I was on a train today, coming back into London. I had a perfectly good book with me, but I'd reached a sort of draggy bit and my attention wandered. On the seat next to me was a popular women's magazine 'Red'... this was surely the solution to my crappy attention span! It was also the catalyst for the following rant. I am not a natural ranter. I am generally of a sunny dispostion, but this put the freakers on me BIG STYLE! I also have a Beethoven concerto on in the background and he's crashing around as only the deafest, most disillusioned of composers knows how. This is not helping!

Okay, so I'm not entirely naieve, but this came as a bit of a shock to me. Basically I read an article, the gist of which was this:

'Is it possible/acceptable to use  an affair to stop your marriage/partnership breaking up?'

WHAT!!!!???!!!

Okay, so as an unmarried person, clearly not my area of expertise, but I feel the need to comment all the same...

The article discussed whether you might have grounds to have an extra-marital affair if your marriage is on the rocks, if it kept the marriage going - like life-support. It explained how it's becoming increasingly common, and socially more acceptable for women to have affairs in the name of prolonging a floundering relationship ('for the sake of the children'). It's particularly common in relationships where the sexual element of the relationship has 'burned out'. The theory being that if the woman is being sexually satisfied elsewhere, she'll be happier, and she'll be able to tolerate the crumbling remains of her marriage. What also totally blew my mind was the fact that there are websites with the sole aim of arranging anonymous, private liasons between people seeking affairs. Like a kind of online adultery service. One woman said that some of the men she met through this service were people just like her, married men in realtionships where the physical relationship had disappeared.

What was equally astounding was the concept that an affair could potentially be used to 'mend' a relationship. The idea being that the fallout of the affair could rekindle a couple's passion for each other. I guess that's a little more encouraging than the circumstances described above, as there would have to be some forgiveness there for that one to work. But it's based on the idea that by seeking an affair it would incite sexual jealousy in your partner, so they would become more possessive over you following the threat of the affair to the relationship.

The article got me pretty riled up. Whilst it was a discussion piece, the very fact that it was presented in the way it was, made the concept seem like it was in some way being condoned by the magazine. It sort of suggested that it saw it as an acceptable solution to a problem?!

Most of all it made me sad. It was about something so destructive and hurtful, but it presented it like it was talking about the merits of buying free-range eggs over organic. Like it was some kind of fairly trivial take-it-or-leave-it lifestyle choice. Actually it was describing something fundamentally wrong, and damaging. There was no kind of effort to discuss other ways in which couples have successfully found ways to improve relationships that are breaking down. There was nothing supportive or encouraging. Just an article which spoke to me of the devastating change in the value people place on relationships.

We are a generation watching the wrecking of what right relationship is all about. We have a secret weapon. Not an affair, but God. He is the total Daddy of all relationships - he absolutely loves relationship so much that he put skin on to get close to us. He is also pretty hot at fixing stuff.

I found an amazing CS Lewis quote around the subject. It's kind of wordy and took me a few reads to make sense of. But it's a goodie:

"When I was a youngster, all the progressive people were saying, "Why all this prudery? Let us treat sex just as we treat all our other impulses". I was simple-minded enough to believe that they meant what they said. I have since discovered that they meant exactly the opposite. They meant that sex was to be treated as no other impulse in our nature has ever been treated by civilised people. All the others, we admit, have to be bridled... But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that the object aimed at is "four bare legs in a bed". It is like having a morality in which stealing fruit is considered wrong - unless you steal nectarines.'

Thus endeth my rant.