Actually, they are not nearly the same, not even close. From my own POV, the effects of cheating are immediately devastating and an act of betrayal that has no real comparison in the sexless marriage. There is an explicit exclusivity that is contained within one's vows. In cheating on one's spouse (as my first wife cheated on me) the exclusivity is lost forever and you cannot undo it. You can go on from that point, learn, heal, and even remain exclusive beyond that point. But all parties know that the exclusive clause in the vows were violated.
That is not true in the sexless marriage. It is still exclusive relationship even without sex in the relationship. That loss of sex (in the absence of cheating) may also be a reason for ending a marriage but it doesn't compare to the immediacy of the effects of cheating.
The Captain
I won't argue with this if it's your personal viewpoint of what is important in a marriage. But I don't think you have any ground to stand on if you insist this applies to everyone's marriages in general. I'm just saying that from my POV refusing sex on a long-term basis and sex outside the marriage are opposite sides of the same coin. I don't consider the immediacy of the effect to be the pivotal difference. Nor do I consider the inability to "undo" an exclusivity to be pivotal. Those are your constructs, and one could come up with other reasonable-sounding constructs which would lead to different conclusions.
I still see in this an American value judgement, that enduring long-term celibacy or forcing it on your spouse is more wholesome than having an affair. Refusing to have sex in a marriage is also a breaking of vows, at least implicit ones.
In a marriage where there is no sex for a long time, being "faithful" doesn't really have meaning. By that definition, any celibate person is faithful to the pope, or anyone else, because he could say "I'm not having sex with anyone else." So a celibate person is exclusive to everyone, and is therefore the purest of the pure.
So I would disagree with the logic your reasoning implies, that in a marriage where one partner refuses sex, and the other partner has an affair in response, the denying partner can stand on holy ground and accuse the other partner of doing worse.
And yes, I'm aware that the second partner could instead have divorce. Which any dunce can think of. And what difference does that make if the affair results in divorce anyway? Oh, yes, the exclusivity was maintained until the divorce. I could see that provides legal protection, but I don't see the point otherwise.
