# Hate the cheater (hate me)



## BlueMoon26 (Aug 5, 2010)

I know there is absolutely no tolerance for infidelity. I see that there are numerous posters on here who have cheated. I see it on television that people are caught cheating all the time. It's such taboo. Socially unacceptable. But it is a widespread dilemma that many relationships suffer. Monogamy is unnatural. No one is perfect. People make mistakes. Excuses, I know. 
I've never condoned cheating. But I now wear the label "cheater"! It's a terrible road to walk down and even harder to know that I chose this path. In no way do I assume the cheater needs sympathy. I'm not asking for it, but it's not just a quick f*** and it's over for most of us. Some of us have emotional ties involved. Which are wrong to begin with but it does happen. And fighting those ties plus the realization that you intentionally betrayed someone you love is horrible. 
My H friend professed his love for me 3 years ago while drunk. I didn't judge him and assumed perhaps he was going through a hard time. The following day it was ignored as if nothing ever happened but he began messaging eachother daily and he would send me AM messages wishing me a good day. Eventually we would speak about it again and he would confirm it wasn't just a drunken conversation. I asked him if we could stop. He obliged. Months later he would bring it up again in conversation but quickly apologize and end it. Months after that he would profess his love to me and I politely asked him to stop. Year and a half later in a chance meeting (whilst inebriated) I would fall into his arms and commit the ultimate betrayal. I was devastated because of what I'd done to my marriage/children/myself. 
Yes, I fell into those arms because I had loved him all that time.. Drunk wasn't an excuse. My H and I have had a pretty rocky relationship. We're a complete mess. He's an alcoholic, he's a drug addict, he's emotionally abusive, he's all over the place... NO EXCUSE I know. But it's not like I'd never expressed to him that I don't like these things about him. He chooses not to change these things about himself. He's told me he is only with me for the children. Of course, when sober has said he didn't mean it but how does one ever really forget a statement like that? I won't continue on... whatever he has done in our relationship doesn't condone my infidelities. 
After the affair I suffered immensely in silence. Guilt, remorse, confusion. Who am I? What are my values? Why have I done this? All while struggling the fact that I think I love this person I had an affair with. Even knowing he and I will never be a 'happy ever after'. I don't want to leave my husband for him! But I want to leave for other reasons. 
Not 6 months later I make the concious decision to meet "the friend" and it turns into another night of infidelities... So not once but twice? I walked into that one... 
The friend stays away. But leaves the door open for me. He's expressed that he doesn't wish to make things difficult for me, understands that it is hard for me. No matter how I try to stop all communication, something keeps drawing me back to him. As if I'd love to see him again... but I should be working on my marriage. I should seek counseling. I know I allowed this to happen because I was unhappy in an unhappy marriage. 
I know I'll get an abundance of hateful messages for this thread.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

What you REALLY need to do is stop drinking.


----------



## Tanelornpete (Feb 2, 2010)

I don't get the point of the message - is it just a vent/statement/ramble, or is there a buried question?


----------



## DawnD (Sep 23, 2009)

I have no intention of "bashing" you. But I do think that you should just come clean with your H and honestly choose one way or the other. Decide to work together to save your marriage, or decide to split. Definately drop all contact with the OM and I don't want to be "that person" to say it but think about the fact that if he'll do it with you he'll do it to you. Best of luck with all of this.


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

Most people who have cheated, like myself, can identify with you.

In counseling, it was explained to me that most people cheat because they are treated badly by their spouse/SO, not because they fall in love with someone else (although that may be the result of their treatment). I'm not justifying cheating.

For a long time, I looked at people who cheated, and I knew a few closely, as pretty horrible people. I could not understand how someone could do that. But having gone through what I did in my marriage, I recognize the same things in theirs, something I could not do before.

Cheating isn't the answer to a bad marriage. Either you work on the marriage or get out.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

*Cheater, cheater, burn her, burn her.*
 Just lightening the mood a bit. 

I to am not sure of the reason for your post other than a self pillory.

But I do disagree with the following statement.



BlueMoon26 said:


> Monogamy is unnatural.



I find nothing unnatural about it at all. I base that statement on my moral and religious background, but even outside of that I have never had any desire to cheat on my wife. Spending the early years of my career traveling more than 50%, having both anonymity and propositions it just never crossed my mind. I personally find the statement to be a rationalization every time I hear it. 

I agree with the others. Stop drinking. Get your husband to go to counseling for his problems and try and address the issues in the marriage. If it can't be fixed divorce on those merits not based on the other man. You already know him to be a low life that slept with his best friend's wife and has left the door open to finish his undermining of your marriage. Get him out of the picture all together.


----------



## Tanelornpete (Feb 2, 2010)

Nice Amp! One day you must tell me how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes!

I agree that the statement 'monogamy is unnatural' is not a correct statement: it's an informal logical fallacy (based upon inductive reasoning.) Just because people die of cancer does not make it a 'natural' way to die...


----------



## Crypsys (Apr 22, 2010)

Tanelornpete said:


> Just because people die of cancer does not make it a 'natural' way to die...


hehehe, that reminds me of a saying. A fall from 10,000 feet doesn't kill you, it's the abrupt stop at the end!


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

Not to have this topic hijack the thread but it's quite possible for monogamy to be both unnatural and a rationalization for cheating. I mean, just because you have never had a desire to cheat on your wife does not mean that monogamy is natural. If we look at the bulk of animal species, I do not believe that monogamy is natural at all. And, like it or not, we are animals. I mean, are we terming monogamy as "just being in a relationship with our spouses" or are we terming it as "any one-to-one relationship that we have ever had"? And, if we are terming it as the latter, am I to believe that EVERYONE has ALWAYS been with one person at a time for all of their lives?

That being said, I believe that monogamy is a discipline and is fully attainable. I have never had an urge to cheat on my wife either. And, I do agree that people use the "unnatural" argument to justify being horn-dogs. Just my two cents...


----------



## Crypsys (Apr 22, 2010)

Orion said:


> If we look at the bulk of animal species, I do not believe that monogamy is natural at all. And, like it or not, we are animals.


Yes, we are animals (I will purposely leave any religious statements out) . But we have something that as far as we know no other Animal has on this earth, self-realization and conscience. Because of our extraordinary brain we are able to override those more primitive urges. It's natural to murder another to get what you want (look at the animal kingdom). It's natural to rape, pillage and hurt others. We though have a more evolved sense of morality, reason and social contract that should guide us. So to say because X is natural in the animal kingdom doesn't and shouldn't directly apply to us.

The real question here is what is moral by human standards. Humanities moral code is continuously shifting, morphing and changing. Things that are common now would have been unheard of a few hundred years ago (women wearing shorts, etc). In my mind the issue isn't necessarily is monogamy moral/immoral in a vacuum. 

Another question is what is the understood view of a relationship between the two people? If they have agreed to be exclusive then it can never morally justified to sleep with another. By going outside of the contract you made together you are breaking that social contract. Therefore, the cheater can never be morally justified. If the two have agreed to be in an open relationship, it is morally justified for each partner to sleep with other people. That is because the social contract does not stipulate monogamy.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

Crypsys said:


> Yes, we are animals (I will purposely leave any religious statements out) . But we have something that as far as we know no other Animal has on this earth, self-realization and conscience. Because of our extraordinary brain we are able to override those more primitive urges. It's natural to murder another to get what you want (look at the animal kingdom). It's natural to rape, pillage and hurt others. We though have a more evolved sense of morality, reason and social contract that should guide us. So to say because X is natural in the animal kingdom doesn't and shouldn't directly apply to us.
> 
> The real question here is what is moral by human standards. Humanities moral code is continuously shifting, morphing and changing. Things that are common now would have been unheard of a few hundred years ago (women wearing shorts, etc). In my mind the issue isn't necessarily is monogamy moral/immoral in a vacuum.
> 
> Another question is what is the understood view of a relationship between the two people? If they have agreed to be exclusive then it can never morally justified to sleep with another. By going outside of the contract you made together you are breaking that social contract. Therefore, the cheater can never be morally justified. If the two have agreed to be in an open relationship, it is morally justified for each partner to sleep with other people. That is because the social contract does not stipulate monogamy.


I agree with pretty much everything that you said. Keep in mind, I am not justifying cheating whatsoever. However, many parts of your post actually support my assertion. We do have developed brains that give us a conscience. However, the "primative urges" that we are overriding are our *natural* urges. Again, my assertion is that not that monogamy wrong. Simply that it is counter to our natural urges (yes, like the urge to kill or be violent). And, like those and other natural urges, it can be surpressed.


----------



## brs597 (Jan 19, 2010)

I will never understand the hatred WS's recieve when they actually post on this forum. Yes obviously most who actually post here are BS's, but I would guess there are MANY WS's watching and reading. For one the amount of guilt and shame they live with, and two (my initial reason for reading here) to try to gain some idea of what their BS is ACTUALLY feeling and thinking. I see a lot of discredit placed when someone trys to openly admit they f'ed up. 
Those who post because they are betrayed may need to ask themselves one thing...If you wanted to rob a bank would you ask a boyscout or a bank robber? Every situation is different, but maybe we should try walking a mile in eachother's shoes.......


----------



## Crypsys (Apr 22, 2010)

Orion said:


> Again, my assertion is that not that monogamy wrong. Simply that it is counter to our natural urges (yes, like the urge to kill or be violent). And, like those and other natural urges, it can be surpressed.


Ahh, well then we are in agreement. I do agree that for most, the natural urge is to mount anything that moves. To signify that you are exclusive with just one person is not generally a humans instinct. I was hooked on the part about where you were stating a rationalization and for some reason took that to mean you were arguing against the state of monogamy as a whole. So yep, there was a misunderstanding on my point.

I would go one further and say not only can some of those urges be suppressed, it is better for us AND society if we focus greatly on suppressing them.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

Crypsys said:


> Ahh, well then we are in agreement. I do agree that for most, the natural urge is to mount anything that moves. To signify that you are exclusive with just one person is not generally a humans instinct. I was hooked on the part about where you were stating a rationalization and for some reason took that to mean you were arguing against the state of monogamy as a whole. So yep, there was a misunderstanding on my point.
> 
> I would go one further and say not only can some of those urges be suppressed, it is better for us AND society if we focus greatly on suppressing them.


Ah, I meant that it was a rationalization (wrongfully so) by those who could not be faithful. And yes, I believe that it is imperative for us and society to focus upon surpressing those urges. Besides, it's scary to keep gambling with one's genitalia. Ha!


----------



## the guy (Aug 3, 2010)

Bluemoon26,
6 months ago I was just like your husband Now I spend my day prevent this behavior. Why, for the past 13 years my wife got through our marrage with 20 physical affairs, I was asked 3 time for a divorce and I told her to get a boy toy "big misstake" .
She was gone all the time basicly she left, come home at all hours of the morning and then leave again for work, day after day year after year.
To this day only God only knows why I final confronter her?
I think Slowing down on the booze, and finding my self asking "ha were's my wife" just like that, I dont know why.
Any way I wish my behavior was differant 13 yrs ago. Big thought here "I WISH MY WIFE WOULD HAVE LEFT ME AT THE FIRST SIGN OF HER DISIRE TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE ELSE" you can't beat honisty! I'm guessing she needed to act (move out) for me to hit rock bottom. She would try to to tell me But I told her "I didnt want to hear, lets just have sex and foget about it" BAD BEHAVIOR ON MY PART


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Tanelornpete said:


> I agree that the statement 'monogamy is unnatural' is not a correct statement: it's an informal logical fallacy (based upon inductive reasoning.) Just because people die of cancer does not make it a 'natural' way to die...


I am not sure if it is important whether or not monogamy is natural or not. But has anyone noticed the OVERWHELMING number of posts about sex, lack of sex, porn and cheating on this board even not in the infidelity sub group?

In addition to the emotional and societal elements of sex and marriage, there is also a biological factor to sex. Let's not forget that we are animals as well as rational beings. 

I think it can be helpful to a marriage to RECOGNIZE that people are going to be attracted to others besides their spouse. I think the idea that if he loved me he would never want to look at another woman is absurd. :scratchhead: My husband looks at porn. Of course he looks at porn! I notice attractive men when I am out and about... 

I think it is helpful to recognize this as a means of diffusing its power and for being fully honest. 

But that is me.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Crypsys said:


> Another question is what is the understood view of a relationship between the two people? If they have agreed to be exclusive then it can never morally justified to sleep with another. By going outside of the contract you made together you are breaking that social contract.


I agree with this. A person of integrity doesn't lie, break his or her word.It is immoral to do so.




> Therefore, the cheater can never be morally justified. If the two have agreed to be in an open relationship, it is morally justified for each partner to sleep with other people. That is because the social contract does not stipulate monogamy.


What crypsys said.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> And yes, I believe that it is imperative for us and society to focus upon surpressing those urges.


I disagree with this! While I think monogamy can be a good thing, and everyone has the right to choose it, society should not be in the position of frowning on those who don't.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I disagree with this! While I think monogamy can be a good thing, and everyone has the right to choose it, society should not be in the position of frowning on those who don't.


I think that everyone should have a right to choose it as well. And, I never implied that society should frown upon those who choose against monogamy. Just because I think that eventual monogamy (I say eventual because I don't expect young adults to be so disciplined) is important for society does not mean that I do not think that people should be frowned upon for their choice. That being said, those who would frown upon that choice have a RIGHT to do that as well. Rights do not apply only to those with whom we agree or sympathize.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

I would be curious why you think eventual monogamy is good for society. (And I really am curious. Sometimes tone does not carry on forum posts! Not trying to start a fight. I am interested in your thinking on this.)

You know it is true that people, individual people, have a right to frown upon, or in other words, make judgments for themselves. As if we could stop ourselves! Where it becomes an issue for me is when different is assumed to be bad and meddling occurs. 

I have some good friends who are closet polyamorists. They feel that they have to stay closeted so as not to get harassed by the children's school. Apparently in their experience, there is reason to be concerned that some well meaning, ignorant person would decide that this was not in the best interest of the children and contact social services.

I don't see why monogamy should be considered the default best choice except that it has been that way historically. People can be moral or immoral monogamists AND polyamorists, in my view.

S


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I would be curious why you think eventual monogamy is good for society. (And I really am curious. Sometimes tone does not carry on forum posts! Not trying to start a fight. I am interested in your thinking on this.)
> 
> You know it is true that people, individual people, have a right to frown upon, or in other words, make judgments for themselves. As if we could stop ourselves! Where it becomes an issue for me is when different is assumed to be bad and meddling occurs.
> 
> ...


vthomeschoolmom,

I appreciate your genuine curiosity and will give you my thoughts. And, I would also appreciate yours. 

Here is my thinking on this (I will leave out the religious implications but they are also a part of my beliefs). It seems to me that monogamy in a marriage sets a solid foundation for stability. Meaning, a person KNOWS that their spouse is there for them in in every way and vice-versa (or at least the probability of the spouse leaving due to outside influences is reduced). And, this stability would lead to less divorces and, hopefully, better children who can become better adults. Divorces should (I emphasize SHOULD) be less because infidelity is not a factor, and hopefully jealous would be reduced. Also, if married people stay monogamous and faithful, this pretty much negates the risk of STDs, love-childs (or is it love-children), etc.

Now, I am sure that the assertion could be made about polyamorous (sp?) couples being able to be stable and such. Perhaps this is the case. However, I believe that for the reasons that I have detailed (and others), that a monogamous and faithful marriage has the highest probablity of providing societal stability. I am Orion and I approve this message. :smthumbup:


----------



## Tanelornpete (Feb 2, 2010)

As far as I am concerned, it isn't the monogamy that is the issue, but honor. If you commit to a monogamous relationship then the fact that you may feel tempted by urges that lead you outside that relationship is irrelevant. In particular, a monogamous marriage is not defined by sexual urges at all, but by the contract you made with another person. If you simply are incapable of keeping a promise, then do not make it. If necessary, make sure the contract you enter with your spouse contains the proper conditional phrases to give you the out you need. 

The important point is this: to be human is to be rational. That is the distinguishing characteristic of mankind. We can make decisions and then act to fulfill them. It happens all the time in life: we may HAVE the urge to kill someone in a flash of anger, but we avoid it. We decide to act otherwise. 

To keep your promise is by far a more human thing to do that to allow yourself to be controlled by whatever whim comes over you from time to time.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> vthomeschoolmom,
> 
> I appreciate your genuine curiosity and will give you my thoughts. And, I would also appreciate yours.
> 
> Here is my thinking on this (I will leave out the religious implications but they are also a part of my beliefs).


Ah. Gotcha. For the record, I am completely a-religious. We can go there later, I guess. If you feel comfortable with that conversation. 



> It seems to me that monogamy in a marriage sets a solid foundation for stability. Meaning, a person KNOWS that their spouse is there for them in in every way and vice-versa (or at least the probability of the spouse leaving due to outside influences is reduced). And, this stability would lead to less divorces and, hopefully, better children who can become better adults. Divorces should (I emphasize SHOULD) be less because infidelity is not a factor, and hopefully jealous would be reduced. Also, if married people stay monogamous and faithful, this pretty much negates the risk of STDs, love-childs (or is it love-children), etc.


I respectfully suggest that what you are advocating is not so much monogamy as responsibility. This is a thought that I can agree with 150%. 




> Now, I am sure that the assertion could be made about polyamorous (sp?) couples being able to be stable and such.


Well they aren't necessarily couples. As a matter of fact, I think couple is the one word you could not use to describe practicing polyamorists! I am no expert. But from what I have seen, there seems no difference in ability to be stable between mono and poly people. Both styles have their flakes, posers, immature people. 

But if I look at my own circle of friends, acquaintances I have made through work and community, I see many unstable marriages. I am not so convinced that there is something inherent to monogamy that yields stability.



> Perhaps this is the case. However, I believe that for the reasons that I have detailed (and others), that a monogamous and faithful marriage has the highest probablity of providing societal stability. I am Orion and I approve this message. :smthumbup:


I am sorry. I think I missed the reasons. I may be being dense again.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Tanelornpete said:


> As far as I am concerned, it isn't the monogamy that is the issue, but honor. If you commit to a monogamous relationship then the fact that you may feel tempted by urges that lead you outside that relationship is irrelevant. In particular, a monogamous marriage is not defined by sexual urges at all, but by the contract you made with another person. If you simply are incapable of keeping a promise, then do not make it. If necessary, make sure the contract you enter with your spouse contains the proper conditional phrases to give you the out you need.
> 
> The important point is this: to be human is to be rational. That is the distinguishing characteristic of mankind. We can make decisions and then act to fulfill them. It happens all the time in life: we may HAVE the urge to kill someone in a flash of anger, but we avoid it. We decide to act otherwise.
> 
> To keep your promise is by far a more human thing to do that to allow yourself to be controlled by whatever whim comes over you from time to time.


I am so agreeing with everything you just said.


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I respectfully suggest that what you are advocating is not so much monogamy as responsibility. This is a thought that I can agree with 150%.


Actually, I am advocating both.




vthomeschoolmom said:


> But if I look at my own circle of friends, acquaintances I have made through work and community, I see many unstable marriages. I am not so convinced that there is something inherent to monogamy that yields stability.


Again, I am not just talking about poly relationships, which seems to be your focus. I am talking about monogamous and faithful relationships. And, my assertion is that when infidelity is removed, this increases the probability of a stable marriage and homelife. Also, in the case of a poly relationship, I submit that this increases the probability of jealous, catching an STD, etc which decreases the probability of the stability of the relationship. And, I also submit that the importance of a unified marriage/family/home is pretty important. Some of the issue with the children of divorce bear this out. And, if the stability that I am referring to is not important, I doubt that so many people would be in a marriage "for the sake of the kids".





vthomeschoolmom said:


> I am sorry. I think I missed the reasons. I may be being dense again.


1) Meaning, a person KNOWS that their spouse is there for them in in every way and vice-versa (or at least the probability of the spouse leaving due to outside influences is reduced).

2) And, this stability would lead to less divorces and, hopefully, better children who can become better adults. Divorces should (I emphasize SHOULD) be less because infidelity is not a factor, and hopefully jealous would be reduced.

3) Also, if married people stay monogamous and faithful, this pretty much negates the risk of STDs, love-childs (or is it love-children), etc.

Also, I do not really feel that you have expressed your stance on this issue. I think that you have countered my assertions but not truly offered your own. So, I am curious about your thoughts as well.

Ultimately, I do agree with Tanelornpete in that this is truly about a person honoring what a relationship. Also, my goal is not to have you see things the way that I do. However, I do enjoy a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Orion said:


> Actually, I am advocating both.
> Again, I am not just talking about poly relationships, which seems to be your focus. I am talking about monogamous and faithful relationships.


I may be making a tempest in a teapot here. When you asserted that you thought that monogamy was good for society, perhaps you meant instead of dastardly cheating? If that is the case, then we can just agree and be done! But when you asserted that monogamy was good for society, the counter or opposite is not cheating, in my book. But responsible non-monogamy. You won't get ANY argument from me that irresponsible behavior is good for society. 





> And, my assertion is that when infidelity is removed, this increases the probability of a stable marriage and homelife.


Ah, ah. Clarity is arrived for me at last. Yes I would agree, of course. That would be true in ANY kind of relationship.



> Also, in the case of a poly relationship, I submit that this increases the probability of jealous, catching an STD, etc which decreases the probability of the stability of the relationship.


The statistics would not bear you out on the STD front, though the jealousy conversation is another matter. While it is true beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you are monogamous and faithful, you are not going to catch an STD, the sad truth is that most mono marriages AREN'T faithful. Instead you get people who are lying and thus not open about their physical health issues. People who may expose themselves to STDs through cheating but cannot be honest and open with their spouse for fear of exposing the cheating.

That does not seem to be an issue among the poly people I know.

The jealousy issue is fascinating in itself. From what I have read, it seems that they just approach it differently by dealing with it head on rather than simply avoiding it as too scary.



> And, I also submit that the importance of a unified marriage/family/home is pretty important. Some of the issue with the children of divorce bear this out. And, if the stability that I am referring to is not important, I doubt that so many people would be in a marriage "for the sake of the kids".


I certainly agree, to a degree. But I think it is more the dysfunction and the lack of stability inherent to the messed up relationship at play then the lack of monogamy. No one benefits from being in a dysfunctional family that stays together "for the sake of the kids" when all they manage to do is cohabitate in the presences of mentally unhealthy behavior and modelling.

But I cannot argue with your main point. If one chooses monogamy, one ought to do it with faithfulness!




> Also, I do not really feel that you have expressed your stance on this issue. I think that you have countered my assertions but not truly offered your own. So, I am curious about your thoughts as well.


Oh, I am sorry. I agree completely regarding your assertions wrt being faithful and ... I guess mentally healthy. I did not understand the view you saw in opposition to monogamy was unfaithfulness. However, I don't believe that monogamy is the only or even always the best way to run a loving, faithful, mentally healthy family. 

I know many people don't even think about, hell even KNOW about, responsible non-monogamy. 

I see a lot of marital dysfunction propagated by our family of origin's expectations, "society" and the desire to be normal. Many reasons that have nothing to do with the grown up decision to commit to one person for the rest of our lives. We have ALL known people who have gotten married simply because it was the next stage in life and that person over there that happens to be the one I am dating is as good as the next. 

If these external pressures to be and stay married were not present, if other options for being a responsible, mature grown up were more readily discussed, then perhaps fewer people would wrongfully enter into a monogamous contract. I think THAT is where the vast majority of marriage problems start. Making a poor decision in the first place.

There are a great many homosexual people NOT ruining the lives of some poor hetero spouse and their children by never feeling the pressure to get married now that homosexuality is considerably more mainstream. And to this I say, HURRAY! And likewise I would like to see other responsible options see a little more daylight in the hopes of more people being able to be the best, most mature, responsible people that they can be while still being true to themselves.




> Ultimately, I do agree with Tanelornpete in that this is truly about a person honoring what a relationship. Also, my goal is not to have you see things the way that I do. However, I do enjoy a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints.


Likewise. Cheers.


----------



## panafedin (Aug 2, 2010)

Tanelornpete said:


> As far as I am concerned, it isn't the monogamy that is the issue, but honor. If you commit to a monogamous relationship then the fact that you may feel tempted by urges that lead you outside that relationship is irrelevant. In particular, a monogamous marriage is not defined by sexual urges at all, but by the contract you made with another person. If you simply are incapable of keeping a promise, then do not make it. If necessary, make sure the contract you enter with your spouse contains the proper conditional phrases to give you the out you need.
> 
> The important point is this: to be human is to be rational. That is the distinguishing characteristic of mankind. We can make decisions and then act to fulfill them. It happens all the time in life: we may HAVE the urge to kill someone in a flash of anger, but we avoid it. We decide to act otherwise.
> 
> To keep your promise is by far a more human thing to do that to allow yourself to be controlled by whatever whim comes over you from time to time.


BINGO! 

"Temptation resisted is the true measure of character"
PAPILLON


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

Men and women are truly wired different. I found this interesting..........

'Sugarbabe' favors negotiated infidelity - CNN.com


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Orion said:


> I think that everyone should have a right to choose it as well. And, I never implied that society should frown upon those who choose against monogamy. Just because I think that eventual monogamy (I say eventual because I don't expect young adults to be so disciplined) is important for society does not mean that I do not think that people should be frowned upon for their choice. That being said, those who would frown upon that choice have a RIGHT to do that as well. Rights do not apply only to those with whom we agree or sympathize.


 Sorry to keep this T/J going, but I just have to say that those who don't want to practice monagamy *SHOULD NOT GET MARRIED*.

Problem solved.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I don't see why monogamy should be considered the default best choice except that it has been that way historically. People can be moral or immoral monogamists AND polyamorists, in my view.
> 
> S


 For the same reason that primitive societies were smart enough to realize that they should (1) cover their private parts to control sexual urges from interfering with society and (2) separate children from watching their parents practice coitus in a separate room so as to not mess up their understanding of the need for and reason for sex. Humans segued into what works for the ultimate good of society.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

turnera said:


> For the same reason that primitive societies were smart enough to realize that they should (1) cover their private parts to control sexual urges from interfering with society and (2) separate children from watching their parents practice coitus in a separate room so as to not mess up their understanding of the need for and reason for sex. Humans segued into what works for the ultimate good of society.


What would you say the need for and reason for sex is? How much do you think you know about what primitive societies did and why?

I think what you just wrote is the epitome of puritanical pap that makes the US attitudes on sex so completely backassward.

Just sayin'.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Biologically and psychologically speaking, the need for and reason for sex is procreation. Thus the same reason for the 2- to 3-year-'honeymoon phase' wherein people are biologically (chemically) attracted to each other. That's about the typical lifespan of the caveman's mates for procreating.

fwiw, I have NOTHING in common with puritanical ANYTHING, other than the fact that I attend Lutheran church because it's what my husband attends. I'm pretty much against everything puritanical in the world. But I am FOR everything biological and psychological - you can't argue science.


----------



## Crypsys (Apr 22, 2010)

turnera said:


> you can't argue science.


Oh by all means you can and should. Science shares the same issues religion does, people. The minute people get involved in anything conclusions can be biased, etc. Just because someone SAYS it's science, doesn't mean it's right. We have just as many false scientific conclusions as we have correct ones. People have a pre-programmed need to believe in something. It may be God, may be science, may be money, etc. It's a better idea to take it all in and recognize the good each system can play in a healthy life...


----------



## Brewster 59 (Jun 19, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I disagree with this! While I think monogamy can be a good thing, and everyone has the right to choose it, society should not be in the position of frowning on those who don't.


Well maybe those that dont should not get married. I guess Im old fashioned but marriage is a vow, its your word of honor, its not I will stay with you until I love you but am not in love with you. Just MO


----------



## Resonance (Aug 11, 2010)

Science encourages discussion and disproving of theories. 

Sexual urges come from our more primitive drives. If we did not live in a society built around morals and religion, it would be considered the "norm" to follow our primitive urges. Most, if not all of us were raised with boundaries to our urges albeit from religious fundamentals or what society views as OK. We as a society follow moral values, so if one goes through marriage, then be expected to follow the values that are put forth. If you break your vows to your partner, you are in the wrong. 

Marriage or any monogamous bond should never be taken lightly. What I will never understand is why one will seek out another man or woman without at least giving the partner the respect and consideration of mutual divorce before a situation as this arises. If one knows they will be looking at and eventually chasing another man or woman, why go through with a marriage? Why seek a relationship at all.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Resonance said:


> If we did not live in a society built around morals and religion, it would be considered the "norm" to follow our primitive urges. Most, if not all of us were raised with boundaries to our urges albeit from religious fundamentals or what society views as OK.


Not exactly true. We created societies AND norms because, without them, we could not coexist as a society. Think brutish invaders. We CHOSE norms because they allowed us to not live in fear, to grow as a community, to know what to expect from each other, and to focus on more important things.

"You can't argue science." Not exactly what I meant. What I meant is that the answers we get from science are there for a reason - they HAVE undergone a lot of questioning and arguing, to the point that the resolutions we achieve have been tested and proven valid. 

Sociology can make the claims it makes because of years and years of research and conclusions.

A person's personal preferences do not make a dent in what the human race as a whole has accepted as the ultimate solution for coexisting.


----------



## Crypsys (Apr 22, 2010)

Resonance said:


> Science encourages discussion and disproving of theories.


In a vacuum, sure. But science has just as many dogmatic principles as other things as well. People have a vested interesting in making sure their theories stand and will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. It's like saying communism encourages all people to be equal. It sounds really darn good on paper, but the actual implementation is a heck of a lot dirtier. 



Resonance said:


> Sexual urges come from our more primitive drives. If we did not live in a society built around morals and religion, it would be considered the "norm" to follow our primitive urges.


Without morals there wouldn't be a society. We'd all be running around beating each other with clubs and painting ourselves blue. Morals are what has allowed humans to form societies that have enabled us to live reasonably safe lives. That in turn has allowed us to have art, science, music, etc. Without morals, human society would crumble.


----------



## Resonance (Aug 11, 2010)

turnera said:


> Not exactly true. We created societies AND norms because, without them, we could not coexist as a society. Think brutish invaders. We CHOSE norms because they allowed us to not live in fear, to grow as a community, to know what to expect from each other, and to focus on more important things.
> 
> "You can't argue science." Not exactly what I meant. What I meant is that the answers we get from science are there for a reason - they HAVE undergone a lot of questioning and arguing, to the point that the resolutions we achieve have been tested and proven valid.
> 
> ...


Turnera: I appreciate the discussion; it is nice to have such things online rather than arguments! In my opinion what it all really boils down is choosing a monogamous, polygamous, or single life and finding a partner that agrees with the type of relationship. In the most simplistic of views, having sex is a natural occurrence, but with how society currently is and what we teach our children about relationships and marriage, having sex with others when in a relationship will be viewed as a terrible thing. 

About the science comment, I was just trying to convey that even with years of research it can still be proven wrong. That's all, not disputing anyone's valued opinion here. 



Crypsys said:


> In a vacuum, sure. But science has just as many dogmatic principles as other things as well. People have a vested interesting in making sure their theories stand and will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. It's like saying communism encourages all people to be equal. It sounds really darn good on paper, but the actual implementation is a heck of a lot dirtier.
> 
> 
> 
> Without morals there wouldn't be a society. We'd all be running around beating each other with clubs and painting ourselves blue. Morals are what has allowed humans to form societies that have enabled us to live reasonably safe lives. That in turn has allowed us to have art, science, music, etc. Without morals, human society would crumble.


Crypsys: Yes, people will dispute any indifference to a/their theory until the claims have been proven wrong. 

Morals are indeed the foundation to society. Sex is indeed natural, but one needs to consider what is viewed as correct when forming a relationship with another. There are plenty of sources to find partners who are willing to have an open relationship before a relationship even starts. If a person has a mindset that sex is natural and will follow their urges, then they should do so without engaging a partner into a monogamous/commited relationship and breaking that trust. Being single and sexual or finding a partner who consents to emotional/physical relationships with others would in my opinion be the best choice to those who know they can not commit to a single person. 

One may cheat because they are finished with a relationship. Personally if this is the case, one should be forward about ending a relationship before performing such acts. One may also cheat for the thrill or stay with their partner for financial support, but I would like to reserve my negative vocal and textual opinion on those specific individuals.


----------



## 76Trombones (Jun 2, 2010)

Notice its always the cheaters that say "monogamy is unnatural" ?


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Surely it’s not just “the sex” side of cheating. The fact that a spouse has had sex with another is in and of itself painful enough. But it’s everything else that comes along with an unfaithful spouse. The disloyalty, deceits, lies, denials and blaming. Plus it’s like all we’ve ever done for them is totally negated to the point that what ever we did do for them had absolutely no value. So we see ourselves in their eyes as “valueless”.

Isn’t it fair enough to say just about everyone can understand another’s “need” to have sex with somebody else? Don’t we all feel that way sometimes ourselves? So I think we can understand that bit.

I think it’s the disloyalty, deceits, lies, blaming and denials plus the feeling of being “worthless” in our spouses eyes that really does damage.

If this was an equation that adds up to 100% I would say the “sex side” is 10% to 20% and it’s the disloyalty, deceits, lies, blaming and denials plus the feeling of being “worthless” in our spouses eyes that really does damage and makes up the other 80% to 90% of the equation.

Bob


----------



## Orion (Jul 17, 2010)

So, let me see if I understand. You read this entire thread...saw people saying that they are faithful to their spouses but they recognize the discipline of monogamy, read the extensive debate on primal, natural urges versus the societal mores of monogamy...and your best analysis is "Notice its (sic) always the cheaters that say 'monogamy is unnatural'".
Well-played, 76Trombones. Well-played. Ha!



76Trombones said:


> Notice its always the cheaters that say "monogamy is unnatural" ?


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Bald Eagles
They are the national emblem of the United States, and when it comes to maintaining relationships these birds soar much higher than the country they symbolize. Bald eagles typically mate for life, except in the event of their partner's death or impotency — a number far lower than America's divorce rate, which now exceeds 50 percent.

There’re always exceptions to rules …. swans, wolves, albatrosses ……

Bob


----------

