maybe a little bit but it is stll wrong, you should be loyal to your partner
2007-05-23 13:36:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
They had very little choice. The standards of life were very harsh in the past. Normally, wealthy men had the opportunity to cheat on their wives with little or no consequence and their wives did not want to and could not leave them, fearing they would be tossed to the street and shunned, as divorced women were thought to be undesirable. Then she would be left to the mercy of the street. And back when, women had lesser rights then men and could not roam the streets dressed like crack whores to pick up guys like they can today. And if they did, these guys would rape them and leave them for dead and their husbands would beat them and then apply certain security instruments around their groin area to prevent such things from happening again.And lastly, sex was more taboo in the past. Now it's accepted that it's a natural part of life and it is encouraged as a pastime along with tv and music and other things to keep people occupied and ignorant of the politics around them.
P.S.
Nowadays, married women are even more desirable then single ones. Just ask any guy you know.
In fact, married women nowadays are cheating on their husbands more often than their men are, due to the fact that prenuptials guarantee a woman lots of her husbands' estate in case he does leave her. I guess it's revenge for the past.
Cruel cruel revenge.
2007-05-23 20:42:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Martial E 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only reason that woman are not comfortable with it now is because society tells woman it is wrong. Men are genetically inclined to prowl. Look back towards the biblical times where some of those men had harems of women. It was accepting back then. Society is our problem now in telling people how they should act.
2007-05-23 20:38:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
l think many wealthy people still do-its just "accepted" behavior -after all-look at Princess Diana-- even her Mother knew that Prince Charles had Camilla as his mistress, but did not tell her because they thought that was "norm" for aristocracy -of course,-Di- did not accept it-- because shes from a younger ,more modern era- where women no longer have to tolerate such bad behavior- and expect more faithfulness from our partners.
2007-05-23 20:42:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They probably were more accepting of it at that time, as men were expected to have a mistress, if they could afford them. In those days women were expected to marry, bear children, and keep their mouths shut, as men were in charge, and also controlled the monies in the family.
2007-05-23 20:37:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Beau R 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
throughout history, men and women have become involved in extra marital affairs. extra marital affairs are not a male exclusive activity. in all cases, the men are involved with women, which women are in many cases happily married.
president eisenhower's 26 year old driver was also his mistress.
i won't go into the famous women who have had the own affairs. except, the wife of newly elected president sarkozy of france took a trip to new york with another man.
when president roosevelt died, his mistress, not his wife was with him at his bedside.
when governor nelson rockefellar has a heart attach, he was entwined with a 23 year old young lady.
when president mitterrand of france was buried, his mistress,daughter by the mistress and his wife mourned together.
so you need to re-examine your thesis about men and mistresses. include women and there outside men.
as you do your examination, consider why women take lovers, as much as , or, more than men.
moreover, its not only the rich that engage in the practice. many average or poor men often times have too many swords in the air at the same time.
my opinion, as the bible says in part, 'the flesh is weak.'
remember the woman at the well to whom jesus gave the wine and told her; ' go thy way and sin no more', she was caught in bed with a man that was not her husband.
a question for you. did you ever see a man and say to yourself; 'i would sure like to have him mow my lawn over and over??? come to think of it, i would like to have him mow at new years, presidents day, memorial day etc!!!'
please be truthful.
2007-05-24 01:27:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by ramni222 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
way back then marriages were either arranged, or the rich parents chose who their kids would date and marry to keep the money flow going. It wasn't about love when they got married and that is why is was more overlooked. And you also have to take into account that women were treated like chattle and their opinions didn't count for much.
2007-05-23 20:36:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by wilfeistykitten2003 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Throughout history, as long as a person is being sheltered, fed, clothed and generally looked after, they will accept almost any living arrangement.
It's called survival. And it works.
2007-05-23 20:37:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Schindler was not a Christian. Christians know according to the Bible (God's Word) fornication and adultery are sins. Maybe today girls are more anxious to get all the sex their man wants to give and in the old days, they didn't!
2007-05-23 20:38:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
women were more reliant on thier husbands than they are now not necessarily more accepting of it. I think they had to.
2007-05-23 20:35:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by sandstone901 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
yes cause men had more power over women then
2007-05-23 20:36:18
·
answer #11
·
answered by kelly r 4
·
2⤊
1⤋