Unlike political relationships, personal ones are always exclusive. Thus:
What constitutes an act of infidelity varies between and within cultures and depends on the type of relationship that exists between people. ...[I]nfidelity... arise[s] if a partner in the relationship acts outside of the understood boundaries of that relationship.
This article assumes fidelity to mean only having sex with one person at a time, when this Christian definition of marriage is clearly not right for everyone - especially non-Christians. It also assumes that only the rigid Christian definition of marriage is the correct one, and that anyone who does not subscribe to it is a sexual failure and to be pathologised by scientific-sounding pseudo-sex therapy. It also enshrines (usually-monogamous) marriages contracted by Whites as superior to those (often-polygamous ones) contracted by non-Whites.
Extra-marital affairs from rigidly-defined Christian marriages are often a way out of marriages that could never have worked because they were formalistic and obsessed with appearances rather than content - a typical White Christian marriage, in fact. They can be an excellent means for the very self-discovery Christians try to deny their adherents in order to better and more-easily control them. Once the self is discovered, the Christian way of doing things (indeed, all religious ways of life) are revealed as no more than a superstitious cult; offering no answers to life's existential problems - only a refuge from them. Christians are so sex-obsessed that they waste much time interfering in others' sexual choices: They cannot work out whom they would like to have sex with, themselves, so end-up having soulless sex with other Christians.
Moreover, Whites claim that only marrying for love is a valid reason for getting married. Yet, how many people actually do this rather than marrying because they do not want others to think them gay or for money or for regular sex or because they are simply lonely?
Like all White culture's attempt to control the sexuality of Whites, Christianity relies on conflating the personal with the political in order to control both behavior and White minds. Christians introduced politics into the bedroom by claiming, for example, that the anus is not to be sexually penetrated; the vagina, only so long as you do not enjoy it; and, the mouth, they are never too sure about - but, if in doubt, make it a sin. Christians want political power (to compensate for their non-existent spiritual power) but can only achieve this by colonizing the minds of its adherents with nonsense like homosexuality being an abomination and masturbation a sin; explaining why there are so many sex-starved White Christians.
If Christians truly loved their fellow Man, they would not condemn but attempt to build bridges of understanding between different sexual groups. Anyone poking their nose into the sex lives of others is not only emotionally-suppressed and envious, but also confuses the personal with the political because they are so lonely that they want to legislate for love. And if they cannot obtain that, to legislate for obedience to their own sexual perversion: Erotophobia. (This is why White Christians are shit in bed.)
Western marriage has failed because most people are simply not monogamous and because polygamous marriages are condemned in the West. The inability of Whites to be truly multicultural and diverse - even to their own alleged sexual advantage (eg, Asian chicks are spicy; Black men are well-hung) - is writ large here in their being willing to put up with marriages that do not work, for the sake of mere form. No wonder so many married Whites look miserable.
To claim that marriage is the 'building block of society' is nonsense since the kind of marriage and the kind of society is not specified. This is simply talk about Christian marriage and Christian society; pretending that there are no better alternatives worth considering: Classic White supremacism. But, this does not explain why Whites have the highest divorce rates in the world along with even higher adultery, pornography-consumption and prostitution rates. Like all resentful Christians realizing that the Christian message of unhappiness-is-next-to-godliness, Father Leo Mooney claims people do not take marriage seriously when, in reality, it is only Christian marriage they do not take seriously. Like everyone else in the world, non-Christian Whites take sex very seriously, they just want to enjoy it more and refuse to see it traduced as merely procreational. Recreational sex can be great with one partner or more - of either sex - there need be no exclusive love present for this to be true.
Therapist Joyce Walter is clearly a charlatan and offers no statistics to support her claims. Although she is right that married men (55%) are more unfaithful than married women (45%), in their lifetimes, women in the UK have more sexual partners than men which disproves her claim that: 'Women tend not to be so casual about sex'. Her role here is to pathologise those the Christians cannot punish directly (since adultery is no longer a UK crime: "Criminal conversation" was abolished in England in 1857, and in the Republic of Ireland in 1976) by claiming they are mentally ill, when it is really those Christians who believe in this claptrap who are cognitively-impaired.
This article is completely non-objective and merely serves to scapegoat others who do not subscribe to one's own way of thinking. It tries to do this to bolster a way of thinking that does not, and never did, work. Whites having fun are deeply-resented by those who fear to discover their true sexuality. If Christians wish to save their form of marriage, it would be better to make it more user-friendly rather than the spiritually-impossible and sexually-empty goal it currently is. White Christians are closet-heterosexuals here because they only accept the fact of sex reluctantly as a fleshy distraction from their alleged spirituality (& alleged superiority over non-Whites) and because they believe that gynophobia will control women and stop them inciting men to have sex with them. The misogyny of this position is clear and the author of this piece therefore hates and fears her own femininity.