# Career and Adultery.



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Posting this in response to Raging Pain popping up again. Pinged a few PM's backwards and forwards back in the day.

When Raging was posting he wondered if due to the number of IT/electronics type BH's on here at the time, whether there was a correlation between your career/job/profession and the likelihood of having an adulterous partner.

So do you think that it is a possibility that your profession can lead you more open to marital problems?


If so, how and why?


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

Well, I'm not sure about that correlation, but my stbxw told me right to my face that she resented my success in my career (I'm a Communications Analyst - so part comms part IT). It's funny because I was home by 6 pm every single night, never worked late, never worked weekends...so it's not like she resented it because it took me away from the family. Now I don't know if she resented my success before she started cheating, or during her affair.

But how messed up is that? I worked so hard for US, for the family, so we could have a good, comfortable life. Spouses are supposed revel in each others successes - not begrudge them. Again, I could see resentment if it meant I was a workaholic or always away on business or whatever - but I wasn't. I burned home every night (and STILL got accused of cheating - when it was she who was ****ting around) to be with my family.

In regards to your actual question - I don't know. Interesting though.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*In both my private and public sector jobs, if you wanted to get your "check cashed," then start messing around on the job with other employees and let it get back to supervision.

But then again, there are many other companies/industries out there whose supervision element could absolutely give a "rat's ass" as to what it's employees do with each other!*


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

I think that many careers/job situations are more conducive to problems in marriages than others. Not sure that IT is one of them, any more than any other office job.

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

arbitrator said:


> *In both my private and public sector jobs, if you wanted to get your "check cashed," then start messing around on the job with other employees and let it get back to supervision.
> 
> But then again, there are many other companies/industries out there whose supervision element could absolutely give a "rat's ass" as to what it's employees do with each other!*



I'll add my odd mix, my H has a very upright/uptight position. There are standards of conduct and integrity and he is an officer of the company. That doesn't mean anything other than "don't get caught" or let it become public...

I work in a relaxed field. I manage crazy musicians and the estate and licensing for the family of a fairly well known singer. So people are always "socializing" my job requires late nights, travel, exposure to lots of interesting characters.

My upright /uptight H was the one who stepped out of line. He did so in a way that could have blown our/his world up if it had gone further:scratchhead:


----------



## Foghorn (Sep 10, 2012)

In my experience, doctors and nurses are set up in a situation where a lot of fooling around occurs. Same with police. No doubt high-stress, high-emotion professions where a lot of "rescue" goes on cues high emotion in the participants, sometimes to the detriment of the marriages these people are in.

I mean mostly like ER docs, trauma surgeons, level 1 trauma nurses, etc. I don't know what excuse the local dermatologist might have....

I have not seen a correlation between careers in IT and affairs, unless the IT job involves a lot of travel. A lot of spouses see the bed as half empty instead of half full and choose to fill it with another person. 

Best,
FH


----------



## Thorburn (Nov 23, 2011)

I found this online. It is one of best, most scientific researched studies ever. NOT!!!!!

A survey of the 1.9 million accounts on ******************, a dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouses, rounds up the most common occupations among the would-be infidelitous: 
For Women:
1. Teachers 
2. Stay-at-home Moms
3. Nurses
4. Administrative Assistants
5. Real Estate Agents 
For Men:
1. Physicians
2. Police Officers
3. Lawyers
4. Real Estate Agents
5. Engineers


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> When Raging was posting he wondered if due to the number of IT/electronics type BH's on here at the time, whether there was a correlation between your career/job/profession and the likelihood of having an adulterous partner.
> 
> So do you think that it is a possibility that your profession can lead you more open to marital problems?
> 
> ...


My engineer now-ex-husband and I used to joke that "engineer" is not a job description, it's a personality type. 

In my experience, the engineering and tech fields tend to attract a high percentage of people - men and women - who are very intelligent and _very_ analytical. Those qualities are great for dealing with systems or things, but often less great when dealing with other people. Many extremely analytical types can have a hard time with empathy, can be very focused on logic and problem solving, and they may think in a very black/white manner that can be problematic in a relationship with another person. 

In short, they can be difficult spouses who may not recognize - or may outright reject as invalid and illogical - the emotional needs of their partners. Which may make for a marital environment that might be more vulnerable to infidelity. It's tough to have a close, intimate, relationship with someone who faces the world like the Dr. Brennan character from the show "Bones" or like Sherlock Holmes - all logic. Of course, not every engineer or tech person is emotionally unavailable. And any affair is still absolutely the cheating spouse's fault. But a shaky marriage - whether it's due to sexlessness or to emotional unavailability - is more vulnerable to infidelity than a strong one would be.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

I'm surprised that flight crews weren't represented on there...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

I've not seen one industry that doesn't have its own seedy soap opera element.


----------



## Differentguy (Oct 3, 2013)

Part of the reason that there seem to be a lot of IT people on here is that they are more likely to seek out help on the internet compared to someone who does not use computers daily.

I don't think the correlation has to do with the job exactly. It is more likely that a certain type of person is more likely to go into certain fields. We can argue the alpha/beta male thing and whether certain professions attract a beta male or not (or whether you even agree with the alpha/beta cheating correlation).


----------



## Cinema79 (Aug 30, 2013)

In my experience, working in all sorts of different environments, affairs happen everywhere. There is no common environment for the work place affair.

What I do understand is why it happens.

You see, WS gets to see the OM/OW in the best possible light. He or she is closing deals, getting promotions, making good money, people like them, after work they all go out to the bar and everyone is having a great time. It makes the OM/OW look really good.

You also need to consider that anyone who works a 9 to 5 job gets extensive time away from their spouse and more time with their co-workers. This breeds a possible toxic environment, a place where spouses can vent about their husbands or wifes and there will always be a person they can confide in. This gives the OM/OW a chance, again, to be a completely perfect person in the eyes of the WS, and come off much better than you. 

The problem is, the spouse never sees how amazing you are at your job. They never see how you are praised and respected. Out of sight, out of mind. He or she will come home to you, and it pales in comparison or seems boring to what she had experienced all day at her office. She/he might even take the days frustrations out on you - maybe because he or she is mad that you don't listen like the OM/OW does.

It is almost a no win situation, really - and very scary.


----------



## John Lee (Mar 16, 2013)

Thorburn said:


> I found this online. It is one of best, most scientific researched studies ever. NOT!!!!!
> 
> A survey of the 1.9 million accounts on ******************, a dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouses, rounds up the most common occupations among the would-be infidelitous:
> For Women:
> ...


These results would be massively skewed by the relative numbers of people in these professions in the general population (i.e., you're going to find a lot of female teacher accounts, because a lot of women are teachers. You're not going to find a lot of accounts held by ski-jumping instructors, because there just aren't very many period.)


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> But, that isn't really the problem, is it? It goes deeper, in my opinion, into the personality of the WS and BS. Infidelity can happen anywhere. It's not the job, in my opinion.


Yep agree, however it may not be the job, it may be the type of personality that is best suited to that particular job.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Rowan said:


> My engineer now-ex-husband and I used to joke that "engineer" is not a job description, it's a personality type.
> 
> In my experience, the engineering and tech fields tend to attract a high percentage of people - men and women - who are very intelligent and _very_ analytical. Those qualities are great for dealing with systems or things, but often less great when dealing with other people. Many extremely analytical types can have a hard time with empathy, can be very focused on logic and problem solving, and they may think in a very black/white manner that can be problematic in a relationship with another person.
> 
> In short, they can be difficult spouses who may not recognize - or may outright reject as invalid and illogical - the emotional needs of their partners. Which may make for a marital environment that might be more vulnerable to infidelity. It's tough to have a close, intimate, relationship with someone who faces the world like the Dr. Brennan character from the show "Bones" or like Sherlock Holmes - all logic. Of course, not every engineer or tech person is emotionally unavailable. And any affair is still absolutely the cheating spouse's fault. But a shaky marriage - whether it's due to sexlessness or to emotional unavailability - is more vulnerable to infidelity than a strong one would be.


Hmmmm, I've been called analytical.


----------



## raging_pain (Dec 8, 2012)

Rowan said:


> My engineer now-ex-husband and I used to joke that "engineer" is not a job description, it's a personality type.
> 
> In my experience, the engineering and tech fields tend to attract a high percentage of people - men and women - who are very intelligent and _very_ analytical. Those qualities are great for dealing with systems or things, but often less great when dealing with other people. Many extremely analytical types can have a hard time with empathy, can be very focused on logic and problem solving, and they may think in a very black/white manner that can be problematic in a relationship with another person.
> 
> In short, they can be difficult spouses who may not recognize - or may outright reject as invalid and illogical - the emotional needs of their partners. Which may make for a marital environment that might be more vulnerable to infidelity. It's tough to have a close, intimate, relationship with someone who faces the world like the Dr. Brennan character from the show "Bones" or like Sherlock Holmes - all logic. Of course, not every engineer or tech person is emotionally unavailable. And any affair is still absolutely the cheating spouse's fault. But a shaky marriage - whether it's due to sexlessness or to emotional unavailability - is more vulnerable to infidelity than a strong one would be.


i've done a lot of introspection, and the above is very relevant. i've had to (and still have) do a lot of work to improve myself.




Differentguy said:


> Part of the reason that there seem to be a lot of IT people on here is that they are more likely to seek out help on the internet compared to someone who does not use computers daily.





kristin2349 said:


> I've not seen one industry that doesn't have its own seedy soap opera element.





PBear said:


> I think that many careers/job situations are more conducive to problems in marriages than others. Not sure that IT is one of them, any more than any other office job.
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_




also have relevance to the result set.


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

2ntnuf said:


> But, that isn't really the problem, is it? It goes deeper, in my opinion, into the personality of the WS and BS. Infidelity can happen anywhere. It's not the job, in my opinion.


I'll disagree. Opportunity and conditions such as the corporate culture play a large part. So take a construction welder; Male dominated where women are rare. Not much opportunity there. I'm in a small firm; Very few people (not to mention family here too that wouldn't want to see me getting flirty with a employee)...

My wife is in finance. Lots of men and women; Lots of job moving and larger networks of people.. hundreds of contacts, travel for training, and connections all over the US they interact with daily and get to meet at training in places like LasVegas. Thankfully, most have cut back to online training now using video conferences. Even the system is rigged using corporate IM's and secured email where the passwords are changed weekly (impossible for the BS to hack into or monitor). 

Some companies also like to do lots of "team building" stuff and encourage getting to know everyone. So, they'll have dinners, happy hours, lunches, various parties, even retreats... all mixer type stuff. And due to the economy, spouses aren't invited (they don't want to foot our bill). A ton of opportunity and chances to form 'friendships'.

Other companies aren't like that at all and strive for the business attired worker drone mentality of quota type performance. But even there it's long hours... so as a BS, hearing "I got to work late" is normal and easily lied about.

Just saying...


----------



## Tripper (Jan 23, 2014)

I'm sure it is inherent to the persons character if they will cheat more so than what profession they have. 

Some professions may put them in situations where it could be easier for them to cheat like traveling for work, one that puts them in close or even physical contact with people, one where it puts them in a position of power/control over someone where they can use that position to cheat.

Or maybe just in a work place like mine with around 400 employees over three shifts, general light manufacturing where there are as many women as men with a range of ages from 18-70.

The job I had before this one was in a heavy manufacturing making bearings for trains....only one woman worked with us and I don't think there was any danger of anyone cheating with her...She was kinda scary actually!


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

The question wasn't so much which professions commit adultery, more are some professions more likely to be victims of adultery.


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

WyshIknew said:


> The question wasn't so much which professions commit adultery, more are some professions more likely to be victims of adultery.


I don't think that plays as much of a role... other than I do agree 'respect for their spouse' has a lot to do with the justifications of the wayward. 

So certain jobs like "stay at home" spouses tend to rank lower in the respect, particularly for men. Even lower are the unemployed where it isn't a choice to stay at home and they are unsuccessful at landing a job for an extended period. 

Others I think just add to that opportunity for the wayward. Like BS's who travel for work and are gone for periods of time. I particularly feel bad for military guys. Kinda the "out of sight out of mind" mentality and low risk for getting caught so the fear of it is diminished.

But it still comes back to the wayward and how they see their spouse.


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

Healer said:


> Well, I'm not sure about that correlation, but my stbxw told me right to my face that she resented my success in my career (I'm a Communications Analyst - so part comms part IT). It's funny because I was home by 6 pm every single night, never worked late, never worked weekends...so it's not like she resented it because it took me away from the family. Now I don't know if she resented my success before she started cheating, or during her affair.
> 
> But how messed up is that? I worked so hard for US, for the family, so we could have a good, comfortable life. Spouses are supposed revel in each others successes - not begrudge them. Again, I could see resentment if it meant I was a workaholic or always away on business or whatever - but I wasn't. I burned home every night (and STILL got accused of cheating - when it was she who was ****ting around) to be with my family.
> 
> In regards to your actual question - I don't know. Interesting though.


Sounds like she just made that up to mess with your head, throw you off balance. Keep you guessing and confused.


----------



## Quixotic (Jan 22, 2014)

PBear said:


> I'm surprised that flight crews weren't represented on there...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Beat me to it.

My ex was an airline pilot. They are all... notorious.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

I think that any career that involves regular travel away from home makes the marriage vulnerable. The travel both estranges and distances (creating a second life that doesn't include the spouse in any way), and offers many opportunities to meet people and keep things secret.


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

alte Dame said:


> I think that any career that involves regular travel away from home makes the marriage vulnerable. The travel both estranges and distances (creating a second life that doesn't include the spouse in any way), and offers many opportunities to meet people and keep things secret.


Yes. Even one working nights, one working days in the same factory can have a split-life effect.


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

Healer said:


> Well, I'm not sure about that correlation, but my stbxw told me right to my face that she resented my success in my career (I'm a Communications Analyst - so part comms part IT). It's funny because I was home by 6 pm every single night, never worked late, never worked weekends...so it's not like she resented it because it took me away from the family. Now I don't know if she resented my success before she started cheating, or during her affair.
> 
> But how messed up is that? I worked so hard for US, for the family, so we could have a good, comfortable life. Spouses are supposed revel in each others successes - not begrudge them. Again, I could see resentment if it meant I was a workaholic or always away on business or whatever - but I wasn't. I burned home every night (and STILL got accused of cheating - when it was she who was ****ting around) to be with my family.
> 
> In regards to your actual question - I don't know. Interesting though.


I would like to add:

That if something just doesn't add up, and you've diligently looked at the parts and the whole, the in- and outside of it and it still contains anomalies and 'not rightness'

Reality can't be expressed in words, only approximated. That's why we can all have different points of view, because of the different 'ideas' we have of the meaning of the words we use. 

When I say 'patriot' it doesn't have the same meaning as when anyone else uses it. So to me, the anti-govt people _might be _patriots because I define ordinary people as the ultimate source of authority, for another person, these people must be traitors, because they hold that all authorities are by definition legitimate. We won't understand each other no matter how much we argue, because we're not even using the 'same' words. 

When a child learns, they learn that fire hurts, angry mother is not in their self-interest, beans taste gross, sweets make you happy. There's no way to convince them with words, that they don't 'know' these things. You can only 'show' them cases where it's not true, by, eg showing them a fat kid and proving that eating too much sweets was the cause. You'll never convince a six year old with words, that what tastes good can be bad for you. They all learn it when they eat too many sweets one day or several times, and feel ill afterwards.

So.... words are lies. Instinct and example/demonstration are true.

Even mathematics is a lie, or rather 'not the full picture'. 1+1=2?

There is no 1 identical to another 1. Therefore '2' of anything doesn't exist, it's a convenience we use, to say 1 similar thing plus one similar thing makes for 2 similar things placed close together. But 1+1=2 is a shorter way of expressing it.

This is why we should never look at words, only behaviour.

In your case of confusion, her behaviour was the truth - your instincts latched onto that truth, while your 'verbal reasoning' mind was being seduced by her bizarre explanations. 

Hence your internal conflict. 

You, the real you who 'exists, senses, feels' without words, 'knew' she was lying, and no amount of words was going to placate your feeling that 'something doesn't add up'. 

Your instincts are closer to reality than your verbal reasoning. Don't 'explain' everything to yourself, feel what's true. Animals for example, don't have 'illusions' about reality. They just respond the way that seems most likely to be effective. 

Well, providing they've not been living around people too long - then they might start behaving un-naturally - such as an animal that's been locked up so long that it's gone nuts.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

I will respectfully argue that words and the structures that they are part of can create reality. This very much depends on how I define 'reality,' I know.


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

alte Dame said:


> I will respectfully argue that words and the structures that they are part of can create reality. This very much depends on how I define 'reality,' I know.


Sure, but now we do what philosophers always do. We each start arguing based on what we think a 'structure' is.

For me it means 'a convenient pattern, which is disposed of, or disposes of itself, when it no longer fulfils its purpose' - So for me it's fluid. And that probably doesn't 'sound right' to you, because there are many structures which have lasted, such as 'slavery' or 'capitalism' or 'the army'.

But then in line with my fluid perception of structure, I will then argue that yes, the Capitalism of 1650 called itself Capitalism... but it was different to the one of 1750, 1850, 1950 and now, significant differences, such that the word has only a very loose meaning of 'system based on lending money, on the promise of sharing the physical output, and then converting this into more money ...ad infinitum'.

But in one century, capitalism means 'cotton picking' and in another it means 'halliburton'.

The trick is to escape from words, and adopt a definite standpoint. This means getting closer to practicalities. Therefore:
What is the nature of capitalism _in my life_, in my lifetime? Where do *I *stand in this _particular _version?

All else is abstract, but what _you _experience of it is undeniable. This is not 'solpsism' saying that only what I perceive exists, it is simply saying that 'words can lose their force, and change meaning, alongside the reality they attempt to describe'.

Similarly, we have had whole threads on TAM devoted to defining 'militia'. So we never got anywhere, because even I have two different versions in my head. One is of a boys-club full of nutjobs in the forests of Vermont (bad) one is of a people's army defending a territory (good). So I alternately took either side of that particular debate, in line with which aspect I was 'reading' in the other person's posts.

What think you of this?


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

I just realised that we have a different definition of reality.

You mean society and man's organisation of his economic activity (I think) in which case, I fully agree that structures can define _this _reality.

In my version of reality, I was thinking of the structure of the universe, the eco-system etc etc. In which case, man's structures are _adapted _to _take advantage of _reality, and not the creators of it.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Sandfly said:


> Sure, but now we do what philosophers always do. We each start arguing based on what we think a 'structure' is.
> 
> For me it means 'a convenient pattern, which is disposed of, or disposes of itself, when it no longer fulfils its purpose' - So for me it's fluid. And that probably doesn't 'sound right' to you, because there are many structures which have lasted, such as 'slavery' or 'capitalism' or 'the army'.
> 
> ...


The demands of full disclosure compel me to admit that I am, by profession, a linguist. My higher degrees are in Theoretical Linguistics and I have worked much of my life in computational applications. So, you see, for me linguistic structure is very well and very formally defined. The words themselves relate to the syntactic structure, which does not admit of the fluidity that you talk about.

And yes, of course, one can argue the philosophy of the reality of linguistic analysis. My Doktorvater famously told me, when I was in despair over the meaning of it all, that 'It's all a game. We have to take the game seriously, else we would have no reason to keep going, but it's a game nonetheless.'

The meanings of words are only one aspect in a complex language system. Words themselves are structural elements, but so are many other parts of language. Word meaning varies based on idiolect, dialect, sociolect, language, etc. Distinctive features tend to be held in common, but there are redundancies that vary, etc. In the fluidity that you speak of, I see coherent systems that are dynamic, constantly changing, but also holding together. It's the commonality of structure and meaning that facilitates communication.

(Sorry about the threadjack, Wysh. I will stop now....)


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> The demands of full disclosure compel me to admit that I am, by profession, a linguist. My higher degrees are in Theoretical Linguistics and I have worked much of my life in computational applications. So, you see, for me linguistic structure is very well and very formally defined. The words themselves relate to the syntactic structure, which does not admit of the fluidity that you talk about.
> 
> And yes, of course, one can argue the philosophy of the reality of linguistic analysis. My Doktorvater famously told me, when I was in despair over the meaning of it all, that 'It's all a game. We have to take the game seriously, else we would have no reason to keep going, but it's a game nonetheless.'
> 
> ...





2ntnuf said:


> I think he's right, Healer.
> 
> I just wanted to add that you wanted with all your heart to believe those words were true. Therein lies the trouble. You believed lies as much as you could, so that you had what you always wanted. The truth is, none of us ever really have what we picture we want. What's in our minds is not reality. No one can live up to what is in our heads. So, sometimes, when we have been tricked so badly, and we don't want to lose faith in ourselves, we force ourselves to believe, so we can keep our self-respect. In the end, we just have to accept that we can fool ourselves, and others can fool us. It doesn't make you weak or less of a man. It only makes you human, like the rest of us. That's all. You have to learn to trust what happens and not what you are told. Try to think, "If you say so." And like my mum used to say, "I'll believe it when I see it."
> 
> Hope this helps you Healer. Sorry for using your thread this way, Wysh.


No, please carry on, just don't flame each other is all I ask. As mentioned I only posted the question in response to Raging popping up again, and the PM's from him back in the day that mentioned the prevalence of IT/electronics guys who were experiencing marriage problems.

Love your posts alte dame and Sandfly, I love the way you use English. It is something I can't do, I am too technically minded.

Probably why I like books so much, I like reading what I can't do.


----------



## amusenet (Jul 12, 2013)

As a BH working in IT, at first glance I'd agree with a lot of what's already been said. One emerging theme seems to be that technical people will have less ability or experience with communicating on an emotional level with people. 

I know that I for one certainly had a lot of misplaced faith in "the system" and that caught me out. I beleived I'd been careful in choosing to get involved with a girl who had decent moral values, I was in a comitted relationship, got married, had none of the normal worries that typically cause a marriage to fail (like money problems, addictions, violence etc.) so "nothing should go wrong..". So I figured when she walked out for someone else, there must have been some kind of communication issue, maybe I just don't relate to people as well as I thought.

Now I'm 16 months into separation, and I don't "blame myself" anymore. OK, maybe I'm not the greatest when it comes to working out what people think, but I still shouldn't have had to go through this. My heart was always in the right place. My intentions were good. I've been through it over and over and I don't think I did anything wrong to cause someome to have an affair and walk out, with no warning, no second chance, no negotiation.

I don't know if the original proposition that IT/technical people are more likely to be the victims of cheating. Maybe just the sample on TAM is skewed. I couldn't find any stats, there's plenty on which occupations are most likely TO cheat, not much on the other way around, that I could see. But it does sound reasonable, to me anyway. My personal experience (sample size = 1, rate of being cheated on = 100%) seems to back it up anyway.

I think for all the fine words about emotional intelligence, or making sure you "top up the love bank" or whatever the latest theory says, or if they'd felt under appreciated, or if you did the 180 properly. All this just masks some more obvious factor. For guys, anyway. Your marriage could be good, bad, or indifferent. Not about what the WS thought, but about the OP thought. It's just that nerdy types are probably less likely to fight back.

My guess is the main (only) thing an OM is concerned about is how likely he is to meet the BH in a dark alley one night. If he's worried for his safety, the relationshp won't go far. Or won't even get started. If he doesn't think he needs to be, it's more likely to develop and the marriage to end as a result. Simple as that. 

Any time an OM doesn't have to worry much about the BH, the marriage is fragile. Because nothing else is going to protect it. Not the church. Not the government. Not you friends, or family, or society in general. Definately not marriage counselling. A cheating wife knows that, and so does an OM. 

So military types get cheated on a lot because they're away a lot. An OM doesn't need to worry about a tough guy if he's deployed in a warzone. And he doesn't worry about someone who's at home all the time, but not so tough. Bottom line is, that's all that matters.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

amusenet said:


> As a BH working in IT, at first glance I'd agree with a lot of what's already been said. One emerging theme seems to be that technical people will have less ability or experience with communicating on an emotional level with people.
> 
> I know that I for one certainly had a lot of misplaced faith in "the system" and that caught me out. I beleived I'd been careful in choosing to get involved with a girl who had decent moral values, I was in a comitted relationship, got married, had none of the normal worries that typically cause a marriage to fail (like money problems, addictions, violence etc.) so "nothing should go wrong..". So I figured when she walked out for someone else, there must have been some kind of communication issue, maybe I just don't relate to people as well as I thought.
> 
> ...


There again a soldier who has been away and seen action in some hellhole probably isn't going to be too concerned about liberating some OM from his teeth.

I think in a lot of cases most AP's don't think they will ever be found out.


----------



## RWB (Feb 6, 2010)

Thorburn said:


> I found this online. It is one of best, most scientific researched studies ever. NOT!!!!!
> 
> A survey of the 1.9 million accounts on ******************, a dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouses, rounds up the most common occupations among the would-be infidelitous:
> For Women:
> ...


My fww is a teacher and a cheater. Once I knew the truth... she was willing to inform me the "dirty little secret" in teaching... There all screwing around! 

At one school she was at, the entire Admin Staff was involved in affairs with other teachers. Epidemic.


----------



## amusenet (Jul 12, 2013)

WyshIknew said:


> There again a soldier who has been away and seen action in some hellhole probably isn't going to be too concerned about liberating some OM from his teeth.
> 
> I think in a lot of cases most AP's don't think they will ever be found out.


The guy I spoke to (funny how you find people who talk about these things a lot after it's happened to you, and not much at all before) found out while he was deployed, in the medical corps. Apparently it was the "best possible" place to have a near breakdown since they packed him up & got him to a shrink (they have to assess if you're fit to carry a weapon etc.) by the time he got back there wasn't much he could do. Young enough to put it down to marrying a wrong-un and move on. Had he not been, the OM would likely have been toothless, at best.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

WyshIknew said:


> Posting this in response to Raging Pain popping up again. Pinged a few PM's backwards and forwards back in the day.
> 
> When Raging was posting he wondered if due to the number of IT/electronics type BH's on here at the time, whether there was a correlation between your career/job/profession and the likelihood of having an adulterous partner.
> 
> ...


It may be that "IT/electronics" types are more geeky, less attuned to what it takes to build a relationship with a partner and therefore their partners tend to look elsewhere. It may also be that that type may spend more time in front of a game console than an accountant, doctor, cop or any number of other professions. And game time takes from relationship time.


----------



## ninnie (Feb 22, 2012)

My husband is a union lineman who travels for work. He cheated when he was in California. It was so easy for him then. The time difference was his friend. It would be 10pm at home when he would call saying he was going to bed and he couldn't hardly keep his eyes open. But it was 8pm there and he was hitting the bars.I have come to find out that it is a very common thing for them to cheat. Now he is 2 1/2 hours away from home, on the same time zone and still finds a way to get to the bars.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Chris Taylor said:


> It may be that "IT/electronics" types are more geeky, less attuned to what it takes to build a relationship with a partner and therefore their partners tend to look elsewhere. It may also be that that type may spend more time in front of a game console than an accountant, doctor, cop or any number of other professions. And game time takes from relationship time.


Why is it that you sound like you're blaming IT/Electronics types as the problem and reason for them being cheated on because of their stereotyped traits? It doesn't matter what "type" or trait the person is, they don't deserve to be cheated on because of it, but your statements sound like blame shifting?

Maybe they are just bad at finding responsible, reliable, honest, and trustworthy people and it is no fault of their own that they get cheated on?

For the record I am an IT/Electronic geek, and my wife is an elementary teacher. Guess I never had a chance no matter what I did, did I?


----------



## RClawson (Sep 19, 2011)

Before I saw the list I was about to put in my 2 cents for teachers. My wife is an educator and its like picking the lottery wondering who is going to be divorced for adultery by the end of the year. I thought things were raunchy in retail where I started my professional life but educators make retail people look like rank amateurs when it comes to cheating and the like.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

PBear said:


> I'm surprised that flight crews weren't represented on there...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My observation is that, these days, it is the wives of pilots who cheat far more than the pilots do. Things have changed dramatically in the industry over the last 25 years.

Amongst the singles there can be a strong party attitude towards the lifestyle of being flight crew. Some of the young singles very much look towards the trips as the center of their social life.

Aside from all that, there would be the normal distributions of human behaviors within flight crew, so I am sure there are some of both sexes who seek to cheat while away from home.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Thor said:


> My observation is that, these days, it is the wives of pilots who cheat far more than the pilots do. Things have changed dramatically in the industry over the last 25 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







A long standing member was a pilot. Despite being Mr Alpha, biker etc his wife betrayed him. Unfortunately now banned. However he and his wife successfully reconciled.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> Why is it that you sound like you're blaming IT/Electronics types as the problem and reason for them being cheated on because of their stereotyped traits? It doesn't matter what "type" or trait the person is, they don't deserve to be cheated on because of it, but your statements sound like blame shifting?
> 
> Maybe they are just bad at finding responsible, reliable, honest, and trustworthy people and it is no fault of their own that they get cheated on?
> 
> For the record I am an IT/Electronic geek, and my wife is an elementary teacher. Guess I never had a chance no matter what I did, did I?


I agree that no one deserves to be cheated on. But when I read the posts in TAM that include statements how a wife's husband spends all night in front of a game console, one has to wonder whether they have the necessary social skills for a relationship.

But anyway, sorry for any generalizations.


----------



## brokeneric (Jan 27, 2014)

One thing I learned is a cheater will cheat no matter who you are or what you will do. No point getting beat up with 'why me'. Move ahead, preferably with someone who deserves you.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Chris Taylor said:


> I agree that no one deserves to be cheated on. But when I read the posts in TAM that include statements how a wife's husband spends all night in front of a game console, one has to wonder whether they have the necessary social skills for a relationship.
> 
> But anyway, sorry for any generalizations.


I would agree with this, although I always wonder (I am not a gamer myself, and the same can be said for lots of IT/ electronic people but know many that are), how is it that when someone meets a person that does nothing but game, they somehow feel that they will change or can be changed? 

All the gamers I know are and always have been into that lifestyle and do nothing but live for the next game and console to come out and spend long hours dedicated to it. They don't just start gaming out of the blue, it is in their blood. 

How can someone complain and be surprised by behavior that existed before the marriage? It is like being mad that your spouse cheated on you when all they had done before your marriage was cheat on their partners. Can a change really be expected in those situations? The same can be said for alcoholics drug users, and abusers. Why do we expect some great change from them, but then feel sorry for someone trapped in a bad situation that they purposely put themselves into (don't interpret this as saying they deserve this treatment, just that how are we supposed to feel sorry for them)?


----------



## brokeneric (Jan 27, 2014)

2ntnuf, when you decide to marry someone, you are taking a leap of faith. In most cases, you are accepting not the person as a whole, but how you perceive him/her. Reconcile with a WS if he/she conforms to your perception. If not , the road is ahead.


----------



## amusenet (Jul 12, 2013)

Squeakr said:


> Why is it that you sound like you're blaming IT/Electronics types as the problem and reason for them being cheated on because of their stereotyped traits? It doesn't matter what "type" or trait the person is, they don't deserve to be cheated on because of it, but your statements sound like blame shifting?


Nobody deserves to be cheated on. Personally I think it's one of the worst crimes that someone can commit on another.. and I include even some crimes that the legal system recognises as such. Just because cheating/adultery isn't anymore called an illegal act, it's still (to my mind anyway) a terrible thing to be the victim of, and it can leave deep emotional scars on those affected that might never fully be recovered from.


I'm wouldn't blame IT/Electronics types (I am one!) especially not for being naive about the world. Everyone's entitled to try and live in that fantasy bubble where "love conquers all", married couples live happily ever after, and society has moved beyond resolving our differences with force.

Maybe you hit the nail on the head about stereotyped traits. It's kind of easy to forget that it's not so long ago when the stereotype was of types that have no social value, bottom of the pile in the popularity stakes etc. Then starting some time in the 1990s you have Bill Gates and then Stave Jobs and the idea of "geek chic" that changed things a bit for the better. Anyway the stereotype is still out there. Even when no actual confrontation takes place, just the threat of it maybe enough to ward off potential rivals, or gossip about your relationship with toxic friends. 

OK, contrived example.. take two conversations:

First example:

*Wife: * Aargh! Is this photocopier broken or what!?
*Work colleague: * What's up, you don't look so happy this morning?
*Wife: * Oh nothing.. it's just.. Relationships are so frustrating aren't they?
*Work colleague: * Tell me about it, I've had a few bad ones myself. What's the matter with yours?
*Wife: * Guess I'm just annoyed. My H spent all last evening doing his stupid work out, right in front of the TV most of the time so I couldn't watch my favorite shows.
*Work colleague: * That's sounds bad.. what does he do, your H?
*Wife: * Well he used to be in the special forces, but he got kicked out because of his anger issues. Now he's a martial arts instructor, he was doing some extra training, all of last evening, FFS!
*Work colleague: * OK, well I uh.. hope you guys work things out between you.. He probably really loves you but doesn't quite know how to show it sometimes. Anyway, I'm going to go fetch some paper now.. maybe see you around.


Second example:

*Wife: * Aargh! Is this photocopier broken or what!?
*Work colleague: * What's up, you don't look so happy this morning?
*Wife: * Oh nothing.. it's just.. Relationships are so frustrating aren't they?
*Work colleague: * Tell me about it, I've had a few bad ones myself. What's the matter with yours?
*Wife: * Guess I'm just annoyed. My H spent all last evening doing his stupid gaming, using the TV most of the time so I couldn't watch my favorite shows.
*Work colleague: * That's sounds bad.. what does he do, your H?
*Wife: * Well he used to be a web developer, but now he's covering tech support. He was playing Call of Duty, he says it helps him work out his anger issues, but all of last evening FFS!
*Work colleague: * That's awful, what a mean guy for leaving you alone like that. I'd never behave like that with a girl I loved. Hey what do you say tonight, come over to my apartment instead? We can open a bottle of wine, catch up with Dancing with the Stars.. talk over our bad relationships.. just say you're working late right? Just as friends, of course. He probably won't even notice you're gone!


Ok so I exaggerated so just a few different words gets a completely different stereotype. I have no idea if people having a workplace affair actually talk like this, just guesswork. But anyway, the first example is a guy who is not to be messed with. Second one is a mean spirited, socially awkward guy who won't fight back. The supposed "relationship issue" (that MC would focus on) of not paying enough attention to your partner is the same in both cases.

I think this is kind of obvious but it's so easy to forget that a few thousand years of civilisation can easily revert, but a few million years of having males fight to defend their mates against rivals is still hanging on in there in the background. Only difference is the law currently makes it difficult to "actually" retaliate in real life. 

In times gone by, society had developed a kind of quid-pro-quo where instead of using caveman methods to keep your relationship safe, people respected the rules of the institution of marriage a bit more as an alternative. Probably because historically it prevented regular bloodbaths and ongoing feuds when people transgressed and got found out.

When people no longer acknowledge marriage as anything other than a private agreement between two people, we're back to brute force.. but without the legal means to execute it. So stereotypes can count, and if you're unfortunate to be an IT/technical guy, society may let you down. Just sayin.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

The above dialogues are my exact history and story, both of them.. The former in my younger years and the latter now! So Sad the stereotypes we cultivate.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

I would like to take a shot at answering some of these questions (even though these weren't specifically aimed at me, but I can so agree with the other statements made):



2ntnuf said:


> Isn't the perception of the woman you are married to the defining factor in whether you are a, "man", or not?


 I don't think it is a defining factor in whether or not one is a man (as if that was the case one would never truly be considered a man until he had a woman, which leaves out lots of singles and others orientations as being considered a man), but it can definitely shape how others perceive your traits and personalities. Such as if she shows true love for you, you are considered to be loving and caring, and if she is the opposite, you are either considered an ogre or the most patient man in the world dependent upon your responses to her actions.



> Is it the fact that the change in attitude is due to the ability of women to provide for themselves?


I think the change is due to societal changes. They're being regarded different in society today, than the prior generations. Being self sufficient helps, but being pushed to be regarded differently is more empowering. With lots of high power role models, not being a SAHM and supporting their H is not seen as a bad thing anymore and much more acceptable than in the past (when this was viewed as total feminism and possible issues relating to men and families).



> Is the loss of respect for marriage a by-product of the lowered value of religion?


 I would say that it is more loss of respect for the marriage in society that has pushed this. It is now acceptable and sometimes considered "with the times" to divorce and have A's, and most states have removed fault for divorce and laws that supported the unions. What used to be viewed as immoral and illegal is now more just considered a sign of the modern times. I don;'t feel religion has played a factor sat all.



> Do you think it's really what you do for a living or how you treat your wife while married?


I think is is both. Even in the bets of marriages, people are viewed for the traits of the positions they hold within society. Lawyers, politicians, IT Geeks, etc are all viewed in a certain light and because of this society kind of expects a certain behavior and outcome. Not all follow the norm expected (in fact most probably don't) but those are the expectations and others can help formulate those opinions based upon their actions, statements, and treatment. People have preconceived notions and act upon them. If they expect that the H is a burly, MMA fighter type they are going to expect some sort of retaliation and avoid such conflicts, whereas with the Geek type they expect a brainiac with a skeletal figure that will back down. Decisions to pursue can be based solely upon this, just like people pursue when they think the marriage is having issue. Rarely do people pursue when the marriage is considered "good" by all parties involved.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

There are certainly different types of guys in IT. I used to be a programmer when I first got out of college. Honestly I did not fit the demographic at all and was quickly promoted to management. I noticed was that a lot of these guys weren't comfortable around people in general, not just women. Also, I know of two that went the mail order bride route. It worked for one but not the other. One picked a plain girl the other a smoking hot one. You can probably guess which relationship ended and why.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

ReformedHubby said:


> There are certainly different types of guys in IT. I used to be a programmer when I first got out of college. Honestly I did not fit the demographic at all and was quickly promoted to management. I noticed was that a lot of these guys weren't comfortable around people in general, not just women. Also, I know of two that went the mail order bride route. It worked for one but not the other. One picked a plain girl the other a smoking hot one. You can probably guess which relationship ended and why.


Your statements exemplify the ideals within this thread. I find it funny that very few think they are the "geek" type being stereotyped here. You say you didn't fit the demographic and were promoted quickly, yet describe the others as an awkward bunch of guys that have zero social skills and must buy their love. That is how we view them.


----------



## Mortie (Dec 19, 2013)

Thorburn, I like your list. On the list my career made number two and I havnt cheated. My wife also made number two and she did. My sister in law made number 1 and holy sh!t did she ever cheat. From what I understand 100+ times while she was married. OMG. 

I sure wish there was a way to predict if a person will cheat or not. People would pay big bucks for that insight! Myself included.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Agreed that for our self esteem that is what matters most, the problem is that others judge based upon stereotypes that are predefined within society. Even your assessments define this as you state there are weaker and stronger personalities. Instead of defining them as what they really are introverted, reserved, outgoing, and extroverted, you have given them terms of strength. Betas aren't always less worthy or worse than Alphas but the way we define them you would believe that. Unfortunately this is the public ideal and the myth we continue to perpetuate. It is hard to break the chains and molds when society has already throttled and thrust them upon us. Your self worth and esteem plays nothing into it, when your spouse is belittling you and putting you down to others, They then believe the stereotype.


----------

