OH absolutely, when you have kids you have a responsibility to protect them, a duty you signed up for when you decided to raise children.
When it comes to two spouses though, it's different. Each of them should have enough care and respect for their spouse and themselves to conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates that respect, however (and I'm making a general observation, not saying you have or share this opinion) the days of a woman, keeping her mouth shut and doing what the husband tells her to, or "seeking his permission" are long buried.
It's sad but marriages don't last like they use to, people fall out of love, or are exposed to something better (or better in their mind) and the temptation to experience something better is there. It's what we have here in TA. Sarah was exposed to better sex, and she was seduced by a confluence of events (some within her control and some external) that allowed her to indulge. Does that make it right, not my place to say, but what I do know is that Dan has no right to dictate what she can and can't do.
He initiated this path they are on and she humored him. He had every right to speak up to voice his concerns but what has he really done: he indulged in his own fantasies, he gave in to his own lust, instead of speaking to her like an adult he threw a temper tantrum when he realized it wasn't just his fantasy anymore, and out of 34 chapters he's only once asked her to stop. But even that was a token request, because after he found out she hadn't stopped, he fell right back into the reluctant cuck mentality.
I have no sympathy for Dan, because he has none for himself. He's not the paragon of upstanding husband material, that a particular member on here likes to claim. At best I feel apathy for him. But that's okay because I know it's purposeful, because that's how DS has written the character. I don't think this story would have worked beyond Sarah mistakenly having sex with Lester in chapter 7. If Dan was a typical male, he would have been furious that Jessie instigated the events and he'd remove Sarah from the source of temptation, pack his bags and find a better path for him and his family. By having Dan weak and basically a doormat, it allows DS to continue writing the story that he wants to tell.
I can't understand that, Verisimilinude!
You keep repeating that Dan initiated all this – I agree with that. But that's no longer up for debate!
What Sarah did with it is utterly despicable and pure deception!
Because that's what we're talking about...
I still don't understand how you can think that Dan would remain silent about everything and not speak up to bring about a change and/or put a complete stop to the whole thing.
That's not true!
On the contrary, I can show you at least six or seven passages off the top of my head where he tried to put Sarah and especially Lester in their place.
But each time, Sarah prevented him from doing so, either with guests or with physical actions.
One example is in Chapter 33, when Lester called to make his manipulative, blackmailing proposal. Dan reacted negatively and angry, but before he could express this, Sarah silenced him (she grabbed him by the shoulder and made it clear to him with guests present that he should hold back). During the phone call, Dan's negative reaction was repeated several times, and each time he was silenced by Sarah.
There are plenty of such reactions and actions in the previous chapters.
This shows us that Dan disagrees with many things and only puts up with them out of love and respect for his wife and children (Family).
Furthermore, marriage is not a compromise, but an essential part of human existence and population. ‘Wild marriages’ are only observed in the animal world and only occur when the female animal is instinctively ‘in heat’ and in ‘mating season’.
Marriage is the water of life, which does not arise from a compromise between oxygen and hydrogen, but from natural law. It also has its ups and downs, sometimes freezing into ice and sometimes turning into gas, but basically it is liquid, flows into each other and forms the elixir of life, like marriage, which is considered the foundation and guarantor of human existence.
For what you favour and describe, there is no need to enter into the ‘marriage covenant’. In your view, a woman has the right to satisfy her sexual excesses outside of marriage at any time with a larger penis than her husband has.
Therefore, she is not bound by marital fidelity because, in your opinion, she becomes a slave to her husband!
In your world, a wife has only attained complete freedom when she can live out her carnal sexual satisfaction's anytime, anywhere and with different men besides her husband!
According to this, we don't need any laws, any constitution, any rules; we should just live in anarchy!
Great views, respect!
-- PC
