The "other woman" is liberating herself from men

The argument

On this view, true liberation from oppressive social and cultural structures means putting oneself, and one's own needs, before other concerns. Proponents take that principle to hold without exception, including in sexual and romantic life, where the structures in question have been most restrictive of all. A woman who enters into a sexual relationship with a partnered man is, on this account, acting purely in her own self-interest, and it is exactly that quality which the argument treats as significant rather than discrediting. The reasoning turns on what the constraint being broken is held to consist of. Patriarchal structures, proponents argue, have for millennia limited women by making their desires conditional on arrangements men have already made, so that a woman's conduct is judged first by its effect on an existing partnership and only afterwards, if at all, by reference to what she herself wants. To act on her own interest in defiance of that ordering is therefore not merely permitted but demonstrative: it shows that the long-standing norm has lost its hold on her. The behaviour represents strength and female liberation from those norms rather than a lapse from them, and proponents describe it as an enlightened way of being. Responsibility for what follows is placed elsewhere. On this argument the woman's part is the expression of sexual interest, and whether the man chooses to respond is his decision, made by him rather than made for him. What is claimed, then, is that the presence of the 'other woman' is to be understood through her own agency, as the pursuit of her interests against norms built to suppress them, and that her expression of sexual interest in this context should be read as empowering.

Context

The focus of this question must be on the affair partner, rather than the male. When a woman chooses to engage in a relationship with an attached man, she is the agent defining the situation. The man is simply complicit in her decision.

Premises

Counter-arguments

While this may offer an alternative reading into the female motivations for infidelity, they shed no light on why men cheat. While the woman may actively tempt the man, she cannot be held responsible for his actions.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Acting in one's own interest and being liberated are equated by stipulation. Liberation is ordinarily understood as freedom from constraint rather than as the priority of one's own needs over everyone else's, and on the premise's definition any self-interested act would qualify — including the man's, which is the thing the argument is supposed to explain. [Rejecting P2] The counter's objection is decisive and unanswered: this is an account of one woman's motives, while the position claims to explain why men cheat, so even if every word were granted the conclusion would not follow. Treating the man's response as simply his own decision also concedes the point, since it locates the choice with him rather than with her.