Great with the kids. Everyone would be shocked to know this, and
would ultimately hate me. I’d be the villain. But you take one full minute to
imagine never again having sex so long as your primary partner is alive. You
think you’d never cheat, but forever is a long time to go without. But do you
think I can explain this my friends? No. It would end my friendships. Hell, my
own family would probably turn their backs on me. I’d be a leper.

Considering the social pressure to be married, it is not surprising that there

is also pressure to present a more idealized view of that relationship to other
people. Many of us keep the negative details of those relationships even from
our closest friends. Admitting that there are serious problems in our central
relationship can open us to stigma, pity, and critique.
For many women, this pretense took a toll and proved isolating. Interest-
ingly, Blake reported that while she had friends with whom she shared this
aspect of her life, she still couldn’t break through the façade. She elaborated,
“Even though I do have a couple friends I can talk about this with openly
there is a sense of isolation. Neither of them can understand why I am opting
for an OP [outside partner] relationship. I think part of this is that my husband
is a great guy, and I don’t have any specific complaints.” Victoria (24, mar-
ried) voiced this as well: “I honestly feel like I am two completely different
people living in one body, and it is both emotionally and mentally draining.”
The experience of having an entire part of their lives kept secret from every-
one around them was, at times, exhausting for these women. They spoke of
constantly policing their conversations, worrying that they will impulsively
blurt it out, and having to track their lies about where they had supposedly
been during time spent with an outside partner. While the sexual fulfillment,
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 99

empowerment, release, and self-esteem boost were highly valued, continually

self-monitoring was draining.
For some women, this exacted a toll on their friendships. Sophie (53, mar-
ried) explained her experience: “Makes me almost break in half sometimes
missing [outside partner]; Makes me lead a ‘double life’ and distances me
from my friends because I can’t tell them the big news in my life.” Marlo
(46, married) added, “I feel like I have this huge secret that I want everyone
to know, but can’t say anything.” Tiffany (31, married) spoke about how
this isolation carries over into more than just social settings: “I feel alienated
from my work as well because I have a secret that no one knows about.” Ulti-
mately, most of the women in the study spoke of the toll of lying to so many
people in their lives and of the isolating nature of having an affair. Erica (46,
married) mentioned the constraint of her social network: “I cannot share this
with anyone. Mainly because my friends and my husband’s friends overlap.
It’s couples and we’re all close.” The women described the isolation of keep-
ing this aspect to themselves. Sophie (53, married) explained this need to
share: “We need a witness to our lives. There’s a billion people on the planet.
I mean, what does any one life really mean?” Without a peer group with
whom to share their experiences, the experiences themselves were somehow
lessened, and the women’s intimacy with other people along with it. The par-
adox of the outside partnership is that the more enmeshed in the practice of
outside partnerships and the more positives it brought to their lives, the more
isolated they felt from their other social ties. Besides the obvious distance one
might anticipate between a primary partner and themselves, participation in
an outside partnership proved to be a point of division between other social
relationships as well.
Two women in the sample handled this experience differently. While
isolation was an issue, Joy (34, married) spoke of the façade, but sometimes
amused herself with it. She elaborated, “I was at a bachelorette party a while
back and one of the fellow guests, who had been married maybe a year, said,
‘Once you start living together it’s easy for sex to get routine. What do [you]
do to keep it interesting?’ I chuckled in my head but did not contribute to the
conversation.” Another woman handled this by channeling her experiences
into creative stories. She utilized the venue of erotica to document her experi-
ences. She had always written erotica, but since participating in outside part-
nerships, her stories were now often accounts of her own escapades. In this
way, she could share what was happening in her life in a safe space without
judgment or fear of exposure.
However, ten women’s experiences deviated from the rest of the group.
Daphne (44, married) revealed that her girlfriends were not only not shocked
to learn of outside partnerships, “they all laugh at me that it took so long
for me to have an affair. It’s secretly accepted.” While eight women in this
100 Chapter 4

group had friends or family members in their network to discuss this aspect
of their lives, three of them sought like-minded people online. Jill (39, part-
nered) joined a Facebook of like-minded people because while she has “a
close friend to whom I talk to about my ‘sexploits,’” she was limited because
she had to “omit some info so she doesn’t know more than she should.” Two
other women found a new friend in a similar situation outside their existing
network with whom to bond.
Seven women spoke specifically about the need and the joy of sharing the
tales of their escapades and “adventures” with other people. Often a former
outside partner serves this purpose. Priscilla (37, married) spoke of one out-
side partner with whom she was no longer sexually involved: “Our affair
ended this week, in fact, [due to relocation]. We will remain friends, how-
ever, as we swap stories of our other conquests, which we have done for the
duration of our affair.” In Priscilla’s case, this outside partner was aware of
her other outside partners, and open about his other partners while they were
sexually involved. However, in the case of couplings with men who would
not be open to knowing about concurrent outside partners, current outside
partners could serve as confidants for processing past experiences with outside
partners. Gemma (45, married) said, “Some of the men I have connected with
have become confidants so have been able to talk to them about my experi-
ences, which has definitely helped.” Darcy (48, married) connected with other
like-minds on Ashley Madison, and created a support group. The need to talk
through this extraordinary experience was salient for women in this study.
Three other women spoke of dealing with this secrecy and isolation by
making their outside partner their confidant. Amanda (38, married) said, “I
am able to process my experiences [with her current outside partner] and
information with my outside partner.” Still, the secrets did create barriers.
Elizabet (26, partnered) also spoke of isolation: “It’s hard not being able to
talk about my experiences with my OP with my girlfriends.” But she spoke
of how this isolation works for the outside partnership. “I do find that my
OP and I do often end up sharing a lot and talking.” Another woman, Darcy,
reported turning men she had rejected as outside partners into sources of sup-
port. She (48, married) explained:

I have actually made friends with several men on AM, people I didn’t click with
sexually for whatever reason, but who I still liked. I discuss my “adventures”
with them, and they with me, which has been helpful in relieving that feeling of
isolation. My first OP was not someone I met online, it was a more traditional
“affair” and I really did feel isolated with that one.

Darcy elaborated on the isolation and pain she endured alone during that
initial outside partnership without the support of her online network of
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 101

like-minded friends: “I was also much more emotionally involved with that
person, probably actually a bit in love with him, and not just like/lust. I ended
up going to a therapist for a while when I was in the process of ending it,
because I was such an emotional mess about the whole thing.” Sharing the
experiences of having outside partners helped give some women more bal-
ance between the benefits and costs of outside partnerships. Some women
were creative in uncovering possible confidants to help process and navigate
these secretive relationships.
Meeting their needs through outside partnerships came at a price for many:
isolation and the strain of acting as though nothing in their lives had changed.
Many reported distance between themselves and their friends and often their
primary partners due to their own careful editing of their conversation. Thus,
their freedom was only valid in the space occupied with their outside part-
nerships. In their public lives and in the privacy of their own home, they felt
forced to continue performing their roles as they always had. Keeping secrets
from their primary partner and friends caused feelings of isolation, but it also
created solidarity with their outside partners, with whom they felt they could
share anything.
An important distinction for these women, however, is that the friendship
they sometimes shared with their outside partners stood in contrast to the
emotional attachments many sought to avoid. As mentioned previously, the
women differentiated “emotional attachment” as feelings of “love” or other
romantic or “mushy” feelings. However, for these women, the feeling that
they could share anything with their outside partnerships fell squarely under
“friendship.” What was important for them to avoid was “falling in love” with
their outside partners. This would create a situation where they would not
only be vulnerable to their outside partner, but also laid them defenseless to
getting confused about their priorities, both of which are situations they did
not have room for in their lives.

“A Hard Man is Good to Find”

Nearly all of the women in the sample spoke of having been disappointed
with a carefully selected outside partner. Women spoke frequently of their
unmet expectations of outside partners. In fact, the only women who did not
mention this theme were the women still in their first outside partnerships.
Brinley (33, married) spoke of this experience: “My standards are really high
for what I expect sexually, but I have not often been disappointed. The only
reason I cut off my two and only indiscretions [that she had ended] was that
the men underperformed. They did not live up to my expectations and I ended
things.” Brinley’s experience of not having been let down often was atypical.
In fact, those women who had been utilizing outside partners for some time
102 Chapter 4

spoke openly of their resentment at having their time wasted. Trudy (33, mar-
ried) described her irritation with a common scenario: “They talk it up and
you are like, yeah, I am going to fuck fucked out of me. Right? And then they
get there, and it’s probably worse than what you had at home. I go periods
of just cyber because so many men are all talk, because if his shit was really
that good, his wife would be all over it, right?” Sometimes the tales took a
darker turn. Coco (43, married) confessed, “I’ve been downright humiliated
before because the sex was just so awful that I was ashamed for having so
great a need for human contact and possible orgasms that I ended up in bed
with someone I shouldn’t have.” Avery (45, married) echoed this sentiment:

I really hate it when men don’t reveal their size or claim they “don’t know,”
but they claim to have “never had complaints” as if that should reassure me that
his size is good. I think of all the teeny tiny dicks I’ve seen up close and how
that guy is somewhere right now telling a girl, “I’ve never had complaints” and
he’s technically right because I didn’t tell him his dick was too small. Why not?
Because I don’t want to make him so angry that he might try to jack up my real
life, or hurt my primary partner by telling I slept with him. I look back on those
experiences and really wish I’d told the guy to get the tweezers to put that little
thing away, and just left the room. It makes me feel bad about myself to know
I basically had charity sex.

Sofia (39, married) added:

I have felt really humiliated when I’ve ended up in bed with a guy who can’t
keep it up, or even worse, if he can’t be human being without his clothes on.
Those are awful. I leave like I’m fleeing a crime scene. And I shower a long,
long time to wash that off me. And I’m embarrassed. No one knows but me, but
I’m embarrassed. Hard to look in the mirror. If I weren’t so weak and needed
sex, I wouldn’t have been in that situation. Those experiences are tough. I have
to take a break and step away from it because I kind of hate myself for a little
while.

These experiences of regret, humiliation, and even feeling used stood in

contrast to the more prevalent sensation of empowerment and exercising
sexual autonomy. However, the women understood this was the price of their
participation. None of the women had illusions of being able to choose a
competent, compatible partner every time.
The more experience with outside partners the women in the study had,
the more tales of disappointment they had to share. Most laughed off these
encounters, refusing to regret them. Those who had social outlets with
whom they could discuss this part of their life reframed these experiences
as “amusing party stories.” In fact, all of the women who shared incidents
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 103

of disappointment with discarding an outside partner with me stated they

were pleased to have someone (i.e., the researcher herself) with whom to
share the stories, and to try to reframe them as amusing anecdotes. Despite
the incidence of disappointing sexual encounters, the women maintained that
the benefits of participation in outside partnerships outweighed the costs.
Although neither woman knows the other, two women used the same phras-
ing to describe the situation: “Just like in the real world, you have to kiss a
lot of frogs to find the ones who are worth it.”
The women in this study often kept their profile on Ashley Madison active
even when in a satisfying outside partnership because of their frequent
experiences of disappointment. Luciana (53, married) articulated that her
current outside partner did not meet her needs, which drove her back to the
site to find someone else. Coco (43, married) said, “I’ve been let down by
my OPs enough that I just keep my options open all the time.” Avery (45,
married) echoed this sentiment: “You just can’t put yourself in a position to
be neglected and disappointed. You have to always be on the lookout for a
promising guy because the minute you think you’ve got your situation solved
is the minute you find yourself without again.” Bobbie (33, married) added,
“It would just be stupid for me not to keep my options open at all times. I
can’t get caught in a dry spell again. It nearly killed me before. I don’t want
to go through that again.” Erica (46, married) explained that participation in
outside partners made keeping a good one even more important: “When you
go without for a long time, like I did, it was easier to live without. Now that
I’m having it again, I crave it like crazy.” The fact that these women con-
tinued to keep looking for a satisfying outside partnership despite frequent
disappointment speaks to the level of need they are living with. The unmet
needs in their primary partnerships drove the women in this study to continue
their hunt despite enduring rude strangers, and instances of humiliating and
disappointing sexual events.
Marlo (46, married) defended her decision to end outside partnerships that
weren’t fulfilling: “Our time is so limited that I really want to make it count.”
Thus, her profile remained continually active. Most of the women were quite
optimistic that despite these incidents of frustration there were many satisfy-
ing partners out there. Shana (33, married), however, spoke of concern that
perhaps she would never find an outside partner who fully satisfied her. She
said, “I guess I am looking for a man who can fill the expectations that I
have in my head! Ultimately, I guess no man has ever fully satisfied. Don’t
get me wrong, there are some good ones, but ultimately, they never quite fill
that image that I have pre-established!” Thus, for at least a few of the women
in this inquiry, their expectations for outside partners were possibly as unre-
alistic as our culture’s normative expectations of husbands within marriage.
However, those women were a small minority in this group.
104 Chapter 4

Ultimately, the women maintained that even the experiences of disap-

pointment were beneficial and provided opportunities to develop freedom of
expression of their wants and needs. Tiffany (31, married) expressed it best:

I’m more assertive now of my emotional needs. I’m able to sort of “practice”
more complex social scenarios with less risk. What I mean by this is I feel more
comfortable telling a man who is my affair partner that he is not meeting my
needs for communication or for affection. If he doesn’t change, then I feel more
empowered to move on and find someone else if that is what I feel is necessary.

Since these relationships originate in the virtual world, the break ups occur
there as well. Given that both partners enter into the relationship with the
understanding that by its nature it will be a temporary association, there is
no compulsion to meet with someone in person to break off the relationship.
Additionally, given the tendency of Ashley Madison men to take break ups so
badly, breaking up over text or email also insulates the women from verbal
assault through the magic of blocking technology.
Of interest were the four women who had met their current and only out-
side partnership offline in their “real” lives, yet still created and maintained
profiles on Ashley Madison. Ashley Madison does offer a designation for those
members who seek only “erotic chat,” indicating the presence of a population
who do not seek in-person meetings, or who supplement those with erotic chat.
One woman utilized the chat feature because she believed the fantasy of sexual
encounters was often better than the reality of the in-person outside partner-
ships in which she had previously participated. Before the study’s end, how-
ever, she was back to in-person outside partnerships. All of the women in the
study remained optimistic about finding a partner to meet their needs if their
current partner was not up to par. The other three women in this group didn’t
express any unhappiness or discontent with their current outside partnerships,
but wanted to keep their options open to window shop for either an additional
partner to add to the mix, or a replacement partner should the need arise.
The women in the study expressed intense irritation with men they believed
misrepresented their prowess—either on purpose, or, more commonly, due to
a lack of self-awareness regarding their expertise. Yet they held onto to the
belief that if they were not currently engaged in a satisfying outside partner-
ship, it was “out there” waiting for them. Their job was simply to continue
vetting as carefully as possible in an effort to find it.
These findings challenge existing literature that women engage in sex for
a host of reasons not related to sexual release and pleasure, and that women
more often cite love and emotion as their motivation for sex (Browning,
Hatfield, Kessler, & Levine, 2000; Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985; Cooper,
Shapiro, & Powers, 1998; Hill, 1997; Hill & Preston, 1996; Impett & Peplau,
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 105

2002; Leigh, 1989). The women in this study spoke openly about the purpose
of their outside partners, which was pleasure. While they derived other ben-
efits, they were not shy about the mandate that the outside partner provide
pleasure, first and foremost. Their reported disappointment with outside part-
ners was in their sexual performance. These findings support those of Meston
and Buss (2007), who found that men and women are actually quite similar
in their reasons for engaging in sex (Meston & Buss, 2007). These findings
also support those of Meston, Hamilton, and Harte (2009), who examined
women’s sexual motivation as it correlated to age (Meston, Hamilton, &
Harte, 2009). They found significant differences in age groups’ motivations
for sex. Specifically, they found women in the 31–45 age group reported
higher results in sex relief and physical desirability than younger women.
Eighty percent of the women in this sample were between the ages of 30 and
49. Thus, the reasoning of this sample aligns with previous findings.

Enduring Rudeness
When I explored the women’s perceptions of the men on the site as inconsid-
erate and irresponsible, they spoke of men who lied about what they wanted,
backed out on plans, vanished from sight, sent rude messages, and otherwise
simply took them for granted. Many women spoke specifically about experi-
ences of being called names online, especially when they were trying to be
courteous. When women rejected a man online as nicely as they could, they
were often blasted with a mean-spirited response calling them names. (Ashley
Madison does not police the behavior of members. Members have the tool of
“blocking” other members at their disposal. Likewise, members can flag pro-
files as suspicious if they contain sketchy information, for instance, profiles
suggesting prostitution. However, there is no recourse for members who are
rude, bullying, or otherwise impolite.) As mentioned previously, rejected men
still leave “feedback” on the women’s profiles.
This behavior from men online was a challenge to the women’s personal
authority. Specifically, the name-calling in retaliation for disinterest was
internalized as attempts by the men to control them, shame them, and put
them in their place. Many women spoke of feeling as though the men who
reacted in that manner to rejection were annoyed by their agency. (In some
cases, this happened in response to a man’s perceived rejection. Almost all
the women reported instances of men sending increasingly hostile messages
accusing them of ignoring his emails, when in reality they had not been
online between the man sending the initial message and the subsequent
mean-spirited messages he had sent.) There was an overall sense that many
men on the site were accustomed to people obeying their orders, at least
feigning high levels of interest and enthusiasm with them, and acquiescing to
106 Chapter 4

their demands. Many men on the site came across as entitled: entitled to the
women’s attention, interest, and sexual access to their bodies.
Since all the women experienced a deluge of messages from men upon
joining the site and a steady stream of messages on a routine basis, they
exercised their autonomy in selecting to whom to respond, and with whom
to move forward getting to know them and eventually meeting them. Many
men online did not respond well to this and lashed out. Another way women’s
agency provoked abuse was the content of their profiles alone, which some-
times elicited malicious, spiteful initial messages from men. In other words,
the men messaged the women solely to communicate his impression that she
was not to his liking. Most commonly, these messages would include the
attack of “bitch,” “fat,” and “cunt,” and make a point of letting the woman
know that her expectations for an outside partner were not only unrealistic,
but offensive to them. This was more common among women whose profiles
specified a penis size or stamina preference. Rather than scrolling on by, the
offended parties felt the need to address the women’s audacity to request such
traits. The women perceived these attacks as indicative of the man having
been threatened by her sexual agency: that she both knew what she wanted
and had the gall to ask for it. (It is not uncommon for men’s Ashley Madison
profiles to state preferences for breast size).
Elisabeth T. Vasko pointed out that for those whose behavior threatens defi-
nitions of femininity (e.g., daring to openly state your requirements of a sexual
partner) are often subject to bullying, and links these behaviors to masculinity
(Vasko, 2015). This behavior is likely a performance of hegemonic masculin-
ity (R. W. Connell, 1987), the most revered masculinity in any culture. A cul-
tural ideal of manhood, hegemonic masculinity relegates all other enactments
of masculinity to the background. For a man laboring under the ideologies
of hegemonic masculinity, the women described here are committing gender
transgressions, meaning they are not acting in the accepted manner for their
gender. These men experienced these transgressions as threatening. Because
men operating under hegemonic masculinity believe that as men they are
inherently entitled to have authority over women (R. Connell, 1985), these
men perceive calling the women out within their purview.
As discussed earlier, current cultural norms demand that women abandon
their own sexual desires in favor of putting their male partners’ first. We
socialize women to be passive about sex, and to perform the role of someone
passionless and disinterested in sex except within the confines of a monoga-
mous “love” relationship. The men described here operate from a gendered
frame of understanding (Acker, 1990; R. W. Connell, 1987; Scott, 1986).
For those men, reading such blatant descriptions of partner preference on
women’s profiles represents a gender transgression, and threatens their own
sense of masculinity.
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 107

Additionally, the mandates of masculinity include sexual prowess. Thus,

men perceive that women have power to validate men as sexual performers
(Brooks, 1995; Khan et al., 2008). Gary R. Brooks explains that women “are
seen as having invaluable manhood tokens that they may, or may not, choose
to dispense” (Brooks, 1995, p. 5). Given the men live in this culture satu-
rated with hypersexualized messages, they are likely suffering some anxiety
around their masculinity and even emasculation (Aubrey & Taylor, 2009; P.
J. Johnson, McCreary, & Mills, 2007). The women’s preferences regarding
penis size may have been the final straw for these men. Penis size plays a
prominent role in masculinity (M. S. Kimmel & Aronson, 2003). Concerns
about size abound for men, and at present we tend toward adoration of larger
penises (Veale et al., 2014; Wylie & Eardley, 2007). This is so prevalent that
many pop cultural discussions reassure men that “size does not matter.” After
all, if this wasn’t a concern, why would such reassurances be necessary?
Thus, for a man already carrying concerns and anxieties about his masculin-
ity vis-à-vis penis size (or even stamina) reading a woman’s profile calling
for partners with larger penises and increased stamina could provoke angst
and hostility. Anastasia Prokos and Irene Padavic explain that “masculinity is
rendered most visible in situations where it is challenged” (Prokos & Padavic,
2002, p. 441).
Some women found these messaged attacks more distressing than other
women did. All of the women reported having instances where a verbal attack
had shaken them. These incidents were especially troubling given they were
mostly unprovoked, cruelly personal, “out-of-nowhere,” and vicious. The
more brutal and ferocious the attack, the more bothered the women were
by it. Some women reported having taken “breaks” from online activity for
a period after particularly nasty verbal attacks by strange men, and feeling
“shaken” by them. Generally, the women felt safe online in part because they
choose when and where to meet men in person—always in a public place.
However, these attacks did give them pause. They believed their momentary
fears to be irrational since the men had no idea who they were, but for a
time—no matter how brief—their sense of security was threatened. A few
women spoke of spending a few days sure that the man in question was going
to show up in their “real lives” even though they all admitted the fear was
baseless since there was no way their identity could be tracked from their
profile.
Men who behaved badly in person—by lying about what they wanted,
backing out on plans, vanishing from sight—were somewhat easier to deal
with, although many women reported initially being stung by these behaviors.
The longer a woman in the study had been exercising outside partnerships,
the less likely she was to be bothered by these types of rudeness. Women
seemed to expect a certain percentage of men to behave this way, and thus
108 Chapter 4

took what they said with a grain of salt. To combat these kinds of behaviors,
women stepped up their vetting processes and approached all newly formed
outside partnerships cautiously. Many approached all of their liaisons cau-
tiously, regardless of how long they had known their outside partner out of
a realization that men could—and had—behaved badly at any point in the
association. But the overall report of interactions with men and experiences
with outside partners were absent this rudeness.
Women routinely withheld personal details about themselves to protect
their “real lives” from an intrusion from a scorned lover or rejected potential
partner. Many women never even gave lovers their real first names, and the
provision of last names was not expected. Most women were vague about
the nature of their jobs, and withheld information that might be used to track
them, for example children’s names, spouse’s name. Pictures used in their
profile were not posted elsewhere online to avoid searches that might reveal
their identity as well.

Vacation Hangover
Five of the women spoke of the letdown when they returned from the “vaca-
tion” their outside partners provided. These women spoke openly about the
hefty price tag of having outside partners. The return to their “real lives”
was often jarring and disconcerting. Additionally, it was tempting for these
women to exist in lives of suspension between meetings with their outside
partner. For these women, an immense cost of participation in outside part-
ners was the transition back to their “real lives.” After the heady excitement
and indulgent pleasure-seeking of their encounters with their outside partners,
“real life” paled by comparison. The reentry to their “real lives” was jarring
and painful. They kept scheduling encounters and looked forward to the time
spent with their outside partner, but returning to their primary partnerships
proved difficult by comparison.

Health Concerns
Thirty of the women in this study spoke specifically about insisting on con-
doms. Tiffany (31, married) elaborated on the emotional and physical toll of
this concern. “I’ve gotten UTIs after being with a partner, which has made
me incredibly paranoid about STDs and health risks.” While she had never
contracted an STI, her discovery of the UTI itself panicked her and sent her
rushing to the doctor to confirm it was not an STI. She was not alone in this
fear. Many women who reported routine use of condoms still expressed what
they described as an “irrational fear” that they would contract an STI. Every
bump, lump, or twinge became suspect.
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 109

Only four spoke specifically of not using condoms. One participant in par-
ticular, stated that she does not use condoms during encounters, but that she
“pops some antibiotics” upon her return home. This is a practice she learned
from someone else in her life, who told her this would protect her from STIs.
(Interestingly, this woman has an advanced degree). It is also worthy of note
that Luciana revealed she already has herpes, contracted from her primary
partner. She does not share this information with her outside partners, with
whom she is not practicing safe sex. She stated that she had no worry about
contracting anything from her outside partners, and was convinced that
she was not putting them at risk for exposure to herpes because she never
engaged during an outbreak.
Discovery of an affair is highly detrimental to the primary partnership.
Contracting a STI greatly increases one’s risk of being discovered. Some
research shows that those who participate in infidelity are “significantly less
likely” to report not using condoms with outside partners for both anal and
vaginal sex, and “significantly less likely” to have even discussed STI risk
with those partners (Conley, Moors, Ziegler, & Karathanasis, 2012, p. 1563).
This is due to an illusion of safety stemming from their perception of their
also-married partner as “clean” because they are coming from an assumed-
monogamous marriage or have asked their partner about their sexual history
(Hirsch et al., 2007; Parikh, 2007; Thompson, Anderson, Freedman, & Swan,
1996). Considering the report of women in this inquiry who routinely main-
tain multiple outside partners—as well as the report of a woman who went
into her practice of outside partnerships already infected by her husband—the
idea that there is no STI risk with a partner who is also married is clearly an
illusion. Additionally, no consideration or thought is typically given to the
reality that even if their outside partner was only involved with them, they
were likely not the person’s first outside partner. Commonly people partici-
pating in nonconsensual sexual nonexclusivity tend not to utilize condoms,
while those in consensual non-monogamy tend to wear them. However, the
women of this study challenged previous findings because the majority of
them used condoms routinely. These findings buttress the findings of Fitch
and May, who found that roughly half of those engaging in infidelity use
condoms (Fincham & May, 2017).
The perception of an affair as a “relationship” increases the likelihood of
participating in risk-taking behaviors, which also put their primary partner at
risk for STIs. Edwards, Barber, and Dziurawiec (2014) found that the partner
who is more emotionally invested in the relationship holds the least power
in the dynamic (Edwards et al., 2014). To equalize this power differential,
individuals sometimes offer “rewards” in the form of sex and condom-free
sexual events. This is problematic for women who are socially positioned
to be more responsible for the emotional maintenance of relationships
110 Chapter 4

(Eagly, 2009; Greene & Faulkner, 2005) and more emotionally invested in
their relationships (Felmlee, 1994). Women who enjoy more power in their
relationships insist on condoms more often. Thus, in a sense, the women’s
perception of themselves as powerful within their outside partnerships may
account for their higher than average use of condoms.

“I’m A Bad Person”

Every woman in the study with the exception of one spoke about the weight
of lying to their primary partners and the associated guilt. Throughout the nar-
ratives, these women spoke openly about feeling shame and remorse for their
behavior. Four of the women in the study specifically referred to themselves
using adjectives with negative connotations. They referred to themselves as
“selfish,” “self-centered,” and “narcissistic.” Alyssa (24, partnered) was the
most colorful in her self-depiction: “Through my infidelity, I have found
a way to accept the asshole-ness about him because let’s be honest, I am
probably a bigger asshole [than my primary partner] for my behavior.” This
negative view of themselves placed a weight on their self-concept. Jill (39,
partnered) began to question who she really was in light of her behavior. She
explained, “I myself wonder just what kind of person I am. I’ve reached a
point in my life where sex has just become recreation, sport nearly. Some
people watch NASCAR, some folks  play baseball, some people jog, I just
wanna fuck. It is a great work out. It’s all the cardio without stretching exer-
cises, and a HELL of a lot more satisfying than YOGA!” The women made
deals with themselves to try to reconcile their secret behavior with their public
and family life. Trudy (33, married) struggled to resolve what she saw as her
bad behavior. She explained, “Many years ago I told myself that as long as I
didn’t hurt him, and I stayed with him, and made him and our family happy,
that I could forgive myself for my indiscretions. I have never told anyone that.
But what a relief it is to write it.” Coco (43, married) added, “I assume there
will one day be a day of reckoning, and I doubt I can explain myself. I guess
I’m weak.” Avery (45, married) elaborated, “I try to be a good person to offset
this terrible thing I’m doing. But the reality is that I’m not strong enough to
function, stay in my marriage, and be remotely the wife and mother everyone
needs without this. I’m horrible, but I’m doing the best I can.” The women in
this study found it difficult to resolve their behavior, which is so at odds with
our social norms regarding monogamy, with their concept of themselves as a
person. They could not conceive of themselves as “good” while participating
in outside partnerships. Thus, despite the many benefits these women cited,
they still believed they were bad people for participating in these relationships.
Jamie (34, married) had even sought out professional advice in response to
her desires, where doctors positioned them as unreasonable or overbearing in
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 111

the context of the sexless dynamics of her primary partnership. She explained
the advice: “I talked to my gynecologist about it; he said that I am one of
those rare women who has the sex drive of a man, and when my husband
couldn’t keep up with me anymore that intimidated him.” Curiously, her doc-
tor posed her sexual needs as unnatural. By way of explanation, the doctor
told her that she has the drive of a “man” in the body of woman, as though
no “normal” woman could have that high level of sexual interest. For Jamie,
this explanation rationalizes her behavior. But it also positions her as “bad,”
“abnormal,” or “wrong.” Further, it places the blame on her for her husband’s
lower levels of desire. This again lends itself to the tendency of the women in
this study to problematize themselves as unable to be faithful, and removes
the responsibility from the primary partnership dynamic. Jackie (48, married)
positioned herself as “not typically female” or possessing a male character-
istic that she shouldn’t. To explain her behavior, she offered: “People say
guys think with their penis. Sometimes I think with my clitoris.” The women
had to try to reconcile what they were taught was “male” behavior in their
sexual desires. Women whose level of sexual desire and interest fall out of
the “typical” or socially constructed norm are often simply ignored in the lit-
erature, and in the social realm are required to keep that fact about themselves
hidden (Blumberg, 2003; Heyn, 1992; G. Rubin, 1989; Wentland, Herold,
Desmarais, & Milhausen, 2008). The experiences of these women challenge
conventional notions that women desire sex less than men do.
Priscilla (37, married) was the sole outlier in this respect. Rather than
see herself as “bad,” she reframed the experience. “I first selected a man on
Ashley Madison who looks and acts a lot like my husband. I remember noting
no pang of guilt as he slipped inside of me; I was simply returning to my old
non-monogamous ways.” Prior to marriage, Priscilla had always practiced
consensual sexual nonexclusivity. For her, the expectation of fidelity had
always been undesirable. But once married, she had attempted it for a period.
Despite the prevailing theme of guilt present in the women’s narratives,
they ultimately decided the payoff of their outside partnership was greater
than the weight of the guilt. Shelia (41, married) explained, “There is still a
small amount of guilt that I feel but it pales next to the depression I felt when
I thought that I was trapped and would never be able to enjoy sex again.” The
women in this study had accepted that feeling guilty and seeing themselves
as “bad” or “selfish” was simply the price of having their sexual needs met.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELORS

While popular culture tends to concern itself with how men experience,
dread, and handle aging (e.g., “midlife crisis”), the reality is that many
112 Chapter 4

women also struggle with aging and the subsequent concerns about what she
may have missed. While that alone did not drive any woman in this study
into an outside partnership, it was certainly an issue raised by many. Women
voiced concerns that at an older age, they may have regrets about opportuni-
ties not exercised. This has implications for therapeutic intervention.
Many of the women in this sample reported high levels of resentment
within their primary partnerships—even those women who reported their
primary relationships as “good” other than sexual issues. Resentment is not
a new issue in infidelity. There is plenty of work on the role of resentment
in forgiveness in a marriage, and resentment following the discovery of an
affair. However, the role of resentment in terms of conditions leading to an
affair is far less fertile ground. For the women here, the outside partnerships
provided release and enabled women to avoid confronting their primary
partners again on the topics of resentment. Thus, this has implications for
therapeutic intervention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER AND SEXUALITY THEORY

At first glance, the women’s report of the benefits of these outside partner-
ships does not seem surprising. People have sexual affairs in part because
sex can be pleasurable. What is of interest here is that these are women
making these admissions. Their disclosure flies in the face of commonsense
understandings of women’s sexuality. As discussed previously, culturally
we socialize women to submit their sexual behavior and sexual selves to
men’s whims. Their own pleasure is to be secondary, if a consideration at all.
Additionally, the expectation of women’s sexual behavior is that it should
occur only within the context of “love.” Thus, these narratives defy norma-
tive cultural mandates and contest “proper” behavior by gender. Thus, most
women did not have people in their lives with whom to share the details of
their participation.
The bad behavior of the men described by the women bears unpacking.
The women describe men who appear intent on “putting them in their place.”
Some men were so enraged by the women’s profiles, where they detailed the
specific traits they sought (e.g., penis size, stamina), that they felt compelled
to send harassing messages. These men appear to be “doing gender” (West
& Zimmerman, 1987), and using practices they believe appropriate to their
gender (Lorber, 1994). Men laboring under the ideologies of hegemonic
masculinity often believe that as men they are inherently entitled to have
authority over women (R. Connell, 1985). Thus, the behavior described
here is likely efforts at exercising authority over women these men deemed
to be thwarting the gender status quo. Concerns and anxieties about their
 A Gift You Give Yourself, But Nothing Comes for Free 113

own masculinity demonstrated through sexual prowess likely motivated the

messages. Men who read those profiles and believed themselves to lack the
required stamina and/or penis size acted out, and the object of their upset was
the women they perceived as thwarting gender norms. Despite the fact that
all parties participated in an online venue designed for infidelity, these men
drew the line at women’s sexual agency. This has implications for gender and
sexuality theory.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the costs of participation in outside partnerships were deemed “worth

it” to the women in this study. The strain of putting on a public façade cre-
ated stress for the women. The experience of participating in outside partners
can be very isolating if one’s social circle does not include outlets to share
stories. Potential partners often made promises they could not keep, which led
to increased frustration for these women. The search for a potential outside
partner opened the women to the possibility of enduring the vitriol of the
men they rejected. Reentry into their “real lives” could produce a “vacation
hangover.” Additionally, participation in outside partners produced guilt for
some of the women. While there were disappointments, isolation, and guilt,
for these women, the upsides of finally getting their needs met outweighed
the cost. Despite the often fleeting nature of some of the women’s productive
associations with outside partners, the overall experience was worth the price
tag to the women in this study. Part of the price of participating in outside
partnerships was enduring men’s efforts to police their sexual expression.
Profiles clearly detailing the desire for a larger penis and/stamina opened the
women to verbal harassment and abuse by these men, who clearly felt threat-
ened by these demands.
 Chapter 5

Sometimes You Just

Need a Subcontractor

PERSPECTIVE SHIFT

Many of the women in this study reported having undergone a shift

in p­erspective as a result of their participation in outside partnerships.
­Specifically, after having experienced the benefits of having an extra intimate
relationship in their lives, many declared that their view of primary partner-
ships, monogamy, and relationships in general had changed irrevocably. The
women began to conceptualize relationships and the “rules” associated with
them—including that of monogamy—as fluid, constructed, and as something
that should be personalized and redefined for each person.

SECURITY IN MAINTAINING
MULTIPLE OUTSIDE PARTNERS

Twenty-two of the 46 women in this study described a functional specificity

perspective when talking about their lens of relationships. Their use of colorful
analogies to explain why they chose to seek out outside partners is the very
epitome of functional specificity, which states that we seek out different social
ties for different activities. Functional specificity posits that our approach to
social interaction is boutique, wherein we recognize one social tie as a good
match for certain activities and not for others, and not general store, where we
assume that the strength of affection between two social ties elevates a person’s
capacity for all desired activities and need fulfillment. Functional specificity
says that people do not get all of their needs met by one person in their social
network. Rather, they make use of the numerous ties in their networks which
“vary in type of connection, intimacy, frequency of contact, proximity and

115
116 Chapter 5

other characteristics” (Perry & Pescosolido, 2010, p. 346). In other words,

people may go to one person in their social network if they want a compan-
ion to watch a romantic comedy film, and another one if they want to visit a
museum. Or, in this context, a person may have a social tie whose sole role
in their lives is that of “lover.” In other words, the perspective recognizes that
one single person cannot meet all of our needs. We need multiple people in
our lives to get all of our needs met. This idea is contrary to the current social
positioning of marriage wherein our spouse is to meet so many of our needs.
The women in the study spoke specifically of their inability to get their
needs met by only one person in their life. Many found freedom and power
in the recognition that they could juggle multiple partners, and get their needs
met through spreading them out among more than one partner in their lives.
Vanda (62, divorced) spoke about learning who she was in monogamy ver-
sus exercising multiple outside partners. She realized when participating in
monogamy, she was not a version of herself that she liked: “Having only one
partner, I expected him to want to be with me whenever we had time. I wanted
him to go everywhere with me, do everything with me, etc.” However, main-
taining multiple relationships brought out a version of herself she liked more:

Now I have different partners who are willing to do certain things with me; so
with one I go to the grocery, with another one I go out drinking, another one sings
with me or walks with me or hikes with me, etc. Some of them read the same
things, or see the same movies and television programs. Two of my partners are
dieting, so we help each other. I guess because they have such different interests
themselves, it gives me a more interesting life, because I can do what they do.

For Vanda, this realization that she herself could be different if she allowed
her needs to be addressed by multiple people was freeing. The person she
was when she spread out the task of need fulfillment over several people was
more to her liking than the person she was when she relied only on one party
to meet her needs. By maintaining multiple outside partnerships, Vanda had
let go of unrealistic expectations for any one partner.
Some women’s accounts were quite pragmatic in their reasoning. Geor-
gie (39, partnered) referred to her outside partners as “subcontractors,” and
explained her decision-making: “I just rationalized it as if I hired a contractor
to build a house and he had a full crew to do the landscape, concrete, rough
in, roofing, cabinets, sheet rocking and wiring, but he didn’t have a plumber.
I’d sub out the plumbing.” For these women, not having to rely on one per-
son increased their autonomy. They described the pleasure of not having to
endure unmet needs because a primary partner was not good at, or refused
to perform a sexual act they needed or wanted. Luciana (53, married) used a
similar analogy to explain her approach:
 Sometimes You Just Need a Subcontractor 117

If you come home from work and there’s no food, you go out to dinner. You
don’t get emotionally attached to the restaurant and go there every day; you just
eat there now and then, and go back home. You get something different from
each person in your life. How can one person be everything to you? It doesn’t
make sense. That’s why we have more than one female friend, for example. I
don’t like to have to rely on just one person to satisfy my needs.

She went on to make a further point regarding the pool of men available to her
to meet these needs: “I like to have a backup just in case because the guys on
those sites are generally irresponsible and inconsiderate.” Thus, her percep-
tion of the men on Ashley Madison reinforced her view that relying on one
person for all of your needs was a precarious endeavor. We see again here the
market language utilized by the women of the study. Most of the women in
the study liked to keep a number of active outside partnerships, much like a
sports team keeps back-up players to fill critical positions on the field.
Conflicting schedules complicate outside partnerships, and can turn an
otherwise satisfying outside partnership into one that falls short. Often a
woman cannot attain her desired frequency of sexual activity with only one
outside partner. Two or three (or more) may be required to fill schedule
gaps. But beyond that, many women found that all needs could not be sated
even with one outstanding outside partner. Thus, for some women, a prac-
tice of maintaining multiple outside partnerships served as self-protection.
For women who had already relied on one partner (e.g., a spouse) to meet
all of their needs and were disappointed, the idea of then relying on a
single person outside the relationship to meet their needs seemed foolish,
especially when she would be dependent upon someone who has entirely
less allegiance to them than their primary partner. Dependency on a single
outside partner would mimic their previous dependency on their primary
partner. Placing themselves in a position to be reliant upon one party to get
their needs met—even if the party was an outside partner—was counter-
productive as it put them back into the same situation they had worked so
hard to rectify.
Sometimes the protection was not just from disappointment and unmet
needs, but also from their own emotions. Darcy (48, married) explained, “I
try to have two lovers. It keeps me from being too attached to anyone.” Vanda
(62, divorced) spoke of this tactic as well.

I decided to pursue other relationships because there is safety in numbers. And I

didn’t want to be too dependent on him. Good thing. He ended that relationship
last week, because he said I was getting in the way of his relationship with his
wife and he didn’t want that to happen. If I didn’t have my other guys to keep
me occupied, I would probably feel very betrayed, devastated, and unloved.
118 Chapter 5

For Vanda, her practice had paid off, insuring that she didn’t have to feel
the full brunt of being rejected by an outside partner. Given she had suffered
much rejection during her marriage, she had no interest in experiencing that
again.
At times, the language of the narratives hovered around objectification.
Georgie (39, partnered) explained, “I simply hunt up another one if I don’t
already have 2 or 3 in the ‘herd’ as it were.” For these women, this served
as a strategy to avoid finding themselves with remaining unmet needs. Blake
(35, married) echoed this sentiment: “I have a few going concurrently since
you always have to keep the candy jar full!” Other women spoke of “bench-
ing players,” ensuring the presence of a “pinch hitter,” and “keeping a full
roster.” This pragmatism, as expressed in this market language, is evident
throughout these narratives.
The women in this study came to redefine relationships differently than
they had previous to their participation in outside partnerships. For some,
this meant a reimagining of how to navigate relationships, and a redefin-
ing of whom to be within them. When they released themselves from their
dependence upon and expectation of one partner to meet all of their needs,
and instead spread those needs out among more than one party, they reported
more satisfaction. This outlook also buttressed their overall goal: to remain
within their primary partnerships while getting their needs met.
Not all of the women reporting this used analogies to explain their out-
side relationships. Some explained their stance simply. Blake (35, married)
described her reasoning for seeking out an affair: “My best and most honest
answer is that sometimes we need different things than the person we love
can give us.” Participating in multiple outside partnerships meant getting
their needs met, but it also meant not having to cut their primary partner
out of their lives. Brinley (33, married) echoed this sentiment: “My sexual
appetite and mental interests feel unfulfilled and stifled when only expecting
a single man to satisfy my needs. Life is way too short for me to live other-
wise. I don’t see how I can ever go back now. I dated a bunch of jerks over
the years, but I didn’t choose them for their personalities. I chose them for
their ability to fuck amazingly.” For Brinley, the approach of maintaining
multiple outside partners was simply a sensible way to navigate her sexual
life, avoid hurt feelings, and stay with her primary partner. Brinley delineated
her own behavior and feelings within an outside partnership versus without.
The difference was her ownership of her sexuality. She reported being more
content as a result of these choices. “When I am in an outside relationship,
I am sexually satisfied and happier from the regular contact with more than
one man.” For her, participation in multiple outside partners was an act of
personal authority, which gave her more control over her own sexual satisfac-
tion and happiness. (Granted, if Brinley were in a primary partnership with
 Sometimes You Just Need a Subcontractor 119

someone whose level of sexual desire was compatible to hers, who is to say
whether her contentment would require multiple partners? However, other
women report the practice with a single outside partner whose level of desire
was comparable).
The women spoke of how outside partnerships help fill in gaps. Esme (31,
married) described the role of her outside partnerships in her life: “The other
relationships can fill the holes in the primary one. In my primary relationship,
there are issues with sexual openness and acceptance. I find it elsewhere.” By
turning to another person to fulfill the needs her primary partner cannot or
will not, these women felt more able to operate happily. Daisy (36, married)
echoed this sentiment: “He picks up where [her primary partner] falls short.”
Sophie (53, married) elaborated on this as well. “Many of us have no sex with
our primary, have a steady outside secondary, and several other partners who
fill the gaps when we can’t see the secondary (either due to distance or sched-
uling issues).” Their outside partners may not have been suitable primary
partners, but they had specific roles to play in these women’s lives. It worked
out that the little time the outside partners occupied in their lives was enough
to create a stopgap for what was missing in their primary partnerships. The
women in the sample who had children reported that their primary partners
were good fathers. While nearly all of the women in the sample described
their primary partnerships as sites of love, emotional support, friendship,
and shared goals, they were also spaces where sexual needs and desires went
unfulfilled.
Rather than laying the blame on their own primary partnerships, these
women reinterpreted their experiences to fault the system of monogamy
itself. Brinley (33, married) reiterated this idea as well: “Having additional
partnerships is my natural inclination. It’s not [her primary partner’s] fault
that monogamy turned out to be far more strangling than I imagined it could
be, even with such an exceptionally wonderful spouse.” Brinley described
her primary partner in similar terms to most of the women in this study. She
said he is “smart and cute and kind and considerate and funny and hardwork-
ing.” Yet there were gaps in the relationships as well. “I have been physically
neglected for 6 of my 7 years of marriage.” This was particularly problematic
for Brinley, who explained that her “sexuality is a big part of who I am.”
For Brinley, her husband’s positive traits were proof that the problem in her
primary partnership was not a fault with the specific coupling. For her, they
were clearly indicative of a larger problem with the system of monogamy
itself. Notice she describes “monogamy” as strangling, rather than “sexless-
ness,” which appears to be the key problem in her primary partnership. Rein-
terpreting the situation so that the problem is a system or an ideal takes the
onus away from the union itself, and further away from her primary partner.
He is now simply “smart,” “cute,” and “considerate,” without having to also
120 Chapter 5

consider that perhaps his level of sexual desire is incompatible with hers, or
examining some underlying health issue causing the sexlessness. Coming
at her experience from the angle that either there is a problem inherent to
monogamy, or she herself is not able to endure monogamy removes the need
to examine any contradictions within her primary relationship, or the possi-
bility that perhaps she chose poorly.
Other women positioned their experiences similarly, laying the blame
squarely at the feet of monogamy as a system, or positioning themselves as
somehow incapable of monogamy. Trudy (33, married) admitted, “I know that
I can’t be completely happy with just my husband.” And Joy (34, married)
pointed out that “It’s hard to have every need fulfilled by the same person.”
Heather (33, partnered) said, “I am a bit insatiable. Even after an intensely
deep orgasm, I want another. I don’t think I could ever settle with one person.”
The perception that their primary partner simply could not meet every need
freed the women in this study to outsource those needs to other people. It also
removed the responsibility from their primary partner. Either the system of
monogamy or the women themselves are at fault. This lens also supports the
choice to remain within a primary partnership so faulty it requires buttressing
from outside partners. Some women went further and pointed out that one “per-
fect” outside partner was at least as elusive as one “perfect” primary partner.
For the women in this study, the recognition that they could not get all of
their needs met by their primary partners was a critical one. Many women
indicated that trading their primary partner for another partner was not a
reasonable course of action because most believed they simply couldn’t get
everything from one person—any one person. Thus, the fault was not in the
primary partner they had chosen or in the dynamic between them, but in
the system of expecting that all needs be resolved with one partner. And for
some women, the street ran both ways. Esme (31, married) stated that she
wouldn’t mind if her primary partner also had an outside partner. She spoke
of the potential positives: “I may even be a bit encouraging that he found
an outside partner to share some experiences with. It also takes some of the
pressure to meet all of his needs off of me, which I wouldn’t mind.” Just as
she realized that it was unreasonable to expect her primary partner to meet
all of her needs, she saw that it was likely that she wasn’t meeting all of his
needs either. Lehmiller, VanderDrift, and Kelly (2012) found a stark contrast
between “friends with benefits” relationships, which while more likely to be
sexually nonexclusive, communicated less about sex than romantic partners,
yet spent more of their time together in sexual activity than romantic part-
ners (Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2011). These findings place outside
partners between a “friend with benefits” and a “romantic partner.” They also
buttress studies showing that our social relationships each have specific sup-
port functions (Litwak, Silverstein, Bengston, & Hirst, 2003; Weiss, 1974),
 Sometimes You Just Need a Subcontractor 121

and contradict the cultural model of our spouse, who is supposed to be the
sole source of our happiness and emotional well-being (Coontz, 2005; Illouz,
2012; Kingston, 2004).
Two of the women in this study spoke specifically of encountering men
who although they were “cheating,” expected monogamy in their infidelity.
Luciana (53, married) explained it well: “The two men I have met so far say
they want only one woman to have an affair with because it’s safer. I suspect
it’s the male ego, actually. I also think it’s ironic because after all, we’re
cheaters, so what do they expect?” Men who wanted monogamy in their
outside partnerships were out of luck when getting involved with a woman
who maintained multiple outside partnerships. Once they had begun manag-
ing their lives in this manner, going back to monogamy seemed impossible.
Molly (41, married) echoed this sentiment: “Pandora’s Box has been opened
and you can’t close it. I know too much. Feel too much. If I could go back to
where I was before, I wouldn’t. I look back at me then, and see a tired young
woman living day to day just to get to the next day. I’m in a very nice relation-
ship now.” The women handled the demands of outside partners who wanted
monogamy much like they handled their primary partners’ expectation of
monogamy: by appearing to agree to monogamy and then secretly doing as
they pleased. Ultimately, their embrace of maintaining multiple partnerships
buttressed their belief that leaving their primary partnership and seeking out
a new relationship with someone more compatible would be a waste of time.
If the problem is with them—that they cannot be monogamous—then a new
partner is futile. Likewise, if the problem is with monogamy as a practice,
then seeking a new primary partnership is pointless as well.
For these women, the practice of non-monogamy was attractive. Most
people who practice CNM perceive their multiple partnerships as a means
to spread their needs among multiple people in order to increase relation-
ship satisfaction (Moors, Matsick, & Schechinger, 2017; Moors et al., 2013).
While many of these women would have preferred to practice consensual
non-monogamy (CNM), neither their primary partners nor the men they
encountered in their outside partnerships were interested in such an arrange-
ment. (As discussed previously, CNM relationships report relatively high
levels of communication, trust, satisfaction, honesty, intimacy, friendship
Barker & Langdridge, 2010; Bonello & Cross, 2010; Jenks, 1998; Kleese,
2011; Ritchie & Barker, 2006; Visser & McDonald, 2007). In fact, some
research shows that when compared to couples practicing CNM, couples in
monogamous couplings report lesser satisfaction with the levels of commu-
nication and openness in their relationships (Mogilski, Memering, Welling,
& Shackelford, 2017).
While the practice of CNM is not presently a normative or respected prac-
tice in the United States, various and sundry forms of non-monogamy have
122 Chapter 5

been and continue to be practiced in other cultures (Stacey, 2011). Consider-

ing that many polyamorous [a type of CNM] individuals report experiencing
stigma and isolation when others know about their practices (Moors et al.,
2013; Weitzman, 2006), it is perhaps not surprising that these women believe
the primary partner in their lives would be opposed to shifting the relationship
to CNM practices. Even among those individuals practicing CNM, some-
times the secondary relationships are covert to avoid stigma from individuals
outside their romantic relationships. It is not surprising that their outside part-
ners also refuse to entertain CNM even within a NCN context given how fully
socialized we are to preference monogamy. However, Fleckenstein and Cox
found that CNM can contribute to personal happiness and health—as much
or perhaps more than monogamous relationships (Fleckenstein & Cox, 2015).

YOUR GAPS ARE SHOWING

However, two women’s experiences stood in juxtaposition to those who

saw outside partners as an exercise demonstrating the usefulness of multiple
people in your life to meet your needs. The experiences of Lori and Marlo
only confirmed and validated their belief that your partner should meet all
your needs. Lori (30, married) said, “[My outside partnership] makes it feel
like something is lacking [in her primary partnership], even though my hus-
band is a very capable lover.” Marlo (46, married) elaborated, “I feel like I am
deprived of something others are perceived to have that I want as well. My
OP brings me much happiness, but only temporarily until reality sets in and I
realize what I am missing in my inside relationship.” For these two women,
the exercise of participating in outside partnerships served to exacerbate and
make obvious the cracks in their primary partnership.

DESIRE TO OPEN PRIMARY PARTNERSHIP

Fifteen of the women in the study so embraced the idea of maintaining multi-
ple partners that they expressed a desire to “open” their primary partnerships,
or at least move to a state of negotiated monogamy with a “don’t ask/don’t
tell” clause. Molly (41, married) agreed that having multiple partners for
both parties was a good idea. She explained, “I don’t want an open marriage
because in that situation you talk to your spouse’s about outside partners.
I don’t want to approve or have him approve. I don’t want to know if he has
one. But I wish he did have one.” The women recognized that regardless
of love and affection between partners, often two people simply couldn’t
work every aspect of a relationship out to meet everyone’s needs. Morgan
(46, married) also believed this would be beneficial to her primary partnership.
 Sometimes You Just Need a Subcontractor 123

She said, “I don’t know that we will ever be able to repair our marriage, and
I truly don’t want him to be unhappy. If there is someone that can make him
happy, that would be good. It would be good for not only him but also for
our whole family. The better mood he’s in, the better it is for all!” Brinley
(33, married) realized that she didn’t want to give up the variety of outside
partners even if things improved in her primary partnership. She said, “I’m
now trying to prime my husband for a conversation about having an open
marriage. Sure, our sex life has gotten significantly better, but now I don’t
think I want to give up the encounters with other men.” So, what had begun
as a means to simply get more sex or more orgasms had evolved into a prefer-
ence for variety in sexual encounters and experiences.
Yet these women had been unsuccessful in their quest to alter the agree-
ment in their primary partnerships. Darcy (48, married) had tried unsuc-
cessfully to open her marriage when she was caught in an earlier outside
partnership. “I floated the subject of opening up the marriage when he found
out about [the affair] and we were first in counseling, but he was not recep-
tive.” Yet they remained hopeful. Priscilla (37, married) firmly believed the
day would come when she could transform her primary partnership. She
explained, “I hope to transition from hiding my extramarital affairs to a situ-
ation where my husband and I both openly seek outside play, together and
apart. I believe it is a formula suited to our personalities.” One woman had
had some limited success in transitioning her primary partnership. Amanda
(38, married) said, “I’ve since begun sharing these fantasies and desires
with my husband, and we have begun to explore further. We recently went
to a local swinger’s club for my birthday, and afterward we had the best sex
we’ve had in years.” In Amanda’s case, her outside partner’s marriage was
open. Learning firsthand how such an arrangement could work and be ben-
eficial inspired Amanda to attempt to bring her own marriage to a different
status than traditional assumed-monogamy. It also helped provide her with
a model for approaching the lifestyle, and framing the conversation with her
spouse. She planned to slowly transition the two of them into a more open
status, and was pleased with the results thus far. For these women, the relief,
empowerment, and satisfaction they had found from multiple partnerships
were so great they desired not only to stop deceiving their partner, but to
bring him that same experience as well.
Daphne (44, married), however, had a more nuanced view of the idea of
opening her primary partnership. Years prior, her spouse had once had an
outside partner. At the time, she had felt betrayed, hurt, and blindsided. She
had demanded he stop the relationship, and have no further contact with the
woman. The couple had worked through the incident and moved on. Her cur-
rent and only outside partnership (which she had not sought out online, but
had fallen into organically) had altered her thinking on her husband’s previ-
ous behavior. “Had I known what I know now I think I would’ve handled [her
124 Chapter 5

husband’s] affair very differently.” Daphne (44, married) considered the idea
an open arrangement. She said:

On occasion, I think I’d like to be totally open with [her primary partner] and
allow him the same. I’m truly not sure how he’d react and I’m not willing to
risk his feelings, our life together. There is an underlying knowing, I assume. If
[her primary partner] knows, to his credit he says nothing. I also know he still
occasionally speaks to the lady he had an affair with, but I see it very differently
than I did ten years ago. I don’t confront him with that.

For Daphne, her participation in outside partnerships not only brought great
joy to her life, it healed her previous hurt resulting from her husband’s infidel-
ity. She understood what had happened quite differently than she did upon
discovery, and no longer internalized it as something he did to her, nor as
something that reflected poorly upon her or their union. For her, the realiza-
tion of what an outside partner could bring to both the individual and the
marriage was eye opening. She reported a drastic improvement in her com-
munication with her primary partner as well as this newfound understanding
of his previous actions.
Yet even among those who exercised multiple partners, two women in the
study reported an unwillingness for their primary partners also having an out-
side partner. Luciana (53, married), whose marriage was sexless, explained, “I
would be angry because he didn’t make me his first choice. I have even told
him that it wouldn’t bother me if he had an OP as long as he made me his first
choice, meaning that he shouldn’t have an emotional connection with her and I
should be his favorite.” Georgie (53, married), whose marriage was also sexless,
echoed that same sentiment. She said, “If I discovered that my primary partner
was also cheating I think I would feel hurt. (As I am sure he would also be hurt
if he found out about my outside partner.) Sex is/was available to him at home,
if he wanted it. So I would feel hurt that he chose to get it somewhere else.
I don’t feel that is available to me at home.” For these women, the discovery that
their primary partner also had an outside partner would be a betrayal because
both women sought out extramarital relationships solely due to the sexless qual-
ity of their marriage. Both women reported that if the state of the sexual element
of their marriage was restored, they would not exercise outside partners. So, for
them, the idea that their primary partner could have an outside partner was yet
another rejection, since he wasn’t having sex with them at home.

SOME CRAVE MONOGAMY EVEN IN

THEIR OUTSIDE PARTNERSHIPS

However, not all of the women saw their outside partnerships in this same
light in terms of multiple partners. One woman specifically spoke of the
 Sometimes You Just Need a Subcontractor 125

desire to avoid sharing. Morgan (46, married) talked extensively about her
concerns that her outside partner might be seeing someone else on the side
in addition to seeing her. The very thought of this was upsetting to her. She
explained:

I believe this is just sex for him, and otherwise pretty superficial and obligatory
when we communicate. I’d like the relationship to be a little deeper than it is.
Unfortunately, I believe he meets with other women, and possibly has other
meaningful relationships. I’ve mentioned my thoughts on this to him a couple
times and he has always said that I am the only person he has had a sexual rela-
tionship with in the past 3 years. That doesn’t necessarily answer my question.
I told him a few weeks ago that he is a terrible liar.

When asked why it would matter if he were seeing someone else, given both
parties are in fact married to other people, Morgan (46, married) elaborated,
“I have not had a sexual relationship with my husband for approximately 5
years. My partner claims to not have a sexual relationship with his wife for
several years as well. As far as I’m concerned, I am sexually exclusive to my
external partner and he says he is exclusive to me.” As she continued to talk
about this matter, she revealed a more central issue to her concerns:

I felt special; he gave me the kind of attention I was craving and hadn’t expe-
rienced in a very long time. I don’t want to share him with any other outside
partners. There’s nothing special if you’re sharing. I was looking for someone
to care about me, the thing that hurt most about (and was missing from) my
marriage. It matters because I want it to be more than superficial and obligatory.

For Morgan, her outside relationship was an effort to fill a gap, but not just
a sexual gap, even though that was also missing from her marriage. The pur-
pose of her outside partner was also to provide emotional fulfillment. Thus,
the possibility that her outside partner might have other outside partnerships
felt to her like a betrayal. To Morgan, for her outside partner to have another
outside partner would be tantamount to a rejection, and she suffered enough
of that at home in her sexless marriage that was also devoid of emotional
intimacy.
Among the other women in the study who only had one outside partner-
ship, none of them expressed concerns regarding the fidelity of their outside
partner. Rather than embracing the idea of functional specificity, Morgan
desired multiplexity from her outside partner; in other words, she wanted him
to meet all of her needs. And she wanted to be everything he needed to meet
his needs. She superimposed her unmet expectations of her primary partner-
ship onto her expectations for her outside partnership. That is, she wanted
her outside partnership to meet all of her needs: emotional, psychological,
and sexual. Her rejection of the social norm of monogamy within marriage
126 Chapter 5

was carried out in a very traditional way, and her expectations of her outside
partner were akin to the expectations many wives have of their husbands.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELORS

Many of the women in this inquiry desired a consensually open relationship,

but their primary partners had no interest in such a relationship configuration.
The women came to this conclusion after the realization that outside partners
helped ensure their needs were met, and experiencing the benefits to their pri-
mary partnerships. These women loved their primary partners and did not wish
to hurt them, and thus felt badly about their covert relationships. However,
their primary partner’s socialization regarding monogamy made these conver-
sations difficult, if not impossible. Thus, the women persisted in their secret
relationships while wishing they could share this experience and freedom with
their primary partner. This has implications for therapeutic intervention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER

AND SEXUALITY THEORY

The women of this study initially embraced assumed-monogamy as a relationship

construct, only to experience its failure to fulfill their needs. Practicing non-
monogamy brought so many benefits to their lives their thinking shifted. Most
of the women reported a shift in how they viewed relationships in general.
They reported a realization that perhaps the cultural model of relying on one
person to meet all of your needs might be unrealistic. However, those women
in the sample who desired opening their marriages suffered the frustration of
primary partners who were unwilling to entertain such a practice. Some of the
women reported a desire for a relationship configuration where both parties
exercised their sexual autonomy with outside partners, but preferred not to
know about specific encounters, partners, or plans. Some of the women held
out hope that one day such a conversation might be successful. Until then, they
planned to continue in covert outside partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the women in this study reported seeing their intimate relation-
ships differently now that they had experienced outside partnerships. The
social norms and expectations of monogamy seemed like “old” rules that
simply did not apply anymore. The experience of outside partners—with
 Sometimes You Just Need a Subcontractor 127

their disappointments, complications, and scheduling conflicts—led many to

decide that one person cannot meet all of your needs. This resulted in them
relying upon multiple outside partners instead of pinning all their needs on
one outside partner. Those women reported increased satisfaction, empower-
ment, and happiness. Applying this lens and utilizing multiple partners freed
them from dependence upon one man to meet all of their needs. Thus, this
positioned outside partnerships as spaces quite differentiated from their pri-
mary partnership, where they had found themselves dependent upon another
person who was not prioritizing their needs. Shifting their own perspective of
outside partnerships was a strategy to remain in the primary partnership and
get their needs met.
Most of the women in the sample experienced a perspective shift regarding
what relationships are, and what they should be. As a result, many women
adopted a lens of functional specificity, which recognizes that one person can-
not meet all of our needs. Many of these women maintained multiple outside
partnerships, and some women desired a more open marital configuration.
Rather than problematize their primary partners or the primary partnerships,
the women positioned either monogamy as a practice or their own character
as the failure. This also worked to help them remain within their primary
partnerships. They reported encountering many men who wanted to repro-
duce the cultural expectations of the primary partnerships (i.e., monogamy)
in their outside partnerships. These women circumvented those expectations
to exercise their sexual autonomy, choosing to maintain multiple outside
partnerships at once so as to never rely on one person to meet their needs.
Overall, these practices were measures of self-protection.
 Conclusion

The Things You Learn from Bad Girls

Conclusions and Implications
Resulting from this Inquiry on
Women and Outside Partnerships
Culturally, infidelity fascinates us. We all want to know who is cheating on
whom, and with whom. From the cover stories of celebrity relationship woes
around cheating to the stories of our neighbors’ dalliances, we are eager to be
“in the know.” We reaffirm our shared cultural commitment to fidelity and
being “good” as we share these stories of men and women done wrong. Wan-
ton women capture our imagination like almost nothing else. After all, male
sexual scripts bestow sexual freedom, and command sexual preoccupation
and prowess, while female sexual scripts demand that they preference love
over sex, and limit sexual activity to “love” relationships. Thus, we brand
and shame those women who buck these norms and engage in sex for sport
and pleasure. Yet their stories draw us in. So it is with this group of women
brave enough to share their stories with the researcher. Daring to seek sex in
the absence of love, these women threaten the very fabric of our ideas about
gender, sexuality, love, marriage, and infidelity.
Studies examining gender and sexuality are relatively new since it has
only been recently that we turned our attention to women’s lives and experi-
ence. The social positioning of women as “disinterested” in sex meant little
inquiry into their participation into infidelity, and the “commonsense” belief
that those who did engage were outliers. Current and recent work on these
topics reveals sophisticated, increasingly complex understandings of wom-
en’s behavior, motivations, and attitudes. Despite these advances, we still
lean toward remarkably one-dimensional ideas of how women think, feel,
behave, and experience their sexual lives. One purpose of this book has been
to develop conceptions of women’s experiences that broaden our nuanced
view of women’s sexual behavior, their experience of married life, and their
participation in infidelity.

129
130 Conclusion

EXPLORING RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How do Women with Outside Partners Make Meaning of that

Experience?
For women in this study, outside partners represent a host of things. Outside
partnerships are freedom from constricting roles and limiting sexual agency
in the primary partnerships. Outside partners can provide much-needed
sexual release for women whose appetites exceed their primary partner’s, or
whose marriage is sexless. More than half of the sample reported a sexless or
orgasmless primary partnership. Thus, resentment for their primary partner
played a role in the women’s decision-making.
They can also serve to validate flagging self-esteem and self-worth. These
women did not make the decision to seek and enter outside partnerships lightly.
Each woman developed a vetting process in an effort to avoid negative experi-
ences with potential outside partners. This process began with perusing the man’s
profile, but the vetting process itself extended over weeks or months via email
before deciding to meet in person to check chemistry. However, no matter how
extensive these processes were, every woman in the study for whom this was not
their first outside partnership had multiple stories of disappointing sexual experi-
ences with men with whom they had intended to enter into outside partnerships,
but an unsatisfactory sexual encounter led them not to pursue that relationship.
Another issue that arose during the vetting process included encountering men
who responded rudely to rejection or perceived rejection. Ultimately, women
often chose outside partners whose physical presentation was “not their type.”
Some women sought partners with traits they now realize they should have
selected in a primary partner. Other women specifically sought outside partners
with large penises, in part because their primary partners lacked this trait.
Membership on Ashley Madison quickly thrust these women into the
driver’s seat. Unlike the real world where they had to wait on a man to select
them as a partner, they perceived themselves as exercising choice in partners
online even though men did the approaching. Faced with double and triple
digit offers, women got to set the pacing of the associations and ultimately
select the partner of their choosing. When partners failed to live up to their
expectations, they broke things off without concern or worry. To the women,
these relationships were utilitarian. Thus, a partnership that wasn’t working
had to be replaced.
These women were not mate-shopping, and most did not categorize their
outside partnerships as ones of “love.” In fact, the majority of women in
this study reported purposefully vetting partners to weed out men who are
seeking an emotional attachment, defined as “love.” Most of the narratives
of outside partnerships described associations entered into with the desire to
avoid emotional entanglement (“love”). Rather, they stated an awareness of
 Conclusion 131

the bounded nature of the relationships, in that both parties were on their best
behavior during encounters. This realization helped to keep their ultimate
goal—remaining in their primary partnership—realistic. There was no chance
of getting carried away with an outside partner for women who realize that
the association worked best with limited access between parties.
This challenges existing literature positioning women as primarily seek-
ing emotional affairs and prioritizing the emotional aspect of affairs over the
sexual elements. In this sample, only eight respondents sought out outside
partnerships prioritizing the emotional aspect. However, the other women in
the sample did enjoy friendships and trust with their outside partnerships, so
long as the lines did not blur into “love.”

How Does Having an Outside Partner Affect Women’s Primary

Relationships?
The women believed that outside partnerships benefited their primary rela-
tionships in many ways. Women spoke of being able to return to their pri-
mary partnership and household with a calmer demeanor, and more able to
remain calm, and shrug off irritations and annoyances. Their participation
in outside partnerships diffused the resentment these women carried around
regarding their primary partnership, and they were more able to cooperate and
compromise in their primary partnerships. Time spent with outside partners
resulted in the women’s willingness to overlook, minimize, and contextualize
their primary partners’ behaviors, habits, and tendencies that had previously
been experienced as intolerable. Women remarked that their children, friends
and family, and even their primary partners had remarked on their improved
mood and conduct. The women in this study considered their outside partner-
ships as beneficial to everyone in their lives by extension since they improved
the women’s mood and how they handled stressful situations in their lives.

How Does Having an Outside Partner Enhance or Complicate

Women’s Lives?
Outside partnerships have a number of outcomes in the lives of these women.
While there are costs and benefits, the women firmly believed the positives
outweighed the negatives. The costs included having to put on a false front
for other people in their lives that everything in their primary partnerships
was “fine,” enduring rudeness from men they rejected, disappointing sex with
potential outside partners, fear of aging out of sexual desirability, turbulent
reentries to their “real lives,” and feeling like they are a bad person. Devis-
ing excuses to explain their absence when they were with their outside part-
ners served as a source of stress, as did lying to friends, family, and primary
partners.
132 Conclusion

The benefits of outside partners included improved mental health, attitude,

and outlook. The strain of role performance was a recurring theme in women’s
experiences. The women of this study reported that the social roles they were
expected to play within their primary partnerships were confining and did
not permit space for them to enact their former and forgotten selves. Neither
could they try on other selves within those constraints. Outside partnerships
provided safe spaces where women could remember and enact former versions
of themselves, before the burden of performing the role “wife,” “fiancée,” or
“girlfriend” impeded upon their self-expression. This aspect of outside partner-
ships was especially valuable to women who could not find space within their
“real lives” to enact aspects of themselves they had felt necessary to put aside
in order to perform the daily responsibilities of their most salient social roles.
Women felt better able to enact their roles as “wife” and “girlfriend” after
spending time with their outside partner. Time spent with their outside partner
was a treat they gave themselves and served as a source of excitement and fun
in their lives. Additionally, women reported outside partnerships as a site of
“great sex” and plentiful orgasms, which was extremely important to them.

How Do Outside Partnerships Help Women Remain in a

Marriage?
The women in this study desired remaining in their primary partnerships for
the foreseeable future. Prior to participation in outside partnerships, the women
lacked confidence that doing so was actually possible. Many felt the end of
their endurance capacity when they first sought an outside partner. The women
reported feeling that at least for the imaginable future they believed their out-
side partnerships made it possible to stay in their primary partnerships. This
was largely due to the myriad of benefits outside partners brought to their lives.
Women also cited as helpful the different, outside perspectives to situations
they encountered. Some women even discussed marital issues with their outside
partner and found their advice helpful in keeping the peace at home. Outside
partnerships were invaluable in terms of the sexual release and stress relief they
provided. However, many women cited the value of having another person in
your life to validate your appearance and essence as beneficial to their ability
to continue to juggle their disappointment with their primary partnership. Ulti-
mately, having an outside partner in their lives helped these women create psy-
chological space for themselves to be able to stay in their primary partnerships.

What are Women’s Expectations of Outside Partners and Outside

Partnerships?
These women reported having clear expectations of their outside partnerships.
Most of the women reported that their outside partners were relationships of
 Conclusion 133

sexual utility. They eschewed emotional connections akin to “love.” They

were quick to break up with outside partners who were not meeting their
needs. An initial bad sexual performance doomed the association. For these
women, an outside partner needed to be sexually compatible, respectful of
them, their time, and their “real lives,” and clear that the relationship had
boundaries and was temporary. Some women specified the need for an out-
side partner to be well-endowed as well. A small minority of women in this
study sought emotional connections with outside partners, but these women
also reported poor conditions within their primary partnerships, including a
lack of emotional support, respect, and consideration. For the remainder of
the women in this study, sexual performance and prowess trumped all else.

EMPOWERMENT THROUGH SEXUAL AUTONOMY

The findings of this study suggest that many women perceive their involve-
ment with outside partners as empowering. In some cases, this empower-
ment is in the form of personal authority, that is, their own ability to both
acknowledge and satisfy their needs “even in the face of pressure from others
to conform to their wishes or expectations” (Rampage, 1991, p. 110). This
personal authority was an experience of power over yourself, rather than the
exertion of power over others. Personal authority refers to the autonomy to
design your own life. This study’s findings regarding personal authority sup-
port the findings of Lammers, Stoker, Jordan, Pollman, and Stapel (2011),
who found an association between power and incidence of sexual nonexclu-
sivity as well as intention to engage in outside partnerships (Lammers et al.,
2011). The types of personal authority reported by the women of this study
included the liberty to engage in sexual activities off-limits or not enjoyable
to their primary partners; the power to focus upon their own pleasure during
sexual encounters without concern for a partner’s pleasure; the ability to set
boundaries and even end partnerships without concern or guilt; and exercis-
ing the right to select partners from a group of admirers rather than passively
waiting to be selected.

SHIFTING PERSPECTIVE

The experience of participating in outside partnerships changed many of

these women. Their view of relationships shifted so that many took on the
lens of functional specificity. That is, they began to see relationships as bou-
tiques where they could get certain things from one person, but had to seek
out another for other needs. As a result, many transformed their practice of
maintaining outside partnerships to include multiple outside partnerships
134 Conclusion

concurrent to their primary partnership. Others so enjoyed their experiences

they greatly desired to open their marriages and grant their primary partners
the same joy, autonomy, and variety they were themselves delighting in. A
small group of women, however, found that participating in outside partner-
ships made them realize how much was actually missing within their primary
partnerships. And one woman in the study was so firmly rooted in the idea
of multiplexity, the idea that one person—ideally, a spouse—should be able
to meet all of your needs, she found herself consumed with worry that her
outside partner might have other outside partners in addition to her.

INFIDELITY AS A WORKAROUND

These women refuse to accept and publicly acknowledge the failure of their
primary partnerships via divorce or break-up. Instead, they create an alternate
space where their unmet needs can be met. Yet they retain the privilege of the
master status of being married, or partnered. Thus, they reject the social norm
of marriage as monogamous, but they do so in secret.
Through this experience, they redefine “commitment” to mean a resolution
to remain in the primary partnership. Thus, under this paradigm, sex and even
emotional intimacy with another partner does not violate their commitment.
Ultimately, these women reject the binary proposition of marriage, which
dictates that either you work out the challenges and stay married and monoga-
mous, or you conclude the relationship is unsalvageable and you break up
and eventually begin seeing new partners. The women in this study conceive
of an alternate solution to a primary partnership that is not wholly working,
where their own needs are ignored, unmet, and not prioritized. In the end,
for these women, outside partnerships are a workaround to avoid the pain,
inconvenience, financial ramifications, and stigma of divorce.

LIMITATIONS

I collected the data presented here through interviews with participants in an

online membership site for individuals seeking affair partners. Additionally,
this was a purposive sample rather than a random one. As such, the findings
of this inquiry are not generalizable to the general population. Neither are
they generalizable to all individuals participating in outside partnerships. Par-
ticipation in outside partnerships is an experiential process; no two persons’
experience will be exactly the same. The women of this sample purposefully
and consciously sought out a partner or partners for extra-relational sexual
relationships. Even those whose initial foray into sexual nonexclusivity
 Conclusion 135

occurred as an “affair of opportunity” elected to replace those partners via

participation in Ashley Madison, a website created for the express purpose of
finding like-minded people for extra-relational sexual encounters.
Another limitation of this study is the lack of racial diversity among the
sample. The women represented here were overwhelmingly White. Likewise,
class was not considered in this study. Although data regarding the women’s
professions was collected as a proxy, not all women chose to reveal that
information. We can extrapolate that the sample is likely skewed toward
upper-middle class, given that internet samples tend to be White, educated,
and middle class or better (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009), and consider-
ing the costly membership men must purchase to participate. However, this
remains a limitation of the present study.
As stated previously, the data collection method poses some limitations.
While email interviews are becoming more popular, they do present limita-
tions. At the conclusion of deep and extended interviews via email, such
as the ones conducted in this study, closure is an issue, as it can feel very
abrupt for the interviewee. Participants in email interviews must be highly
motivated as it is a time-consuming and physically demanding methodology,
and access to the internet and a computer may require fees. Simultaneously,
the researcher is juggling several concurrent interviews, struggling to get a
response to participants, keep everyone’s responses clear, and not confuse
participants. Familiarity with the internet itself and the language and habits
of email are required for the researcher as well. Visual cues are completely
absent, so the language of emoticons takes on more importance. However,
the identity of participants cannot be easily verified in this methodology,
which renders the participants more likely to be open and honest with their
responses.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The data from this study contributes to the literature on infidelity. It provides
implications for both research and practice. The narratives in this study reveal
that women’s experiences of navigating outside partnerships are much more
nuanced than previous studies suggest. Counter to our conceptions of cur-
rent constraints around one’s sexual expression, the data here reveals that
these social controls are not nearly as powerfully culturally as the constraints
around one’s public presentation of self. The women in this study all par-
ticipated in public relationships modeled after the compulsory mandate of
monogamy; however, their private sexual behavior was not constrained by
that directive. Nevertheless, their desire to maintain the public and social
identity of “monogamous woman”—as well as to conceal their behavior
136 Conclusion

from their primary partner and protect that partnership—was salient and sig-
nificant. Thus, the inclination was not to abstain from participation in sexual
nonexclusivity, but rather to conceal their participation.
Considering the top three reasons cited by couples seeking counseling
include infidelity, this study has implications for practice as well. Marriage
and family therapists inevitably face clients who have experienced incidences
of infidelity, and even adult children trying to process their parents’ experi-
ence of and handling of infidelity. Studies consistently show infidelity as one
of the most problematic issues within a relationship, and one of the most
difficult to treat (Fife et al., 2008; Gordon et al., 2005; Whisman, Dixon, &
Johnson, 1997). Incidence of infidelity within a primary partnership put a
couple at greater risk to divorce or separate (Amato & Previti, 2003; Amato &
Rogers, 1997; Atkins et al., 2005). The findings here can help mental health
professionals understand the complexities of their clients’ motivations for and
responses to participation in extramarital relationships. In particular, the data
may help to shed light on particular primary partnership dynamics influenc-
ing women to seek out an outside partner. The reasons cited by these women
differed from socially “expected” reasons for participation in outside partner-
ships. These findings suggest a more complex and sophisticated understand-
ing of women’s experiences with outside partners is called for. Clinicians
must address infidelity in therapy with clients, and the present study offers
additional information with regard to how women view and construct their
experiences with outside partnerships.
These narratives all mentioned the experience of empowerment within
these outside partnerships. The women described a level of personal authority
within these couplings that they do not experience in their primary partner-
ships. The dynamics of their primary partnerships constrain and limit the
women’s personal power in ways that likely reduce their relationship and
sexual satisfaction within those primary relationships. Primary partnerships
where their sexual needs and desires could not be voiced or met posed a
problem for these women, and the answer was outside partnerships. If their
primary relationships where safe spaces to express and explore sexual desires
and to get their sexual needs met, the need for an outside partnership would
likely be diminished. The structures of primary relationships required the
enactment of roles, which constrained the women’s ability to perform other
selves.
Women spoke of fear that their lives were passing them by, as they stayed
within unsatisfying primary partnerships (e.g., sexless, orgasmless, etc.).
Resentment within their primary partnerships played prominently in these
narratives. Inequitable divisions of labor, sexlessness, and selfishness were
common complaints. Counter to commonsense understandings of infidelity,
these women reported that sexual pleasure was their primary motivation for
 Conclusion 137

outside partnerships. To avoid dependence on a single person to meet their

needs—sexual and otherwise—many of the women maintained multiple
outside partnerships, and shifted their views on the usefulness of monogamy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY

This study suggests implications for theory as well. This grounded theory
study revealed themes of functional specificity, dramaturgy, and relational
power at play in these women’s experiences of participation in outside part-
nerships. The basic premise of functional specificity is that we “shop” among
our social relationships to select partners for various needs, rather than get-
ting all of our needs met by one party. This theory has not previously been
used to examine romantic relationships or infidelity. The data here revealed
a strong inclination toward this approach among the women of this sample.
Further inquiry is needed to examine the usefulness of this theory in romantic
relationship study.
The enactment of women’s social roles resulted in lives where women had
to abandon elements of their former selves. More work on the correlation
between our role performance and infidelity is needed. Relational power was
used here as well, specifically, personal authority, which is the exercise of
your own will while resisting the wishes of another person. These women
exercised tremendous personal authority by exercising their own sexual
desires against the wishes of their primary partner—who not only wanted
their fidelity, but assumed the women to be monogamous—as well as the
wishes of their social circle and larger social pressures. More investigation
is warranted with regard to this theory and the study of infidelity, especially
among women.
Women’s exercise of personal authority featured prominently in these nar-
ratives. They valued these outside partnerships as spaces where they could
exert autonomy, focus on their own sexual needs, and honestly express sexual
desire without fear of shaming. While the women reported emphasized femi-
ninity within their outside partnerships, they experienced this as empowering.
This could be in part due to their ability to enact emphasized femininity at
will, and refuse to do so when they chose. Women spoke candidly about their
motivations for outside partnerships. Sexual pleasure was the driving force in
most of these narratives. Women expressed a great deal of resentment toward
primary partners who did not do their fair share of housework, but also
toward those partners who were unable or unwilling to have sex, or to have
the kind of sex that produced orgasm for these women. Women described
strategies intended to ensure their needs were met regardless of the failure of
any one partner. Thus, multiple concurrent outside partnerships were a tactic
138 Conclusion

for many. Some women came to believe that as a system monogamy did not
work for them.
A portion of the men on Ashley Madison sent harassing messages to women
whose profiles graphically indicated their sexual interests. This appears to be
an enactment of hegemonic masculinity, whereby the men feel compelled to
police the women’s behavior. The men likely feel threatened by the women’s
brazen sexuality, which the men likely see as a gender transgression. Men’s
entitlement can be seen in those men who reacted badly to a delay in the
women’s response to their messages—or in responses the men did not feel
were “enthusiastic enough.”

FUTURE RESEARCH

A longitudinal study on women’s participation in concurrent, but secret

romantic partnerships would reveal whether their impressions and experi-
ences change over time. At the time of data collection, the women in this
sample reported a desire to remain married regardless of their success and
happiness in outside partnerships. However, a long-term study would show
whether this is indeed a persistent feature of these relationships. Likewise,
the women reported experiencing shifts in their own perceptions of long-term
relationships in terms of functional specificity and the exercise of multiple
outside partners. Again, a long-term inquiry would shed more light on that
process, and whether it is a lasting shift.
Further research inquiry considering both class and race may prove benefi-
cial in terms of puzzling out women’s experiences with outside partnerships.
The sample here was overwhelmingly White women, and no class measures
were considered. While we can assume the sample is skewed toward middle
class and upper-middle class women based on the cost of membership for
male members on the site, it is not completely clear from the women’s narra-
tives. Professional data was collected as a proxy for income, which suggested
an upward skew. However, not all women provided this data.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, outside partnerships can be spaces of sexual expression for

women whose shared sexual lives with their primary partnerships are restric-
tive. Women whose primary partner lacked sufficient genital size for her
pleasure sought outside partners who could fulfill that need. For women
whose primary partner is reluctant to delve into sexual activities that titillate
her, outside partnerships can fill that gap in her sexual life. Likewise, women
 Conclusion 139

with primary partners whose sexual interests are far outside the realm of her
interests and comfort zone can find an outside partner whose preferences
more closely mirror hers. Without this stopgap, these women were existing in
relationships where they were shamed for the nature of their desires, or chas-
tised for their own unwillingness to participate in undesired sexual activities.
For women whose primary partnerships were sexless, outside partnerships
allowed them a place to exercise their sexual impulses and satisfy their sexual
desire. The importance of this cannot be understated for these women given
that the traditional configuration of marriage is that of monogamy. The cur-
rent social construction of the marriage/living together relationship as sexu-
ally exclusive is tantamount to a sexual straightjacket for women who desire
partnered sex, but whose primary partner does not, or whose primary partner
cannot perform. Rather than live a life devoid of partnered sexual activity,
these women can enjoy the power of human touch as well as the resulting
partnered orgasms, which the women perceived as “better” and more “power-
ful” than orgasms provoked by masturbation.
For most of the women in this study, outside partners were not sites of
“love” and undying affection. Rather, they were relationships of utility,
entered into to solve a very specific problem or deficit. These women care-
fully orchestrated these ties to avoid “falling in love” and threatening their
“real lives,” or bringing upset to the innocent parties in their lives. They
worked hard to conceal their behavior from loved ones to protect their feel-
ings and preserve their current way of life.
Outside partnerships also served as sites of empowerment for the women.
Outside partnerships are spaces where women are in charge. They make the
rules, and they do not settle for less than what they want and need. Outside
partnerships were not relationships where women endured things for the
good of their partner. They carefully selected partners who met their needs.
Women did the boundary-setting and sexual shot calling in these couplings.
Men who did not rise to their standard found themselves without an outside
partner.
Within outside partnerships, women could try on roles they had always
wanted to explore, reenact previous “selves,” and take a break from the
constraints of the salient roles of their “real lives.” Women in this study indi-
cated that within their primary partnerships, there was no room for certain
facets of themselves. Outside partnerships are so compartmentalized from
the women’s “real lives” that they serve as spaces where women can try on
different identities, practice role performances, and enact previous “selves”
which have been put aside in order to effectively enact the role of “wife” or
“girlfriend.” For these women, whose “real lives” were ordered, scheduled,
and constrained by responsibilities and expectations, outside partnerships
were a site of freedom to “be” whomever they wanted.
140 Conclusion

These associations are also spaces where women treat themselves. The
women described lives filled-to-the-brim with responsibilities. Their own
needs often came last, behind everyone else in their lives. Or their needs sim-
ply went unmet. Participation in an outside partnership served as “me time”
for these women. While socially stigmatized, for the women in this study,
these outside partnerships provided much-needed fun, relaxation, excitement,
and stress release. This was the only space where they took care of their own
needs, the only thing in their lives that was “just for them.”
The women kept their “real lives” and their outside partnerships separate.
However, there was marked bleed over into their perspectives. Most of the
women in the study had reconsidered their stance on monogamy as a practice.
Granted, they were themselves not practicing monogamy because they were
cheating on primary partners. But when they entered into this practice, they
rationalized it as a means to deal with the conditions of their primary part-
nerships, which commonly lacked sex, orgasms, or sexual variety. As they
continued on in these arrangements, they came to see the practice of sexual
nonexclusivity as useful even in a situation where the primary partnership
would be providing their needs. In other words, the experience of outside
partners had shifted their perspective on the nature of romantic relationships
in general, and the practice of monogamy specifically.
The women whose lives are represented here are much like the women
you may know in your own life. They ranged in age from 24 to 65 years of
age, but most of the sample was in their 30s and 40s. Most were married,
and most had children. They were well-spoken, witty, personable, intelligent,
and self-aware. They were mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, coworkers,
PTA and soccer moms, and neighbors. They had entered into monogamous
couplings with the intention of conformity. In the face of unmet sexual needs
with no end in sight, they had carefully made the decision to put their needs
first. They believed that decision had ultimately benefited the other people in
the lives, including their primary partners. They were women doing the best
they could with the circumstances they faced. In short, they were just like the
rest of us: human beings trying to figure out how to best live.
 References

Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017). When Flirting Turns Into Infidelity: The
Facebook Dilemma. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 45(1), 1–14.
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gen-
der & Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus
Pipeline to Examine Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality. The Journal of Sex
Research, 40(1), 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164.
Alksnis, C., Desmarasis, S., & Woods, E. (1996). Gender Differences in Scripts for
Different Kinds of Dates. Sex Roles 34(5/6), 331–336. doi:10.1007/bf01547805.
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s Reasons for Divorcing: Gender, Social
Class, the Life Course, and Adjustment. Journal of Family Issues 24(5), 602–626.
doi:10.1177/0192513x03024005002.
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems
and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612–624.
doi:10.2307/353949.
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding Infidel-
ity: Correlates in a National Random Sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15,
735–749. doi:10.1037/0893–3200.15.4.735.
Atkins, D. C., Marín, R. A., Lo, T. T. Y., Klann, N., & Hahlweg, K. (2010). Outcomes
of couples with infidelity in a community-based sample of couple therapy. ournal
of Family Psychology, 24(2), 212–216.
Atkins, D. C., Yi, J., Baucom, D. H., & Christensen, A. (2005). Infidelity in
Couples Seeking Marital Therapy. Journal of Family Psychology 19, 470–473.
doi:10.1037/0893–3200.19.3.470.
Aubrey, J. S., & Taylor, L. D. (2009). The role of lad magazines in priming men’s
chronic and temporary appearance-related schemata: An investigation of longitu-
dinal and experimental findings. Human Communication Research, 35(1), 28–58.
doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.2008.01337.x.

141
142 References

Banfield, S., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Extra Relationship Involvement Among

Women: Are They Different From Men? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(2),
119–142. doi:10.1023/A:1002773100507.
Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner, and this is my . . . partner’s partner: Construct-
ing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 18(1), 75–88. doi:10.1080/10720530590523107.
Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies?
Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772.
doi:0.1177/1363460710384645.
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for Infidelity in Heterosexual
Dating Couples: The Roles of Gender, Personality Differences, and Sociosexual
Orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(339–360), 339.
doi:10.1177/0265407505052440.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interper-
sonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivator. Psychological Bulletin
117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.117.3.497.
Bell, L. C. (2013). Hard to Get: TwentySomething Women and the Paradox of Sexual
Freedom. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Benjamin, J. (1988). The bonds of love. New York: Pantheon Books.
Blumberg, E. (2003). The Lives and Voices of Highly Sexual Women. The Journal of
Sex Research, 40(2), 146–157. doi:10.1080/00224490309552176.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New
York Morrow.
Boekhout, B. A., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1999). Relationship infidelity:
A loss perspective. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 4(2), 97–123
doi:10.1080/10811449908409721.
Bonello, K., & Cross, M. (2010). Gay monogamy: I love you but I can’t have sex with
only you. 57, 1(117–39), 117. doi:10.1080/00918360903445962.
Bowker, N., & Tuffin, K. (2004). Using the online medium for discursive research
about people with disabilities. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 228–241.
doi:10.1177/0894439303262561.
Brandon, M. (2011). The challenge of monogamy: bringing it out of the closet and
into the treatment room. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26(3), 271–277.
Bravo, I. M., & Lumpkin, P. W. (2010). The Complex Case of Marital Infidelity:
An Explanatory Model of Contributory Processes to Facilitate Psychotherapy. The
American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(5), 421–432. doi:10.1080/01926187.20
10.522491.
Brewis, J., & Linstead, S. (2000). Sex, Work, and Sex Work: Eroticizing Organiza-
tion. London: Routledge.
Bridges, S. K., Lease, S. H., & Ellison, C. R. (2004). Predicting Sexual Satisfaction
in Women: Implications For Counselor Education And Training. Journal of Coun-
seling & Development 82(2), 158–167. doi:10.1002/j.1556–6678.2004.tb00297.x.
Brimhall, A. S., Miller, B. J., Maxwell, K. A., & Alotaiby, A. M. (2017). Does It Help
or Hinder? Technology and Its Role in Healing Post Affair. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy, 16(1), 42–60. doi:10.1080/15332691.2016.1142408.
 References 143

Brimhall, A. S., Wampler, K., & Kimball, T. (2008). Learning from the past, alter-
ing the future: The effects of past relationships on couples who remarry. Family
Process, 47(3), 373–387. doi:10.1111/j.1545–5300.2008.00259.x.
Brody, S. (2006). Blood pressure reactivity to stress is better for people who recently
had penile–vaginal intercourse than for people who had other or no sexual activ-
ity. Biological Psychology, 71(2), 214–222. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.03.005.
Brody, S. (2010). The relative health benefits of different sexual activities. The Journal
of Sexual Medicine, 7(4pt.1), 1336–1361. doi:10.1111/j.1743–6109.2009.01677.x.
Brody, S., & Costa, R. M. (2009). Satisfaction (sexual, life, relationship, and mental
health) is associated directly with penile-vaginal intercourse, but inversely with
other sexual behavior frequencies. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(7), 1947–
1954. doi:10.1111/j.1743–6109.2009.01303.x.
Brody, S., & Costa, R. M. (2012). Sexual Satisfaction and Health Are Positively
Associated With Penile-Vaginal Intercourse but Not Other Sexual Activities.
American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 6–7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300428.
Brody, S., & Krügerb, T. H. C. (2006). The post-orgasmic prolactin increase follow-
ing intercourse is greater than following masturbation and suggests greater satiety.
Biological Psychology, 71(3), 312–315. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.06.008.
Brooks, G. R. (1995). The Centerfold Syndrome: How Men Can Overcome Objectifi-
cation and Achieve Intimacy with Women. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass.
Brown, E. M. (2001). Patterns Of Infidelity And Their Treatment. Ann Arbor, MI:
Taylor & Francis.
Browning, J. R., Hatfield, E., Kessler, D., & Levine, T. (2000). Sexual Motives,
Gender, and Sexual Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 135–153.
doi:10.1023/A:1001903705153.
Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., Sherkat, D. E., & Gore, K. A. (2007 ). Are There Reli-
gious Variations in Marital Infidelity? Journal of Family Issues 28(1553–1581),
1553. doi:10.1177/0192513x07304269.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolution-
ary Perspective on Human Mating. Psychological Review 100(2), 204–232.
doi:10.1037/0033–295x.100.2.204.
Butler, M. H., Seedall, R. B., & Harper, J. M. (2008). Facilitated Disclosure Versus
Clinical Accommodation of Infidelity Secrets: An Early Pivot Point in Couple
Therapy. Part 2: Therapy Ethics, Pragmatics, and Protocol. The American Journal
of Family Therapy, 36(4), 265–283. doi:10.1080/01926180701291253.
C.Atkins, D., & Kessel, D. E. (2008). Religiousness and Infidelity: Attendance, But
not Faith and Prayer, Predict Marital Infidelity. Journal of Marriage and Family
70, 407–418. doi:10.1111/j.1741–3737.2008.00490.x.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, L. E., Ernst, J. M., Burlseson, M. H.,
Kowalweski, R. B., . . . Bernston, G. G. (2002). Loneliness and Health: Potential
Mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 407–417. doi:10.1097/00006842–
200205000–00005.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability
in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99(1), 14–31. doi:10.1037/a0019714.
144 References

Cano, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2000). Infidelity and Separations Precipitate Major
Depressive Episodes and Symptoms of Nonspecific Depression and Anxiety. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68, 774–781. doi:10.1037/0022–006x.68.5.774.
Carlson, D. L., Miller, A. J., Sassler, S., & Hanson, S. (2016). The Gendered Division
of Housework and Couples’ Sexual Relationships: A Reexamination. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 78(4), 975–995. doi:10.1111/jomf.12313.
Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences Between Males and
Females in Motives for Engaging in Sexual Intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior, 14, 131–139. doi:10.1007/bf01541658.
Chen, P., & Hinton, S. M. (1999). Real-time interviewing using the world wide web.
Sociological Research Online, 4(3).
Chivers, M. L., & Timmers, A. D. (2012). The Effects of Gender and Relationship
Context Cues in Audio Narratives on Heterosexual Women’s and Men’s Genital
and Subjective Sexual Response. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(1), 185–197.
doi:10.1007/s10508–012–9937–3.
Christopher, F. S., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other
relationships: A Decade in Review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4),
999–1017. doi:10.1111/j.1741–3737.2000.00999.x.
Cohen, S., Frank, E., Doyle, W. J., Skoner, D. P., Rabin, B. S., & Jack M. Gwaltney,
J. (1998). Types of Stressors that Increase Susceptibility to the Common Cold in
Healthy Adults. Health Psychology 17, 214–223. doi:10.1037/0278–6133.17.3.214.
Cohn, D. v. (2013). Love and Marriage: Pew Research Center.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. New York and London: Routledge.
Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived Proposer Personality Characteristics and Gender
Differences in Acceptance of Casual Sex Offers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 309–329. doi:10.1037/a0022152.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier:
Assessing stigma surrounding non-normative romantic relationships. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 12, 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1530–2415.2012.01286.x.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful Individu-
als are Less Likely to Practice Safer Sex than Openly Nonmonogamous Individuals.
Journal of Sexual Medicine 9, 1559–1565. doi:10.1111/j.1743–6109.2012.02712.x.
Connell, R. (1985). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, A History: from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love
Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking.
Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., & Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for Sex and
Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents and Young Adults: A Functional
Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1528–1558.
doi:10.1037/0022–3514.75.6.1528.
Costa, R. M., & Brody, S. (2007). Women’s Relationship Quality is Associated with
Specifically Penile-Vaginal Intercourse Orgasm and Frequency. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 33(4), 319–327. doi:10.1080/00926230701385548.
Costa, R. M., Miller, G. F., & Brody, S. (2012). Women Who Prefer Longer
Penises Are More Likely to Have Vaginal Orgasms (but Not Clitoral Orgasms):
 References 145

Implications for an Evolutionary Theory of Vaginal Orgasm. The Journal of Sexual

Medicine, 9(12), 3079–3088. doi:10.1111/j.1743–6109.2012.02917.
Cott, N. F. (2000). Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual Double Standards: A Review and Meth-
odological Critique of Two Decades of Research. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1),
13–26. doi:10.1080/00224490309552163.
Davies, B. (1991). The Concept of Agency: A Feminist Poststructuralist Analysis.
Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, 30,
42–53.
DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Richard S. Pond, J., Deckman, T., Fin-
kel, E. J., . . . Fincham, F. D. (2011). So Far Away From One’s Partner, Yet So Close
to Alternatives: Avoidant Attachment, Interest in Alternatives, and Infidelity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1302–1316. doi:10.1037/a0025497.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very Happy People. Psychological Science
13, 81–84. doi:10.1111/1467–9280.00415.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail and Mixed-
Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Donnelly, D. A., & Burgess, E. O. (2008). The Decision to Remain in an Involun-
tarily Celibate Relationship. Journal of Marriage & Family 70A(2), 519–535.
doi:10.1111/j.1741–3737.2008.00498.x.
Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: Men possessing women. New York: G. P. Put-
nam’s Sons.
Eagly, A. (2009). The His and Hers of Prosocial Behavior: An Examination of the
Social Psychology of Gender. American Psychologist 64(8), 644–658 doi:10.1037/
e669392012–012.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex Differences in Mate Preference Revisited:
Do People Know What They Initially Desire in a Romantic Partner. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.94.2.245.
Edwards, G. L., Barber, B. L., & Dziurawiec, S. (2014). Emotional Intimacy Power
Predicts Different Sexual Expectations for Men and Women. The Journal of Sex
Research, 340–350.
Egan, R. D., & Hawkes, G. (2010). Theorizing the sexual child in modernity. New
York: PalgraveMacmillan.
Ehrenfreund, M. (2014, May 1, 2014). The economics of adultery. The Washington Post.
Eisenman, R. (2001). Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction.
BMC Women’s Health, 1(1), 1. doi:10.1186/1472–6874–1-1.
Elbaum, P. L. (1981). The dynamics, implications and treatment of extramarital sex-
ual relationships for the family therapist. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
7(4), 489–495. doi:10.1111/j.1752–0606.1981.tb01404.x.
Emens, E. F. (2004). Monogamy’s Law: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Poly-
amorous Existence. New York University Review of Law & Social Exchange 29,
277–376. doi:10.2139/ssrn.506242.
Emerson, R. M. (1981). Social Exchange Theory. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner
(Eds.), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 30–65). New York:
Basic Books.
146 References

Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., & Maw, J. (1998). Failing boys? Issues in gender
and achievement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fahs, B. (2011). Dreaded “Otherness: Heteronormative Patrolling in Women’s Body Hair
Rebellions. Gender & Society, 25(4), 451–472. doi:10.1177/0891243211414877.
Fahs, B. (2014). Coming to power: women’s fake orgasms and best orgasm experi-
ences illuminate the failures of (hetero)sex and the pleasures of connection. Culture,
Health & Sexuality, 16(8), 974–988. doi:10.1080/13691058.2014.924557.
Fehr, E., Herz, H., & Wilkening, T. (2013). The Lure of Authority: Motivation and
Incentive Effects of Power. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1325–1359.
doi:10.1257/aer.103.4.1325.
Felmlee, D. H. (1994). Who’s on Top? Power in Romantic Relationships. Sex Roles
34(5/6), 275–295. doi:10.1007/bf01544589.
Fields, E. L., Bogart, L. M., Smith, K. C., Malebranche, D. J., Ellen, J., & Schuster,
M. A. (2015). “I Always Felt I Had to Prove My Manhood”: Homosexuality, Mas-
culinity, Gender Role Strain, and HIV Risk Among Young Black Men Who Have
Sex With Men. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 122–131. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2013.301866.
Fife, S. T., Weeks, G. R., & Gambescia, N. (2008). Treating Infidelity: An Integra-
tive Approach. The Family Journal: Counseling And Therapy For Couples And
Families, 16, 316–323. doi:10.1177/1066480708323205.
Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 13, 70–74. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Addelston, J., & Marusza, J. (1997). (In)secure times: construct-
ing white working-class masculinities in the late 20th century. Gender & Society,
11(1), 52–68. doi:10.1177/089124397011001004.
Finer, L. B. (2007). Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States: 195 4–2003. Public
Health Records, 122(1), 73–78.
Fisher, A. D., Corona, G., Bandini, E., Mannucci, E., Lotti, F., Boddi, V., . . . Maggi, M.
(2009). Psychobiological correlates of extramarital affairs and differences between
stable and occasional infidelity among men with sexual dysfunctions. The Journal
of Sexual Medicine, 6(3), 866–875. doi:10.1111/j.1743–6109.2008.01140.x.
Fleckenstein, J. R., & Cox, D. W. (2015). The association of an open relationship
orientation with health and happiness in a sample of older US adults. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 30(1), 94–116.
Flood, M., Gardiner, J. K., Pease, B., & Pringle, K. (2007). International Encyclope-
dia of Men and Masculinities. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.
Forthofer, M. S., Markman, H. J., Cox, M., Stanley, S., & Kessler, R. C. (1996).
Associations between Marital Distress and Work Loss in a National Sample. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family 58, 597–605. doi:10.2307/353720.
Francken, A. B., Wiel, H. B. M. v. d., Driel, M. F. V., & Schultz, W. W. (2002). What
Importance Do Women Attribute to the Size of the Penis? European Urology,
42(5), 426–431. doi:10.1016/S0302–2838(02)00396–2.
Frederick, D. A., John, H. K. S., Garci, J. R., & Lloyd, a. A. (2017). Differences
in Orgasm Frequency Among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Men
and Women in a U.S. National Sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–1611.
doi:10.1007/s10508–017–0939-z.
 References 147

Gallo, L. C., Troxel, W. M., Matthews, K. A., & Kuller, L. H. (2003). Marital
Status and Quality in Middle-aged Women: Associations with Levels and
Trajectories of Cardiovascular Risk Factors. Health Psychology 22, 453–463.
doi:10.1037/0278–6133.22.5.453.
Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism
in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity.
Gill, R. (2009). Beyond the ‘sexualization of culture’ thesis: An intersectional analy-
sis of ‘sixpacks’, ‘midriffs’ and ‘hot lesbians’ in advertising. Sexualities, 12(2),
137–160. doi: 10.1177/1363460708100916.
Gill, R. (2011). Supersexualize me! Advertising and the ‘midriffs’. In G. Dines
& J. M. Humez (Eds.), Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Critical Reader
(pp. 255–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1985). Sex Differences in type of Extramarital
Involvement and Marital Dissatisfaction. Sex Roles 12, 1101–1120. doi:10.1007/
BF00288108.
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1988). Clinical implications of research on extramarital
involvement. In R. B. J. Field (Ed.), Treatment of sexual problems in individual
and couples therapy. New York: PMA.
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for Extramarital Relationships:
The Association between Attitudes, Behaviors, and Gender. The Journal of Sex
Research, 29(3), 361–387. doi:10.1080/00224499209551654.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor
Books.
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2005). Treating Couples Recovering
From Infidelity: An Integrative Approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61, 139
3–1405. doi:10.1002/jclp.20189.
Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and
critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93(3), 513–538. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.93.3.513.
Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender Belief in the Sexual Double Stan-
dard, and Sexual Talk in Heterosexual Dating Relationships. Sex Roles 53(3/4),
239–251. doi:10.1007/s11199–005–5682–6.
Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of Increased Sexual Satisfac-
tion. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(4), 399–419. doi:10.1023/A:1024591318836.
Hackathorn, J., Daniels, J., Ashdown, B. K., & Rife, S. (2017). From fear and guilt:
negative perceptions of Ashley Madison users. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(1–2),
41–54. doi:10.1080/19419899.2017.1316767.
Halkitis, P. N., Green, K. A., & Wilton, L. (2004). Masculinity, Body Image, and
Sexual Behavior in HIV-Seropositive Gay Men: A Two-Phase Formative Behav-
ioral Investigation Using the Internet. International Journal of Men’s Health, 3(1),
27–42.
Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered Sexuality in Young Adult-
hood: Double Binds and Flawed Options. Gender & Society, 23(5), 589–616. doi:
10.1177/0891243209345829.
Hanning, R. V., O’Keefe, S. L., Randall, E. J., Kommor, M. J., Baker, E., & Wilson,
R. (2007). Intimacy Orgasm Likelihood and Conflict Predict Sexual Satisfaction in
Heterosexual Male and Female Respondents. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,
148 References

33(22), 93–113. doi:Intimacy Orgasm Likelihood and Conflict Predict Sexual

Satisfaction in Heterosexual Male and Female Respondents.
Harrison, L. A., Howerton, D. M., Secarea, A. M., & Nguyen, C. Q. (2008). Effects
of Ingroup Bias and Gender Role Violations on Acquaintance Rape Attributions.
Sex Roles, 59(9), 713–725. doi:10.1007/s11199–008–9472–9.
Hatfield, E. (1984). The Dangers of Intimacy. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication,
Intimacy, and Close Relationships. New York: Academic Press.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Love and Sex: Cross-Cultural Perspectives.
New York: University Press of America.
Heintzelman, A., Murdock, N. L., Krycak, R. C., & Seay, L. (2014). Recovery from
infidelity: Differentiation of self, trauma, forgiveness, and posttraumatic growth
among couples in continuing relationships. Couple and Family Psychology:
Research and Practice, 3(1), 13–29.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392–402.
Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social
and cross-cultural perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing
Company.
Hertlein, K. M., Wetchler, J. L., & Piercy, F. P. (2005). Infidelity. Journal of Couple
& Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions
4(2–3), 5–16 doi:10.1300/J398v04n02_02.
Heyn, D. (1992). The Erotic Silence of the American Wife. New York: Turtle Bay
Books.
Hill, C. A. (1997). The Distinctiveness of Sexual Motives in Relation to Sexual
Desire and Desirable Partner Attributes. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(2),
139–153. doi:10.1080/00224499709551878.
Hill, C. A., & Preston, L. K. (1996). Individual Differences in the Experience of
Sexual Motivation: Theory and Measurement of Dispositional Sexual Motives. The
Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 27–45. doi:10.1080/00224499609551812.
Hirsch, J. S., Meneses, S., Thompson, B., Negroni, M., Pelcastre, B., & Rio, C. D.
(2007). The Inevitability of Infidelity: Sexual Reputation, Social Geographies,
and Marital HIV Risk in Rural Mexico. Journal of Public Health 9(6), 986–996.
doi:10.2105/ajph.2006.088492.
Hirsch, J. S., Wardlow, H., Smith, D. J., Phinney, H. M., Parikh, S., & Nathanson, C. A.
(2009). The Secret: Love, Marriage and HIV. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Interpersonal Conflict. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm.
C. Brown Publishers.
Hodgson, S. (2004). Cutting through the silence: A sociological construction of self-
injury. Sociological Inquiry, 74(2), 162–179. doi:10.1111/j.1475–682X.2004.00085.x
Holt-Lundstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social Relationships
and Mortality Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review. PLoS Medicine 7(7), e100316.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.
Illouz, E. (2012). Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation. Australia: Polity.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why Some Women Consent to Unwanted Sex
a Dating Partner: Insights from Attachment Theory. Psychology of Women Quar-
terly, 26, 360–370. doi:10.1111/1471–6402.t01–1-00075.
 References 149

Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2007). Faking like a woman? Towards an interpretive theoriza-
tion of sexual pleasure. Body & Society, 13, 95–116. doi:10.1177/1357034X07077777.
Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
27(5), 507–521. doi:10.1023/A:1018708730945.
Johnson, M. D., Galambos, N. L., & Anderson, J. R. (2016). Skip the dishes? Not so
fast! Sex and housework revisited. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(2), 203–213.
doi:10.1037/fam0000161.
Johnson, P. J., McCreary, D., & Mills, J. S. (2007). Effects of exposure to objectified
male and female media images on men’s psychological well-being. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 8(2), 95–102. doi:10.1037/1524–9220.8.2.95.
Jordan, J. (1997). User Pays: Why Men Buy Sex. Australian & New Zealand Journal
of Criminology, 30(1), 55–71. doi:10.1177/000486589703000105.
Karney, B. R., Garvan, C. W., & Thomas, M. S. (2003). Family formation in Florida.
2003 Baseline Survey of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Demographics Relating to Mar-
riage and Family Formation. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Department
of Psychology.
Khan, S. I., Hudson-Rodd, N., Saggers, S., Bhuiyan, M. M. I., Bhuiya, A., Karim, S.
A., & Rauyajin, O. (2008). Phallus, performance and power: crisis of masculinity.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 23(1), 37–49. doi:10.1080/14681990701790635.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. B., Lemeshow, S.,
Dickinson, S. L., & Glaser, R. (2005). Hostile Marital Interactions, Proinflamma-
tory Cytokine Production, and Wound Healing. Archives of General Psychiatry 62,
1377–1384. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.12.1377.
Kim, B. S., Brenner, B. R., Liang, C. T. H., & Asay, P. A. (2003). A qualitative study
of adaptation experiences of 1.5-generation Asian Americans
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(2), 156–170. doi:10.1037/1099–
9809.9.2.156.
Kim, J. L., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D., &
Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: exposing the heterosexual script
on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2), 145–157.
doi:10.1080/00224490701263660.
Kimmel, M. (2000). The Gendered Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kimmel, M., & Aronson, A. (2004). Men and masculinities: A social, cultural, and
historical encyclopedia (Vol. A-J). Santa Barbara: ABC Clio.
Kimmel, M. S., & Aronson, A. (2003). Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural,
and Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio.
Kimmel, M. S., Hearn, J., & Connell, R. W. (2005). Handbook of Studies on Men and
Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kingston, A. (2004). The Meaning of Wife: A Provocative Look at Women and Mar-
riage in the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kircher, J., & Kircher, M. (2011, April 12). Does Media Distort Love? A look at our
corrupting views of romance, relationships and sexuality. Relevant.
Klapilová, K., Brody, S., Krejčová, L., Husárová, B., & Binter, J. (2014). Sexual Sat-
isfaction, Sexual Compatibility, and Relationship Adjustment in Couples: The Role
of Sexual Behaviors, Orgasm, and Men’s Discernment of Women’s Intercourse
Orgasm. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(3), 667–675. doi:10.1111/jsm.12766.
150 References

Kleese, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monog-
amy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583. doi:10.1177/1363460706069986.
Kleese, C. (2011). Notions of Love in Polyamory: Elements in a Discourse on Mul-
tiple Loving. Labratorium, 3(2), 4–25.
Klussman, D. (2002). Sexual Motivation and Duration of Partnership. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 31(3), 275–287.
Knox, D., Zusman, M., & McNeely, A. (2008). “University Student Beliefs about
Sex: Men vs. Women. College Student Journal, 42(1), 181–185.
Koken, J., Bimbi, D., Parsons, J., & Halkitis, P. N. (2004). The Experience of Stigma
in the Lives of Male Internet Escorts. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,
16(1), 13–32. doi:10.1300/J056v16n01_02.
Lafrance, M. N., Stelzl, M., & Bullock, K. (2017). ‘‘I’m Not Gonna Fake It’’: Uni-
versity Women’s Accounts of Resisting the Normative Practice of Faking Orgasm.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 210–222. doi:10.1177/0361684316683520.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power
Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women. Psychological Science, 22(9),
1191–1197. doi:10.1177/0956797611416252.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (2000). The social
organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL:
­University of Chicago Press.
Laumman, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social
Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Laws, J. L., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Sexual Scripts: The Social Construction of
Female Sexuality. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Lees, S. (1994). Sugar and Spice: Sexuality and Adolescent Girls. London: Penguin
Books.
Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex Differences in
Approaching Friends with Benefits Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3),
275–284. doi:10.1080/00224491003721694.
Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for Having and Avoiding Sex: Gender, Sexual Orienta-
tion, and Relationship to Sexual Behavior. The Journal of Sex Research (199–209),
199. doi:10.1080/00224498909551506.
Lever, J., Frederick, D. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Does size matter? Men’s and
women’s views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 7(3), 129–143. doi:10.1037/1524–9220.7.3.129.
Lewandowski, G. W., & Ackerman, R. A. (2006). Something’s Missing: Need Ful-
fillment and Self-Expansion as Predictors of Susceptibility to Infidelity. Journal of
Social Psychology, 146(4), 389–403. doi:10.3200/socp.146.4.389–403.
Litwak, E., Silverstein, M., Bengston, V. L., & Hirst, Y. W. (2003). Theories about
Families, Organizations, and Social Supports. In V. L. Bengston & A. Lowenstein
(Eds.), Global Aging and Challenges to Families (pp. 54–74). New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing.
 References 151

Luker, K. (1975). Taking chances. Berkeley: University of California Press.

MacKinnon, C. (1986). Pornography as sex discrimination. Law and Inequality: A
Journal of Theory and Practice, 38(4), 38–49.
MacNeil, S., & Byers, S. E. (1997). The Relationship between Sexual Problems,
Communication, And Sexual Satisfaction. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexu-
ality 67(4), 277–285.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet Communication and Qualitative Research:
A Handbook for Researching Online. London: Sage.
Marín, R. A., Christensen, A., & Atkins, D. C. (2014). Infidelity and Behavioral Cou-
ple Therapy: Relationship Outcomes Over 5 Years Following Therapy. Couple and
Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(1), 1–12. doi:10.1037/cfp0000012.
Mark, K. P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Infidelity in Heterosexual
Couples: Demographic, Interpersonal, and Personality-Related Predictors of
Extradyadic Sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 971–982. doi:10.1007/
s10508–011–9771-z.
Martin, K. (1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self. New York: Routledge.
Marttila, A.-M. (2008). Desiring the ‘Other’ Prostitution Clients on a Transnational
Red-Light District in the Border Area of Finland, Estonia and Russia. Gender
Technology and Development, 12(1), 31–51. doi:10.1177/097185240701200104.
Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2012). Sexual Scripts
among Young Heterosexually Active Men and Women: Continuity and Change.
The Journal of Sex Research, 409–420. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.661102.
Matheson, K. (1992). Women and computer technology: Communicating for herself.
In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 66–88).
Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Matsick, J. L., Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., & Rubin, J. D. (2014). Love
and sex: polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging
and open relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 5(4), 339–348. doi:dx.doi.org/10.
1080/19419899.2013.832934.
Mattingly, B. A., Wilson, K., Clark, E. M., Bequette, A. W., & Weidler, D. J. (2010).
Foggy faithfulness: Relationship quality, religiosity, and the perceptions of dating
infidelity scale in an adult sample. Journal of Family Issues 31(11), 1465–1480.
doi:10.1177/0192513x10362348.
McAlister, A., Pachana, N., & Jackson, C. J. Predictors of young dating adults’ incli-
nation to engage in extradyadic sexual activities: A multi-perspective study. British
Journal of Psychology, 96, 331–350. doi:10.1348/000712605x47936.
McClelland, S. I. (2011). “Who is the ‘Self’ in Self Reports of Sexual Satisfaction?
Research and Policy Implications. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(4),
304–320. doi:10.1007/s13178–011–0067–9.
McDaniela, B. T., Drouinb, M., & Cravensc, J. D. (2017). Do you have anything to
hide? Infidelity-related behaviors on social media sites and marital satisfaction.
Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.031.
McNulty, J. K., Wenner, C. A., & Fisher, T. D. (2016). Longitudinal Associa-
tions Among Relationship Satisfaction, Sexual Satisfaction, and Frequency of
Sex in Early Marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85–97. doi:10.1007/
s10508–014–0444–6.
152 References

Meho, L. I. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological

discussion: Research Articles. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 57(10), 1284–1295. doi:10.1002/asi.v57:10.
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why Humans have Sex Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 36, 477–507. doi:10.1007/s10508–007–9175–2.
Meston, C. M., Hamilton, L. D., & Harte, C. B. (2009). Sexual Motivation in
Women as a Function of Age. Journal of Sexual Medicine 6, 3315–3319.
doi:10.1111/j.1743–6109.2009.01489.x.
Mileham, B. L. A. (2007). Online Infidelity in Internet Chat Rooms: An Ethno-
graphic Exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(11–31), 11. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2004.03.033.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the Sexual Double Standard Still
Exist? Perceptions of University Women. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(4),
361–368. doi:10.1080/00224499909552008.
Miller, C. L., & Cummins, A. G. (1992). An Examination of Women’s Per-
spectives On Power. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(4), 415–428.
doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.1992.tb00265.x.
Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017).
Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 407–417. doi:10.1007/s10508–015–0658–2.
Mohebati, A., Knutson, A., Zhou, X. K., Smith, J. J., Brown, P. H., Dannenberg, A.
J., & Szabo, E. (2012). A web-based screening and accrual strategy for a cancer
prevention clinical trial in healthy smokers. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 33(5),
942–948. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2012.07.004.
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Schechinger, H. A. (2017). Unique and Shared Rela-
tionship Benefits of Consensually Non-Monogamous and Monogamous Relation-
ships. European Psychologist, 22(1), 55–71. doi:10.1027/1016–9040/a000278.
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J. D., & Conley, T. D. (2013). Stigma
Toward Individuals Engaged in Consensual Nonmonogamy: Robust and Worthy
of Additional Research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 52–69.
doi:10.1111/asap.12020.
Murray, S. H., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Sexual Desire and Relationship Duration
in Young Men and Women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38(1), 28–40. doi:
10.1080/0092623x.2011.569637.
Nack, A. (2002). ‘Bad Girls and Fallen Women: Chronic STD Diagnoses as Gate-
ways to Tribal Stigma. Symbolic Interaction, 25(4), 463–485. doi:10.1525/
si.2002.25.4.463.
Nelson, O., & Salawu, A. (2017). Can my Wife be Virtual-Adulterous? An Experi-
ential Study on Facebook, Emotional Infidelity and Self-Disclosure. International
Journal of Women’s Studies, 18(2), 166–179.
Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is ‘Normal’ about Women’s (Hetero)Sexual
Desire and Orgasm?: A Report of an In-depth Interview Study. Social Science &
Medicine, 57(9), 1735–1745. doi:10.1016/S0277–9536(03)00012–1.
Orzeck, T., & Lung, E. (2005). Big-Five personality differences of cheaters and non-
cheaters. Current Psychology, 24, 274–286. doi:10.1007/s12144–005–1028–3.
 References 153

Paik, A., & Woodley, V. (2005). Scripting Romance in Adolescence: Preferences and
Predictors in the Sequencing of Ideal Dating Relationships. Paper presented at the
American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Parikh, S. A. (2007). The Political Economy of Marriage and HIV: The ABC
Approach, ‘Safe’ Infidelity, and Managing Moral Risk in Uganda. Framing Health
Matters 97(7), 1198–1208. doi:10.2105/ajph.2006.088682.
Pascoal, P. M., Narciso, I. d. S. B., & Pereira, N. M. (2014). What is Sexual Satis-
faction? Thematic Analysis of Lay People’s Definitions. Journal of Sex Research,
51(1), 22–30. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.815149.
Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Dude, You’re a Fag Masculinity and Sexuality in High School,
With a New Preface. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Pedersen, W. C., Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A. D., & Yang, Y. (2002).
Evolved Sex Differences in the Number of Partners Desired? The Long and the
Short of it. Psychological Science 13, 157–161. doi:10.1111/1467–9280.00428.
Perry, B., & Pescosolido, B. (2010). Functional Specificity in Discussion Networks:
The Influence of General and Problem-Specific Networks on Health Outcomes.
Social Networks, 32(4), 345–357. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2010.06.005.
Pham, M. N., Shackelford, T., & Sela, Y. (2013). Women’s Oral Sex Behaviors and
Risk of Partner Infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences 55(4), 446–449.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.008.
Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with Danger: Young Women’s Reflections on Sexual-
ity and Domination. New York: New York University.
Pitts, M. K., Smith, A. M. A., Grierson, J., O’Brien, M., & Misson, S. (2004). Who
Pays for Sex and Why? An Analysis of Social and Motivational Factors Associated
with Male Clients of Sex Workers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(4), 353–358.
doi:10.1023/B:ASEB.0000028888.48796.4f.
Prentice, D. L., & Carranza, E. (2004). Sustaining cultural beliefs in the face of their
violation: The case of gender stereotypes. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.),
The Psychological Foundations of Culture (pp. 259–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Preveti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is Infidelity a Cause or Consequence of Poor
Marital Quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21, 217–230.
doi:10.1177/0265407504041384.
Prokos, A., & Padavic, I. (2002). ‘There Oughtta Be a LawAgainst Bitches’: Masculinity-
Lessons in Police AcademyTraining. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(4), 439–459.
Pulerwitz, J., Gortmaker, S. L., & Dejong, W. (2000). Measuring Sexual Relation-
ship Power in Hiv/Std Research. Sex Roles 42(7/8), 637–660. doi:10.1023/A:
1007051506972.
Rajecki, D. W., Graaf-Kaser, R. D., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1992). New impressions and
more discrimination. Sex Roles, 27(3), 171–185. doi:10.1007/BF00290016.
Ramazanoglu, C., & Holland, J. (1993). Women’s sexuality and men’s appropriation
of desire. In C. Ramazanoglu (Ed.), Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some
Tensions Between Foucault and Feminism (pp. 238–264). New York: Routledge.
Ramírez, R. L. (1999). What it Means to be a Man: Reflections on Puerto Rican
Masculinity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.
154 References

Ramo, D. E., Hall, S. M., & Prochaska, J. J. (2010). Reaching young adult smokers
through the internet: Comparison of three recruitment mechanisms. Nicotine and
Tobacco Research, 12(7), 768–775. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq086.
Rampage, C. (1991). Personal Authority and Women’s Self-Stories. Journal of Femi-
nist Family Therapy, 3(1–2), 85–98. doi:10.1300/j086v03n01_05.
Rathus, S. A., Nevid, J. S., & Fichner-Rathus, L. (2005). Human Sexuality in a World
of Diversity. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Regev, L. G., Zeiss, A., & Schmidt, J. P. (2006). Low Sexual Desire. In J. E. Fisher
& W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Practitioner’s Guide To Evidence Psychotherapy
(pp. 377–385). New York: Springer.
Renold, E., & Ringrose, J. (2011). Schizoid subjectivities: Re-theorising teen-girls’
sexual cultures in an era of sexualisation. Journal of Sociology, 47(4), 389–410.
doi:10.1177/1440783311420792.
Riccitelli, J. M. (2012). You May Now Kiss the Bride: Biblical Principles for Lifelong
Marital Happiness. Bloomington, IN: Westbow.
Richters, J., Visser, R. d., Rissel, C., & Smith, A. (2006). Sexual Practices at Last Het-
erosexual Encounter and Occurrence of Orgasm in a National Survey. The Journal
of Sex Research, 43(3), 217–226. doi:10.1080/00224490609552320.
Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). ‘There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so
we have to make them up’: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of com-
pulsory monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 584–601. doi:10.1177/1363460706069987.
Roberts, C. (1995). Faking it: The story of ‘‘ohh!’’. Women’s Studies International
Forum, 18(5–6), 523–532. doi:10.1016/0277–5395(95)80090-C.
Rogers, A. (2005). Chaos to control: Men’s magazines and the mastering of intimacy.
Men and Masculinities, 8(2), 175–194. doi:10.1177/1097184X04265319.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young Singles’ Contemporary Dating Scripts. Sex
Roles, 28(9/10), 499–509. doi:10.1007/bf00289677.
Rothe, P. J. (2000). Undertaking Qualitative Research: Concepts and Cases in Injury,
Health and Social Life. Edmonton, Alberta: The University of Alberta Press.
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2014). Consensual Nonmonogamy: Psychological
Well-Being and Relationship Quality Correlates. The Journal of Sex Research,
52(9), 961–982. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.942722.
Rubin, G. (1989). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexual-
ity. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality (pp.
267–319). London: Pandora.
Rubin, L. B. (1990). Erotic wars: What happened to the sexual revolution? New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Ryan, C., & Jethá, C. (2010). Sex at Dawn. New York: Harper.
Sanders, T. (2008). Paying for Pleasure: Men who Buy Sex. Cullompton, Devon:
Willan Publishing.
Saucier, M. G. (2004). Midlife and Beyond: Issues for Aging Women. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 82(4), 420–425. doi:10.1002/j.1556–6678.2004.
tb00329.x.
Sayer, L. C., & Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Women’s Economic Independence and the
Probability of Divorce: A Review and Reexamination. Journal of Family Issues
21, 906–943. doi:10.1177/019251300021007005.
 References 155

Sayer, L. C., England, P., Allison, P. D., & Kangas, N. (2011). She Left, He Left:
How Employment and Satisfaction Affect Women’s and Men’s Decisions to Leave
Marriages. American Journal of Sociology 116(6). doi:10.1086/658173.
Schalet, A. (2011). Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Schneider, J. P. (2000). Effects of cybersex addiction on the family: Results of a survey.
Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7(1–2), 31–58. doi:10.1080/10720160008400206.
Schoenfeld, E. A., Loving, T. J., Pope, M. T., Huston, T. L., & Štulhofer, A. (2017).
Does Sex Really Matter? Examining the Connections Between Spouses’ Non-
sexual Behaviors, Sexual Frequency, Sexual Satisfaction, and Marital Satisfaction.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 489–501. doi:10.1007/s1050 8–015–0672–4.
Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis. The American
Historical Review, 91(5), 1053–1075. doi:10.2307/1864376.
Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamous Women, Sexual Subjectivity, and Power. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 34(3), 251–283. doi:10.1177/0891241604274263.
Shellenbarger, S. (2004). The Breaking Point: How Female Midlife Crisis Is Trans-
forming Today’s Women. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Siegel, M., DiLoreto, J., Johnson, A., Fortunato, E. K., & Dejong, W. (2011). Devel-
opment and pilot testing of an internet-based survey instrument to measure the
alcohol brand preferences of U.S. youth. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental
Research, 35(4), 765–772. doi:10.111/j.1530–0277.2010.01394.x.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual Scripts. Society, 22(1), 53–60.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual Scripts: Origins, Influences and Changes.
Qualitative Sociology 26(4), 491–497. doi:10.1023/b:quas.0000005053.99846.e5.
Sivulka, J. (2008). Ad Women: How They Impact What We Need, Want, and Buy.
Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
Smith, A., Lyons, A., Ferris, J., Richters, J., Pitts, M., Shelley, J., & Simpson, J.
M. (2011a). Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction Among Heterosexual Men and
Women: The Importance of Desired Frequency of Sex. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 37(2), 104–115. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2011.560531.
Smith, A., Lyons, A., Ferris, J., Richters, J., Pitts, M., Shelley, J., & Simpson, J. M.
(2011b). Sexual and Relationships Satisfaction Among Heterosexual Men and
Women: The Importance of Desire Frequency of Sex. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 37(2), 104–115. doi:10.1080/0092623x.2011.560531.
Smith, C. (2008, May 28, 2008). In ‘Sex and the City,’ number of sex partners true to
New York life. New York Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/
entertainment/sex-city-number-sex-partners-true-new-york-life-article-1.326644.
Smith, T. W. (1994). Attitudes Toward Sexual Permissiveness: Trends, Correlates,
and Behavioral Connections. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Sexuality Across the Life Course
(pp. 63–97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solomon, S. D., & Teagno, L. J. (Producer). (2016, 6/24/2017). “Making Up Is
Hard To Do”—Couples Therapy After Infidelity. [Continuing Education Course]
Retrieved from http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course089.php.
Spanier, G. B., & Margolis, R. L. (1983). Marital Separation and Extramarital Sexual
Behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 23–48. doi:10.1080/00224498309551167.
156 References

Stacey, J. (2011). Unhitched: Love, marriage, and family values from West Holly-
wood to Western China: New York University Press.
Stephens-Davidowitz, S. (2015, January 24). Searching for Sex. New York Times.
Strombler, M., & Baunach, D. M. (2010). Doing it Differently: Women’s and Men’s
Estimates of their Number of Lifetime Partners. In D. M. B. M. Strombler, E.O.
Burgess, D. Donnelly, W. Simonds, and E.J. Windsor (Ed.), Sex Matters: The
Sexuality and Society Reader (third ed., pp. 64). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Surra, C. A., & Gray, C. R. (2000). A Typology of Processes of Commitment to
Marriage: Why Do Partners Commit to Problematic Relationships? In L. J. Waite,
C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thompson, & A. Thornton (Eds.), The Ties that Bind:
Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (pp. 253–282). New York: Aldine de
Gruter.
Tannebaum, L. (2000). Slut: Growing up Female with a Bad Reputation. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Thompson, S. C., Anderson, K., Freedman, D., & Swan, J. (1996). Illusions of Safety
in a Risky World: A Study of College Students’ Condom Use. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 26(3), 189–210. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.1996.tb01845.x.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects
on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know
one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348.
doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.2002.tb00811.x.
Tolman, D. (2002). Dilemmas of desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Træen, B., & Stigum, K. H. H. (2007). Extradyadic Sexual Relationships in
Norway. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(1), 55–65. doi:10.1007/s10508–006–
9080–0.
Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabit-
ing Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 48–60. doi:10.1111/j.
1741–3737.2000.00048.x.
Tunariu, A., & Reavey, P. (2007). Common patterns of sense making: A discursive
reading of quantitative and interpretative data on sexual boredom. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 46(4), 815–837. doi:10.1348/014466607X177669.
Vangelisti, A. L., & Gerstenberger, M. (2014). Communication and marital infidelity.
In K. H. J. Duncombe, G. Allan, & D. Marsden (Ed.), The State of Affairs: Explo-
rations in Infidelity and Commitment (pp. 59–78). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Vasko, E. T. (2015). Beyond Apathy: A Theology for Bystanders. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press.
Veale, D., Eshkevari, E., Read, J., Miles, S., Troglia, A., Phillips, R., . . . Muir, G.
(2014). Beliefs about Penis Size: Validation of a Scale for Men Ashamed about
Their Penis Size. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11(1), 84–92. doi:10.1111/
jsm.12294.
Veroff, J., Kulka, R. A., & Douvan, E. A. M. (1981). Mental Health in America: Pat-
terns of Helpseeking from 1957 to 1976. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Vinter, P. (2012, June 19, 2012). Almost all Women who Cheat Never get Caught by
their Partners . . . but a Fifth of Men Do. Daily Mail Online.
 References 157

Visser, R. d., & McDonald, D. (2007). Swings and roundabouts: Management of

jealousy in heterosexual ‘swinging’ couples. British Journal of Social Psychology,
46(2), 459–476. doi:10.1348/014466606X143153.
Warren, J. T., Harvey, S. M., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). One love: Explicit monogamy
agreements among heterosexual young adult couples at increased risk of sexually
transmitted infections. Journal of Sex Research, 42(1), 1–8. doi:10.1080/0022449
9.2010.541952.
Watt, J. D., & Ewing, J. E. (1996). Toward the Development and Validation of a
Measure of Sexual Boredom. Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 57–66.
Weiner, D. M. (2003). The sex-starved marriage. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The Provisions of Social Relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing
Unto Others: The Patterns of Social Behavior (pp. 17–26). Englewoods Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with Clients Who Are Bisexual and Polyamorous.
Journal of Bisexuality, 6(1–2), 137–164. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1300/J159v06n01_08.
Wentland, J. J., Herold, E. S., Desmarais, S., & Milhausen, R. (2008). Differentiating
highly sexual women from less sexual women. The Canadian journal of human
sexuality, 18(4), 169–182.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender & Society, 1(2),
125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002.
Wethington, E. (2000). Expecting Stress: Americans and the “Midlife Crisis”. Moti-
vation and Emotion, 24(2), 85–103. doi:10.1023/A:1005611230993.
Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ Perspectives of
Couple Problems and Treatment Issues in Couple Therapy. Journal of Family
Psychology, 11, 361–366. doi:10.1037/0893–3200.11.3.361.
Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national sur-
vey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a func-
tion of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology 21(2), 147–154.
doi:10.1037/0893–3200.21.2.147.
White, E. (2002). Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes and the Myth of the Slut. New York:
Scribner.
White, J. M., Klein, D. M., & Martin, T. F. (2015). Family Theories: An Introduction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whitehead, B. D., & Popenoe, D. (2001). The State of Our Unions: The Social Health
of Marriage in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University National Mar-
riage Project.
Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2013). Attitudes
Toward Divorce, Commitment, and Divorce Proneness in First Marriages and
Remarriages. Journal of Marriage and Family 75(2), 276–287. doi:10.1111/
jomf.12008.
Whitty, M. T., & Quigley, L.-L. (2008). Emotional and Sexual Infidelity Offline
and in Cyberspace. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34(4), 461–468.
doi:10.1111/j.1752–0606.2008.00088.x.
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a
National Survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174. doi:10.1080/00224
499709551881.
158 References

Wiggins, J. D., & Lederer, D. A. (1984). Differential Antecedents of Infidelity in

Marriage. American Mental Health Counselors Journal 6, 152–161.
Wilson, G. D. (1988). The Sociobiological basis of sexual dysfunction. In M. Cole
& W. Dryden (Eds.), Sex Therapy in Britain (pp. 49–68). Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Winter, K. (2013, March 7, 2013). The rise of the GROOMZILLA: Modern men are
now just as obsessed with wedding planning as brides, study reveals. Daily Mail.
Wolf, N. (1997). Promiscuities: The Secret Struggle for Womanhood. New York:
Ballantine Publishing Group.
Wolfe, L. (2011). The Oral Sex Void: When There’s not Enough at Home. Electronic
Journal of Human Sexuality, 14.
Wylie, K. R., & Eardley, I. (2007). Penile size and the ‘small penis syndrome’. BJUI
International, 99(6), 1449–1455. doi:10.1111/j.146 4–410X.2007.06806.x.
Wysocki, D. K., & Childers, C. D. (2011). Let My Fingers Do the Talking”: Sexting
and Infidelity in Cyberspace. Sexuality & Culture, 16(3), 217–239. doi:10.1007/
s12119–011–9091–4.
Yarob, P. E., Allgeier, E. R., & Sensibaugh, C. C. (1998). Looking Deeper: Extrady-
adic Behaviors, Jealousy, and Perceived Unfaithfulness in Hypothetical Dating
Relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 305–316. doi:10.1111/j.1475–6811.1999.
tb00194.x.
Yeniceri, Z., & Kokdemier, D. (2006). University Students’ Perceptions of, and
Explanations for, Infidelity: The Development of the Infidelity Questioner (INFQ).
Social Behavior and Personality 34(6), 639–650. doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.6.639.
Yoder, S. (2014, February 14, 2014). How Online Dating Became a $2 Billion
Industry. The Fiscal Times.
Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple Commu-
nication, Emotional and Sexual Intimacy, and Relationship Satisfaction. Journal
of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40(4), 275–293. doi:10.1080/0092623x.2012.751072.
 Index

Ashley Madison, xiii, xiv, xxxix, xliii, 2, functional specificity, 115, 125, 127,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 133, 137, 138
21, 22, 23, 26, 32, 44, 45, 72, 74,
75, 76, 77, 78, 84, 100, 103, 104, gender/gendered/gender transgression,
105, 106, 111, 117, 130, 138 xv, xvi, xxv, xxix, xxxi, xxxii,
xxxiv, xxxv, xxxv, 14, 15, 46, 48,
boundary/boundaries, xx, xxi, xl, 19, 49, 61, 63, 66, 69, 72, 76, 78, 80,
20, 25, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 81, 82, 83, 106, 112, 113, 126,
46, 47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 138
62, 66, 68, 76, 79, 81, 84, 88, 97,
131, 133, 139 hacking, xiv
happiness, xvii, xix, xxi, xxvi, xxvii,
compatible/compatibility/incompatiblity, xli, 13, 57, 72, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93,
xxv, xxviii, 9, 12, 23, 28, 29, 46, 96, 104, 118, 119, 121, 122, 127,
50, 55, 56, 60, 66, 74, 102, 119, 138;
120, 121, 133 unhappiness, xvi, xxvi, 10, 13, 85,
culture industry, xvi, xix, xxvii, xxviii, 92, 104, 123
xxxvi
infidelity workaround, xxxviii, xxxix,
division of household labor, xvi, xxix, xli, xlii, 10, 30, 46, 134
xxx, 11, 32, 68, 88, 131, 136, 137
love, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxvi,
emphasized femininity, 11, 34, 70, 71, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxiv,
72, 77, 78, 83, 85, 137 xxxv, xxxviii, 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14,
empowerment, xxxii, xl, 11, 18, 23, 32, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38,
41, 52, 57, 69, 71, 75, 76, 78, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48,
79, 80, 83, 85, 99, 102, 123, 133, 49, 50, 53. 55, 56, 63, 64, 73,
136, 139 74, 82, 84, 92, 96, 101, 104, 106,
entitlement, xxvii, xxxii, xxxvii, 13, 23, 108, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122,
52, 53, 106, 112, 138 126, 129, 130, 131, 133, 139
159
160 Index

marital conflict/Relationship distress/ resentment, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxii,

dissatisfaction, xiv, xix, 28, 50 xxxiii, 11, 12, 13, 14, 42, 47, 89,
marital dissolution, xiv, xx, xxiv, xxvii, 92, 93, 102, 112, 130, 131, 136,
xxxviii, 8, 10, 11, 39, 45, 49, 60, 137
134, 136, roles, xv, xvi, xix, xxxix, xl, 43, 48, 51,
marital/Relationship satisfaction, xxv, 65, 66, 67, 78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 97,
xxvi, xxx, xxxvi, xxviii, 11, 52, 101, 119, 130, 132, 136, 137, 139
118, 112, 123, 127
masculinity, xxx, xxxii, 70, 71, 80, 106, scripts, xvi, xxx, 66, 69, 78, 83, 129
107, 112, 113, 138 sexless/sexless marriage/sexlessness,
masturbation, xxxvii, xlii, 10, 15, 139 xiii, xxviii, xxix, xxxix, 9, 12, 14,
monogamy, xv, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, 15, 19, 26, 29, 35, 37, 46, 71, 73,
xxv, xxx, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxix, xli, 74, 75, 83, 87, 90, 92, 111, 119,
15, 20, 49, 52, 110, 115, 116, 119, 120, 124, 125, 130, 136, 137, 139
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, sexual agency, xvii, xxxvi, 53, 55, 56,
127, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140; 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 73, 74, 75, 77,
assumed monogamous, xv, xxxvii; 78, 79, 81, 83, 105, 106, 113
consensual non-monogamy, xx, xxi, sexual desire, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii,
20, 95, 109, 121, 122; xxxiv, xxxviii, xl, 24, 25, 55, 56,
nonconsensual non-monogamy, xx, 59, 61, 62, 63, 70, 72, 73, 74,
xxi 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 92, 93,
mulitplexity, 125, 134 106, 110, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119,
120, 123, 136, 139
norms, xv, xvii, xviii, xxvvii, xix, xx, sexual fulfillment, xxxviii, 17, 18, 41,
xxiii, xxxviii, xxxix, 7, 47, 52, 53, 46, 98
56, 58, 65, 67, 69, 78, 82, 103, sexual pleasure, xxxiv, xxxvii, xl, 19,
106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 125, 26, 29, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 60,
126, 129, 134 61, 62, 64, 65, 69, 72, 73, 79, 80,
82, 84, 88, 89, 90, 104, 105, 108,
orgasm, xiii, xix, xxii, xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, 112, 116, 129, 133, 136, 137, 138
xxxix, 9, 15, 20, 24, 25, 26, 29, sexual satisfaction, xvii, xviii, xix, xx,
30, 32, 46, 60, 64, 65, 73, 74, 80, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii,
92, 102, 120, 123, 130, 132, 136, xxviii, xxx, xxxiv, xli, xlii, 9, 25,
137, 139, 140 35, 37, 40, 44, 49, 56, 59, 62, 64,
orgasmless, xiii, xxxix, 9, 12, 14, 15, 65, 70, 87, 90, 91, 92, 117, 118,
19, 29, 30, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 137 121, 123, 127, 130, 133, 136, 139
sexual subjectivity, 53, 55, 60, 81
power, xvii, xl, xxxvi, 20, 51, 52, 53, slut/slut-shaming, xxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 31,
54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 79, 80, 81, 82
65, 66, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81,
82, 83, 84, 85, 99, 102, 104, 105, vetting, xli, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28,
106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 116, 29, 36, 37, 41, 42, 48, 50, 53, 75,
118, 123, 127, 133, 135, 136, 137, 104, 108, 130
139
 About the Author

Alicia Walker is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and

Anthropology at Missouri State University. Her research interests include
marriage, family, intimate sexual relationships, and the impact of gender;
and social inequalities in education. Her work has appeared in Network Sci-
ence, College Teaching, McGill Journal of Education, Journal of Bisexuality,
Sexuality & Culture, and Sexuality & Culture. She has presented intimate
relationship-related research at national conferences, and research on inequity
in education at international and national conferences.

161