# Infidelity: Biology or Character Flaw?



## droog (Jul 19, 2014)

The common theme on this forum seems to be that these cheating spouses have flaws and that we are best to dump them and move on, to find better mates.

But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.

Maybe our modern concept of marriage and monogamy is not natural to us as a species?

If that is true, then why do we continue to put ourselves through the pain of marriage and the inevitable divorces? 

It's heartbreaking for me to read stories on here of people who have been cheated on by multiple spouses. Are we chasing an ideal that is unlikely in the modern world?


----------



## See_Listen_Love (Jun 28, 2012)

:scratchhead:

We are beasts off nature. Trying to become civilized by nurture.

The Bible, Evolutionary Biology, Freud, Marxism, Humanism, Psychology, Masters and Johnson, All kinds of statistical research, Rational Thinking, Not Thinking but Drinking, New Age, you name it,

all have ideas about your subject. As far as I know, none has a definite answer, all have some points for them, and some against them.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

What is known is that we evolved as a tribal species. Now whether that means marriage monogamy within the tribe was the standard may not be fully known since since very little can be deduced based on studying what remains from our hunter/gatherer roots. We do have some of our closest related species to study and those present some interesting dynamics. 

What we can say is that cultural evolution exploded at a rate that certainly outpaced our biological evolution when human begin to settle more in the way of domesticating plants and animals. But, we still remain depended upon the tribal unity for our survival. So as much as we may have implemented unique instruments such as marriage and the like it was likely important only in the way of maintaining tribal unity within the newly formed cultural tribal units, farming communities rather than hunter/gatherer nomadic bands. 

So, in terms of marriage, I would say that monogamous marriages are more in line with the new institution of the continued fast pace of our cultural evolution. Does this automatically assume we are genetically programmed to cheat? I am not sure one could characterize it in quite that fashion. I would however suggest that divorce, one that is built around breaking bonds of a tribe are probably outside of our biological nature. We survive best in smaller tightly knit tribal bands (as the way we evolved and split into new tribes under increasing food pressures over most of our time on earth). So we biologically favor building those tightly held tribes (marriage is just a modern tool) over breaking them, but marriage in and of itself while it favors building is still part of the cultural evolution of our time.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I agree with the premise presented in "Sex at Dawn", as there is compelling evidence for it in our biology, behavior, and a couple of centuries of study of the hunter-gatherer societies that remain (and are becoming extinct).

Marriage, monogamy - and therefore the idea of marital cheating - are cultural creations deriving from property and inheritance notions that emerged with agriculture. These relationship notions are attempts to control and override unruly and inconvenient biology, and of course have a high failure rate as they go against nature.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

I believe that as an adult human, you can control things like infidelity pretty easily if you have the desire to. What drives you desires is another argument that I'm not too sympathetic too. 

Throughout life we all have impulses of not wanting to go to work, don't feel like being civil, want to spend vs save, etc.

If your marriage is of a priority to justify saying "I Do" to those vows, you can fully manage to keep them.


----------



## cpacan (Jan 2, 2012)

I still don't get what biology has to do with betrayal. It's a natural trait or desire to want to lie to someone?


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

The pledge of monogamy itself is a declaration that we are trying to do something that is difficult. Otherwise, why would a ceremony with witnesses be necessary? The marital vows of monogamy are statistically going to fail. People will take great risks to copulate. Desire itself is mysterious and hidden from us.

Monogamy probably maximizes the wealth that agriculture and industry produce. We are surviving at rates never experienced during our evolution as hunter gatherers. And yet very few of us are engaged in production of food. Most of our work involves distribution of resources.

Modern medicine provides extraordinary care. The elderly have health insurance from the state, instead of relying on their offspring. Soldiers defend us so that we need not think fighting to protect ourselves from foreign invaders. We are less dependent on the nuclear family than in the past. The cost and inconvenience of divorce is a deterrent to infidelity, but survival is not the issue. The divorced still have enough to eat.

Folks on TAM often say that the cheater should have divorced before screwing around. Clearly divorce is major hassle that requires long term planning. Having sex is an activity with a much shorter time frame.

This is why Machiavelli was fond of saying that as the adulterous woman allows the OM to slip a hand into her panties for the first she often mentally divorces her betrayed husband. Of course the husband does not learn of this until later.

Clearly our social behavior is also a product of evolution. Getting along with groups has made us the top species among mammals. When children are young even to the late teens they have a great desire to fit in. That seems to be true across culture and class. Young people often refrain from certain acts for fear of ridicule or rejection by peers.

Once people become adults there is less anxiety over group approval. Cheaters worry about the consequence of public opinion, but they don't have the same intense desire to be liked and accepted by crowd of people. High school is where that ends.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

cpacan said:


> I still don't get what biology has to do with betrayal. It's a natural trait or desire to want to lie to someone?


Biology is the motivator. Deception is a side effect to avoid consequences. And yes, lieing is a natural, evolved human trait to enhance self-presevation/survival.


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

Natural doesn't mean good.

I'm so bored with these discussions.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

clipclop2 said:


> Natural doesn't mean good.


Similarly, unnatural doesn't mean good.

Besides, who is qualified to define good? Do we question our ideas of good often enough to be sure they really are, and the limits to which the ideas apply?


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

Yeah. OK.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

droog said:


> The common theme on this forum seems to be that these cheating spouses have flaws and that we are best to dump them and move on, to find better mates.
> 
> But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.
> 
> ...


The problem with the "it's all down to biology" approach is that it seems to posit that people are nothing but test tubes with a whole lot of chemicals poured in.

Whilst there is an element of biology/science, people are more than that, I feel.

I think that sometimes marriages can, and should, be saved. There are, however, times when divorce is the best option.

Horses for courses, as the old saying puts it.


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

This is a pretend intellectual discussion.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

clipclop2 said:


> This is a pretend intellectual discussion.



Which is apt since a lot of folks here pretend to be intellectuals


----------



## just got it 55 (Mar 2, 2013)

As a recovered POS WS

Simply put

Those that commit adultery are broken weak people

they lack all the skills to cope with the life they live and chose

Just my $.02

55


----------



## 2xloser (May 8, 2011)

If it's a biological flaw (which I say is bull****, btw), I can't wait to see someone come up with the gene test! Rich, rich, rich!


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Biology makes us want more than just one sexual partner.

Character stops us from hurting the ones we love.


----------



## Philat (Sep 12, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Similarly, unnatural doesn't mean good.
> 
> Besides, who is qualified to define good? Do we question our ideas of good often enough to be sure they really are, and the limits to which the ideas apply?


It isn't a question of "good," literally. It's more a question of which impulses should have primacy. The biology vs. monogamy argument is often framed (such as in this thread) as attempting to impose an artificial structure (monogamy) upon a basic reptilian-brain biological urge, with either the strong implication or explicit claim that this is a feckless endeavor. I.e. biology must win.

Hell, by that argument I should be eating doughnuts all day. Yielding to the biological impulse to ingest foods that give my reptilian taste sensors the most pleasure.

The biology argument is really nothing more than a version of "If it feels good, do it." Does anyone care to argue that this is a viable precept for living on a crowded planet?


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Even if the technically correct answer is Biology, it's still a serious character flaw that defines the cheater. The difference between humans and animals is that we have the ability to reason and thus overcome our base instincts. When you make a vow to be loyal to another for the rest of your life and you break it and chalk it up to "Biology" what you are saying is that we are no better than dogs. I refuse to accept that. If you can't overcome those base instincts, your character is flawed and that defines you as a person.


----------



## droog (Jul 19, 2014)

My intention in asking these questions is very relevant to my life. I am confronted suddenly with my worst fear in the world, divorce. Being betrayed by a spouse who has never lied or been deceptive and with whom I had few major disagreements. I want to honestly confront this question because if it's in our biology to cheat. Then I will choose to not subject myself to marriage again and again as some do.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

It's in your biology too. Should every woman out there tell you, "Not tonight, I have a headache"?

Don't get me wrong. I've been struggling with similar thoughts. I would bet that most marriages have some infidelity at some point. I have no proof.

Remember, you are on a site to help folks with these types of problems. 

If it's kept quiet and no one finds out, many men who were betrayed will be able to look others in the eye. 

Isn't it really a matter of respect? If it's okay with you, and others know that, you can still get the respect you need to feel like a man. 

You will have to decide for yourself, what is best for you. I bet it's not been long since you were hurt. It takes time to come to terms with reality and find what is acceptable to you. 

Remember, if you are okay with whatever is going on, others don't look at you with such disdain.

ETA: I bet there is infidelity in most relationships, married or not. It's just that many don't get caught, or if they do, it's kept quiet.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

droog said:


> But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.
> 
> Maybe our modern concept of marriage and monogamy is not natural to us as a species?


If you accept the fact of evolution, you really have no choice but to accept the fact that monogamy is not natural. Why would men produce millions of sperm all through their adult lives while women produce a limited number of eggs? Men produce sperm whether they have a fertile partner or not. This wouldn't happen unless we had evolved to impregnate more than one female. 

On the female side there is a lot of evidence that human females pursue a 'mixed' breeding strategy of finding a reliable partner who will care for his children while supplementing the genetic input with high-testosterone males. Women have been shown to desire different types of men during different phases ovulation; desiring baby-face carers when they are least fertile and strong-jawed philanderers when they are at their most fertile.

Historically there have been far, far fewer societies which followed even a socially monogamous model than those which practised polygamy. Even when we were nominally monogamous in practise _men_ have only been expected to be sexually monogamous for the last 60 or so years. 

Looking around you will show that even now true monogamy is aspirational. If that were not so there wouldn't be so many posts in the CWI section and millions of prostitutes around the world. 

Having said all that just because it is not natural doesn't mean that it isn't the best model to pursue. Being 'natural' doesn't make something necessarily better. For example from a purely biological point of view wanting to have sex with 15 year-old girls is 'natural', but it is not a good idea or morally acceptable in our society. So using 'naturalness' as a guide for what is right or wrong is dangerous and foolish.

Accepting that monogamy is not natural is vital to combating your 'natural' instincts and seeing them for what they are, instead of seeing your desire to sleep with other people as a symptom of a bad relationship or as some kind of moral weakness. Knowledge is power, and knowing why we desire others will help us to deal with it in the right way, but it should not be used for justification.

What we do need to do is to break the link between sex (and infidelity) and so-called Judeo-Christian morality. To me the guiding principle of life should be Utilitarian; will my course of action cause more harm than good in the world? If yes, then it is wrong, if no it is not. Simple. No superstitious clap-trap about it being just 'wrong' or being against the will of some god.


----------



## Chaparral (Jul 17, 2011)

Scientists claim that there really is a seven year itch in women. Men, I guess have a daily itch. The seven year itch has supposedly been statistically proven. However, two thirds of people manage to avoid doing anything about it. Only one third, appx, of spouses fall to their baser needs. 

Still, that is a large percentage and one person getting hit with those odds is obviously very likely.

If you want to try again there are lists of people most likely to cheats. People that travel for work, teachers, nurses, medical personnel, massage therapists, etc. The better looking people are the more narccisstic they are and the most likely to cheat. The more people a person comes in contact with the more likely to cheat.

Its even believed teachers may be so high on the list because of their being in a hormone cesspool.

One study claims over seventy percent of people would cheat if they knew they wouldn't get caught. Of course that can be taken with a grain of woulda coulda shoulda salt as with all "studies".

Ones howm life does have an affect too. According to the big married cheater site, they are swamped the day after Valentines and Mother's Day. DUH


----------



## WalterWhite (Sep 14, 2012)

It is in male human nature to spread his seed. You see this all over the animal world. Man wants to spread his genes by taking off her jeans. It is in man's nature to have sex with as mean beautiful females as he can. Civilization is the ability of man to restrain this natural urges so that order, safety, can exists in the community.

What divides the good from the bad is the extent a man can restrain his natural urges. The better character a man has the better he can restrain his natural urges.

CHEATING IS IN MAN'S GENES, HIS DNA, HIS ROM. LETS NOT KID OURSELVES ABOUT THIS! ALL MEN WANT TO SCREW AS MANY WOMEN AS POSSIBLE INCLUDING ME. ALL MEN HAVE THIS TO VARYING DEGREES.

Females by nature look for males to give them sperm. Females are programmed to be choosy and they seek the sperm of males who are the strongest, smartest, most resourceful, and kind that they can find. Females do their best to seduce a man into giving his sperm only to here because she and their offspring need his protection from danger.

Marriage is encouraged by Judeo-Christian paradigms as well as other beliefs because marriage brings rules, safety, and expectations to the community.

In modern times, up through 2014 and going forward, females have attained the same economic strength as males, and this is causing females to behave like males regarding sex. Modern females now desire to have sex with as many males as possible, yet they still hold on to the need for monogamy.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Philat said:


> It isn't a question of "good," literally. It's more a question of which impulses should have primacy. The biology vs. monogamy argument is often framed (such as in this thread) as attempting to impose an artificial structure (monogamy) upon a basic reptilian-brain biological urge, with either the strong implication or explicit claim that this is a feckless endeavor. I.e. biology must win.
> 
> Hell, by that argument I should be eating doughnuts all day. Yielding to the biological impulse to ingest foods that give my reptilian taste sensors the most pleasure.
> 
> The biology argument is really nothing more than a version of "If it feels good, do it." Does anyone care to argue that this is a viable precept for living on a crowded planet?


Your argument is bogus. We didn't evolve to eat processed foods, and didn't evolve to be monogamous. Both are artefacts of artificial culture, and both may be unhealthy (albeit to different degrees). And I'm not saying monogamy is bad, but it is fraught with problems largely because it is contrary to biology and evolved behaviors (as are doughnuts).


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Okay, I just want to add that this seems to be an evolving argument.

I see the multiple partner thing while having a spouse, as a weakness. I am not accusing anyone of being weak. I'm just relating how I think about it.

I think that because, it seems like, to me, that when one does that, they have accepted that they cannot find the one person in their life(not sure how to put this), or in their limited area of contact with others, who can fulfill their need for sex, intimacy, financial compatibility, and respect. 

I hope that isn't too confusing. It's tough to put into words.

They are settling for part of all the things they need in the person they married, and going out to find the things they cannot get within the marriage.


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

Monogamy is in theory a biological and evolutionary trait.

Two people committed to raising spawn doubles the chance at young survival rate.

Some species in the wild mate for life too.

I wonder if there's a "talk about penguin marriage" forum in some other universe....


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

alphaomega said:


> M
> Some species in the wild mate for life too.


Virtually every time they do a DNA study on a supposedly monogamous species they find that a percentage of the young are not a genetic match with the putative 'father'. There seem to be very few, if any, truly monogamous animals.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

To answer the question put forth in the title of the thread...

Both.


----------



## droog (Jul 19, 2014)

The implications of this are huge. If it's just a character flaw, then I can confidently move forward and try to find another spouse who will not cheat on me. If it's biology. Well then there isn't much hope is there. You would need to find someone who's rational brain and morals are able to consistently and forever in the future overrule their biology. And even then, in the right situation they could stray.


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

droog said:


> The implications of this are huge.


Only if you fall pray to the sales pitches promoting various agendas. Somebody already said what I'm rephrasing. Its biological to desire certain things. It a character flaw to go after all of them.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

droog said:


> The implications of this are huge. If it's just a character flaw, then I can confidently move forward and try to find another spouse who will not cheat on me. If it's biology. Well then there isn't much hope is there. You would need to find someone who's rational brain and morals are able to consistently and forever in the future overrule their biology. And even then, in the right situation they could stray.


And that's what I have come to believe, right or wrong. I know I could have cheated, if I let myself. I would have been happy to do so at least twice. 

I most certainly would have been caught. I have no ability to lie in that manner and be believable. I just never learned how.

I did not because I somehow thought of the woman who loved me. I felt some pain because of the experiences I had previous to her. I did not want her to feel that pain. 

Big mistake. I misjudged her. I could have cheated and while doing so, talk with her about our marriage. I doubt she really would have been hurt as much as I was by her infidelity. She was already emotionally removed from the marriage before she cheated. I would not have been.

If I cheated, I believe it would have emotionally disconnected me from her, and I would have been harmed much less by my discovery of her infidelities. 

Maybe she got to the point of no return because of what she believed and felt through learned behavior, biology, and character? 

Either way, it doesn't change what happened.


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> She was already emotionally removed from the marriage before she cheated.


That's the way it is 90+% of the time.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

droog said:


> The implications of this are huge. If it's just a character flaw, then I can confidently move forward and try to find another spouse who will not cheat on me. If it's biology. Well then there isn't much hope is there. You would need to find someone who's rational brain and morals are able to consistently and forever in the future overrule their biology. And even then, in the right situation they could stray.


You have to be careful with spending a lot of time in the CWI forum. It becomes the new reality, with nothing but cheaters, everywhere. In the real world there are many who don't ever cheat. 

I sometimes think that if there was less moralising and judgement when it comes to non-monogamy then those who were incapable of being monogamous would be more likely to be honest and might avoid causing so much pain. We are all pressured into thinking that a monogamous relationship and 2.4 children is the only legitimate lifestyle. 

Wouldn't it be better if we were all just rational and honest about it and allow those who want, and are capable of, monogamy find one another and those who don't want it and aren't capable of it pair up with like minded people, or just stay single? The forces of social conservatism make us pretend to be what we are not, with disastrous results.


----------



## See_Listen_Love (Jun 28, 2012)

droog said:


> My intention in asking these questions is very relevant to my life. I am confronted suddenly with my worst fear in the world, divorce. Being betrayed by a spouse who has never lied or been deceptive and with whom I had few major disagreements. I want to honestly confront this question because if it's in our biology to cheat. Then I will choose to not subject myself to marriage again and again as some do.


This kind of philosophic discussion is in now way a good foundation for real life decisions.

Your gut is a better indicator, formed to give you hints about good and wrong. Your conscience also, works good.

Men's rational thinking? Not so good at all.

Anyway, if you would fall in love, you would throw it overboard anyway.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

The Middleman said:


> Even if the technically correct answer is Biology, it's still a serious character flaw that defines the cheater. The difference between humans and animals is that we have the ability to reason and thus overcome our base instincts. When you make a vow to be loyal to another for the rest of your life and you break it and chalk it up to "Biology" what you are saying is that we are no better than dogs. I refuse to accept that. If you can't overcome those base instincts, you character is flawed and that defines you as a person.


I agree. 

When my marriage was bad, I didn't have any "biological" need to cheat on my husband, it never crossed my mind. Take another woman, with the same experience as mine but she cheated. What's the difference between the two of us?


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

soccermom2three said:


> I agree.
> 
> When my marriage was bad, I didn't have any "biological" need to cheat on my husband, it never crossed my mind. Take another woman, with the same experience as mine but she cheated. *What's the difference between the two of us*?




The difference is character and empathy


----------



## Philat (Sep 12, 2013)

It takes a flawed character to betray a loved one's faith and trust, whether by marital infidelity or anything else. Failure to behave monogamously can be called a character flaw only when it results in a betrayal of faith or trust (and this betrayal is real even if the betrayed partner is unaware).


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Cheating is a moral failure because people so trust their spouses, but from an evolutionary point of view it may be successful.

Many famous people, artists, writers, politicians, etc., have cheated. Yet few judge them by their fornication. That is a footnote. Moreover, there are certainly biographers who note that the cheating partner gave something to the genius that allowed them to be even more productive.

Hollywood, which many of us worship, is full of cheaters and their dramas. This cheating is entertaining. Fascinating to know that Julia Roberts stole another man's wife and even joked with her about her desire to "borrow him". Julia Roberts' career was not hurt a bit by the "scandal".


----------



## allwillbewell (Dec 13, 2012)

While biology may rule the instincts, we make an intellectual and emotional choice to marry or not. Depending on those marriage vows, monogamy and fidelity are usually expected by both partners. 

If one believes they should be entitled to fornicate with as many partners as they want, then they should stay single.

If one desires to commit to monogamy with one partner through the ritual of marriage, they have a moral and ethical responsibility to remain sexually and emotionally loyal to that partner. 

If one discovers they had made the wrong decision about the partner they committed to by taking vows, they should sever the marriage bond before seeking a new partner.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

allwillbewell said:


> While biology may rule the instincts, we make an intellectual and emotional choice to marry or not. Depending on those marriage vows, monogamy and fidelity are usually expected by both partners.


I completely agree with this. There is a problem though: most people are working with erroneous and misleading information because of cultural indoctrination, so their choices are flawed


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> You have to be careful with spending a lot of time in the CWI forum. It becomes the new reality, with nothing but cheaters, everywhere. In the real world there are many who don't ever cheat.
> 
> *I sometimes think that if there was less moralising and judgement when it comes to non-monogamy then those who were incapable of being monogamous would be more likely to be honest and might avoid causing so much pain. * We are all pressured into thinking that a monogamous relationship and 2.4 children is the only legitimate lifestyle.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better if we were all just rational and honest about it and allow those who want, and are capable of, monogamy find one another and those who don't want it and aren't capable of it pair up with like minded people, or just stay single? The forces of social conservatism make us pretend to be what we are not, with disastrous results.


I disagree. cheaters lie so that their partner /spouse won't leave. Either the cheater is cake eating; sampling; or planning their own exit strategy that they don't want trumped. 

If cheating is not about lying, then why don't cheaters readily admit that they are straying?


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

NextTimeAround said:


> I disagree. cheaters lie so that their partner /spouse won't leave. Either the cheater is cake eating; sampling; or planning their own exit strategy that they don't want trumped.
> 
> If cheating is not about lying, then why don't cheaters readily admit that they are straying?


I am not saying cheaters don't lie. That was not the point of my comment, I am saying that we all feel the social pressure to find a long-term partner and to try to be monogamous. People who go through life having multiple sex partners, especially women who do so, are negatively judged. 

Perhaps if we dropped the moral censure of alternative lifestyles fewer of those who can't or don't want to be monogamous will get married in the first place and become cheaters. 

With the high rate of marriage failure due to infidelity surely it is only rational to explore the reasons why and try to find solutions instead of just saying _'cheaterz iz bad'._


----------



## cpacan (Jan 2, 2012)

Thats a new one, normally it's the betrayed partners fault, now it's society's fault.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

cpacan said:


> Thats a new one, normally it's the betrayed partners fault, now it's society's fault.


It is not a matter of whose fault it is, there is a problem and we should try to find a solution. As Einstein said: 'Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is a sign of madness.'

Do you think it is a good idea for people who can't be monogamous to marry and hurt people?


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> I am not saying cheaters don't lie. That was not the point of my comment, I am saying that we all feel the social pressure to find a long-term partner and to try to be monogamous. People who go through life having multiple sex partners, especially women who do so, are negatively judged.
> 
> Perhaps if we dropped the moral censure of alternative lifestyles fewer of those who can't or don't want to be monogamous will get married in the first place and become cheaters.
> 
> With the high rate of marriage failure due to infidelity surely it is only rational to explore the reasons why and try to find solutions instead of just saying _'cheaterz iz bad'._




I don't think monogamy is the issue if you look at cases where wayward spouses have worked with their betrayed to recover their marriage they tend to not cheat again so how do you explain this they just decide to become monogamous when they weren't before hand or maybe what it is they identify, over come, and improve character flaws with themselves.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

xakulax said:


> I don't think monogamy is the issue if you look at cases where wayward spouses have worked with their betrayed to recover their marriage they tend to not cheat again so how do you explain this they just decide to become monogamous when they weren't before hand or maybe what it is they identify, over come, and improve character flaws with themselves.


Sleeping with somebody else means you are not monogamous. I don't really follow your post nor see what it has to do with what I said.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

ThePheonix said:


> The "its biological" is assuming people who cheat do so the satisfy a sexual urge and that's its inherent in them to satisfy it with another person. Not always and I submit, not usually the case. I believe most cheat because they have something to prove. Hence the so called middle age crazies where men need to prove they still have it or obtaining the so called trophy wife that's done primarily to impress others.


We all desire others sexually, whether we are married or not. That is a biological fact. What makes us give in to temptation at the high rate we do is another matter, but there is no denying that the urge to have sex with many partners is biological. If the biological urge wasn't there we would neither want to nor be capable of doing it.


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

The "its biological" is assuming people who cheat do so the satisfy a sexual urge and that's its inherent in them to satisfy it with another person.  Not always and I submit, not usually the case. I believe most cheat because they have something to prove. Hence the so called middle age crazies where men need to prove they still have it or obtaining the so called trophy wife that's done primarily to impress others. The "serial cheater" is in the bucket with those using sex as a means to fill up preceived voids and disappointments in their lives.


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> Sleeping with somebody else means you are not monogamous. I don't really follow your post nor see what it has to do with what I said.



The point that I'm trying to make is that people who cheat do so due to character flaws and the inability to resist temptation It has nothing to do with one wanting a non monogamous lifestyle as many cheaters who are truly remorseful tend to not cheat again so what it has to do with is character, empathy,and maybe even to a large degree fairness if one spouse doesn't want to be in a monogamous relationship then there are transparent options that can appease both parties in the marriage before deciding to cheat and deceive to me the latter part is indicative of someone with bad character.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

xakulax said:


> if one spouse doesn't want to be in a monogamous relationship then there are transparent options that can appease both parties in the marriage before deciding to cheat


That is exactly my point.


xakulax said:


> deceive to me the latter part is indicative of someone with bad character.


It is tricky attributing it to individual 'bad character' when so many people end up doing it. Most reliable stats talk about between 20% and 50% of people committing adultery. Are you saying that billions of people around the world just have 'character flaws' and there is no systemic problem? 

It is not really helpful to write off so many people as 'bad' rather than trying to get to the bottom of why it happens so often.


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> That is exactly my point.It is tricky attributing it to individual 'bad character' when so many people end up doing it. Most reliable stats talk about between 20% and 50% of people committing adultery. Are you saying that billions of people around the world just have 'character flaws' and there is no systemic problem?
> 
> It is not really helpful to write off so many people as 'bad' rather than trying to get to the bottom of why it happens so often.




Would you agree that if one spouse doesn't want to be in monogamous relationship while maintaining the married lifestyle they should also extend the same opportunity to their spouse ?


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

"Sex at Dawn"

"Ethical $lut"

"Opening Up"

I could be wrong but none of them discuss cheating. All three discuss that it's not in our biology to be monogamous... That doesn't mean cheating on our partner. 

It may be in our biology to be promiscuous, but its definitely not in our biology to cheat. 

A person who cheats and then goes home to their spouse and acts as if all is well? That is very cold hearted....That is not in my biology. My wife would know something was up the second I walked in the door...

There has been several people come to TAM because they cheated and are remorseful beyond belief and admit what they did to their spouse. Then proceed to lose everything...

There is a difference....


If an "open relationship" was discussed from the start, both would more than likely be against it...yet so many people cheat.


Do we just lie to ourself thinking one person can be our everything? I know most people want to believe that.


----------



## Philat (Sep 12, 2013)

johnnycomelately said:


> Do you think it is a good idea for people who can't be monogamous to marry and hurt people?


I'm not sure that I accept prima facie the contention that there are people who "can't be monogamous." They may choose not to be. If they choose not to be while they are in a relationship that assumes they will be, then they be cheatin' trash.


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

Trickster said:


> "Sex at Dawn"
> 
> "Ethical $lut"
> 
> ...




:iagree::iagree:



Character is being open and honest about who you are and what you want it's the difference between being transparent with someone about what you want in a relationship and deceiving someone to get what you want..

This whole argument about non monogamous human behavior just sounds like pseudoscience to me especially when you consider how many wayward spouses we have seen who have cheated briefly but upon exposure never cheated again now I will admit this argument about non monogamous behavior might hold water for a serial cheaters.


----------



## cuchulain36 (Jul 8, 2014)

Definitely a character flaw, I love my wife but her morals are definitely flexible. She was going to trial for a talking on a cell phone ticket, she had every intention of just plum lying and telling the court she wasn't talking on her cell phone. It's not just that, it's a ton of other examples, she has no problem being dishonest, and every cheater I've known was the same way.

I'm not a perfect person but cheating or lying in a court is not something I would ever consider, but it came natural to her.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

cuchulain36 said:


> Definitely a character flaw, I love my wife but her morals are definitely flexible. She was going to trial for a talking on a cell phone ticket, she had every intention of just plum lying and telling the court she wasn't talking on her cell phone. It's not just that, it's a ton of other examples, she has no problem being dishonest, and every cheater I've known was the same way.
> 
> I'm not a perfect person but cheating or lying in a court is not something I would ever consider, but it came natural to her.



I am one of those people who can't lie if my life depended on it. 

I got pulled over for speeding several years ago. The officer ask why I thought he pulled me over. 

I said "yes sir...I was doing 80 in a 65... " are you in a hurry"? No.. I replied...." I just didn't realize how fast I was going until you put on the lights"

" watch your speed"... He let me go with a warning..

I didn't try to make up some story. I told the truth.


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

Philat said:


> I'm not sure that I accept prima facie the contention that there are people who "can't be monogamous." They may choose not to be. If they choose not to be while they are in a relationship that assumes they will be, then they be cheatin' trash.


I'm with you. I know of several situation where women could not be true in the first or second marriage/relationship but absolutely faithful in the next. In my former "profession", I was with dozens of women before I divorced my first wife but solidly faithful to my current wife. (21 years)


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

xakulax said:


> Would you agree that if one spouse doesn't want to be in monogamous relationship while maintaining the married lifestyle they should also extend the same opportunity to their spouse ?


It's up to each couple involved. I just think we should be less censorious about people who make these decisions for themselves considering how badly we have f*cked up the monogamy experiment.


----------



## droog (Jul 19, 2014)

You guys are great, I love this thread. You are mirroring the arguments that are going on in my head.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Philat said:


> I'm not sure that I accept prima facie the contention that there are people who "can't be monogamous." They may choose not to be. If they choose not to be while they are in a relationship that assumes they will be, then they be cheatin' trash.


I agree. I am by nature polyamorous, but have been in several relationships with women who expected monogamy. I agreed to and honored the rules of those relationships, and did not cheat. I can't always say the same of my supposedly monogamous partners. 

I've also been in poly and open relationships and observed the agreed rules in those, and did not cheat.


----------



## Lister (Jan 29, 2013)

Just dipped into this thread so sorry if the following point has already been made.

The 'biology' excuse is one used by Paedophiles to justify their abuse of children. They often argue that the age of consent is an unnatural modern imposition upon natural behaviour and therefore they are justified doing what they are doing. 

Clearly in a civilised modern society this is an unnacceptable answer. It is true that there are many men (mainly) who find children attractive however society has decided that the age of consent is needed to protect children. Therefore men with these urges need to overcome them or face the legal consequences.

The same should be true of adultary. It is irrelevant that you have the urge to be unfaithful, you need to have the strength to overcome those urges for the sake of those you love.


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

As animals (and we are) we do have basic instincts that are woven into our being

What sets us apart from the rest of the animals on this planet is we are rational(most of the time), intelligent(some of time) and we are responsible for the choices we make(rarely)

I have the deep desire to mate with many of the women I see around me (whether or not my spouse and I are getting along or not, I still want to) but the intelligent rational person who is somewhat responsible knows the choice and commitment I made to be in a monogamous relationship.

I am a intelligent animal (how intelligent is up for discussion) I can say yes or no and the choices I make are of my own free will, when I make the wrong choices it is easy to blame it on biology, my horrible spouse or the family dog but in truth it is my own weakness of character and my failure as an intelligent animal and the blame all the blame rests with me.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

love=pain said:


> As animals (and we are) we do have basic instincts that are woven into our being
> 
> What sets us apart from the rest of the animals on this planet is we are rational(most of the time), intelligent(some of time) and we are responsible for the choices we make(rarely)
> 
> ...



What if both spouses agree to "mate" with others. A couple can satisfy their "animal instincts", without cheating, without infidelity....we as animals wouldn't have to justify cheating because we have a horrible spouse.

We can make a rational intelligent decision about having relationships with other people, whether its sexual or platonic, without hurting our spouse...

Would that be making a wrong choice?


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

Infidelity= character flaw

Polymory (more than one love) = biology


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

Trickster said:


> Would that be making a wrong choice?


When one of them gives you a gift that keeps on giving it would be.  This argument, biology or character flaw, is silly anyway. Most any guy checking out the babes at the beach know the answer. But the rules of relationships are similar to laws that a put there to counter biological urges. 
In the final analysis, I'm going to stick with the premise I've argued all along. As a general rule, when the romantic interest in your mate is at a high level, that counters the urge to be with someone else; especially true in women. ( If women disagree, please educate me.)


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

Trickster said:


> What if both spouses agree to "mate" with others. A couple can satisfy their "animal instincts", without cheating, without infidelity....we as animals wouldn't have to justify cheating because we have a horrible spouse.
> 
> We can make a rational intelligent decision about having relationships with other people, whether its sexual or platonic, without hurting our spouse...
> 
> Would that be making a wrong choice?


You are talking about 2 different relationships and polluting the original question in this thread. To blame biology on cheating when you made the intelligent decision to be in a committed relationship is wrong. If I may go a step further people in a poly relationship are not completely committed to each other, if they were there would be no need to step outside the relationship to satisfy those biological needs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

love=pain said:


> You are talking about 2 different relationships and polluting the original question in this thread. To blame biology on cheating when you made the intelligent decision to be in a committed relationship is wrong. If I may go a step further people in a poly relationship are not completely committed to each other, if they were there would be no need to step outside the relationship to satisfy those biological needs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The OP has a polluted question. Cheating is a characters flaw...cheating is not in our biology. 

The OP mentioned the book "Sex at Dawn", Which has nothing to do with infidelity...

Non non monogamy doesn't mean cheating...

Loving one to forsake call others goes against our biology. We have to resist the biological urge... Some people can do that. With the popularity of TAM, it revels that people who believe they have a committed marriage, may not be true.

I will agree for those in a committed loving relationship with a partner who provide all our needs, there would be no reason to step out, even in an open marriage. I would also think that with people who are in an open marriage have very few relationships with others...


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Lister said:


> Just dipped into this thread so sorry if the following point has already been made.
> 
> The 'biology' excuse is one used by Paedophiles to justify their abuse of children. They often argue that the age of consent is an unnatural modern imposition upon natural behaviour and therefore they are justified doing what they are doing.
> 
> ...


You are confusing paedophilia and ephebophilia. Paedophilia is the sexual interest in pre-pubescent children and ephebophilia in post-pubescent children, as in teenagers. The laws of most countries make a distinction between the two because of the biological factor. 

No-one on this forum has used biology as an 'excuse' but it is better to acknowledge that the biological factor is there in our desire to have sex with others rather than ignore it and hope for the best. Part of solving any problem is acknowledging that there is one and getting to the root of it. Just saying 'overcome it' has been tried for decades and is apparently failing in too many cases. That attitude is not going to get us any closer to solving the problem.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

love=pain said:


> If I may go a step further people in a poly relationship are not completely committed to each other, if they were there would be no need to step outside the relationship to satisfy those biological needs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Have you ever been in a polyamorous relationship? If not, then I can tell you that you are definitively wrong. I think you may be coming from a position where you've been indoctrinated into the monogamy myth.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

droog said:


> The common theme on this forum seems to be that these cheating spouses have flaws and that we are best to dump them and move on, to find better mates.
> 
> But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.
> 
> ...


Hmm, it's interesting topic. I do believe that humans are mildly driven by our hormonal impulses, but to a MUCH larger extent, our thoughts and beliefs. Probably at least 80/20.

I've seen my wife get hot for me because of a number of reasons. But I've never seen a woman go "into heat" and a group of men fight over her and then the winner jumps her like in the animal kingdom....go figure.

Sure biology drives us, much like a motor provides power to a vehicle, but without and actual driver (our thoughts and brain) that car isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ThePheonix said:


> The "its biological" is assuming people who cheat do so the satisfy a sexual urge and that's its inherent in them to satisfy it _*with another person*_.


Pheonix, I am so glad you posted this. I have been scratching my head, wondering WHY it is that so many people believe that their sexual urges MUST be satisfied by another person...whether that other person is their girlfriend in high school, a prostitute, their boyfriend, their wife or their affair partner. After all, many of us started out by satisfying ourselves before we even knew what sex was! For that reason I see that satisfying ourselves is more 'natural' than the act of sex with someone else. 

It seems that wanting someone else to satisfy that urge is more _psycho_-logical than _bio_-logical, especially since most of us have the ability to satisfy it ourselves. 

I see infidelity as more of a character flaw than 'biology'. Infidelity doesn't begin with PIV intercourse (biology); it starts OUTSIDE the bedroom and INSIDE the head of a cheater. 

If we're going to say that infidelity is biological, then we may as well say that LYING is 'biological' too...

If it's 'biological', then why doesn't EVERYONE do it?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

droog said:


> The common theme on this forum seems to be that these cheating spouses have flaws and that we are best to dump them and move on, to find better mates.
> 
> But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.
> 
> ...


Yes, we are hard wired to want to have sex with multiple people. When we mate, our instincts do not automagically restrict us from wanting to screw other people.

However, that doesn't stop us from making commitments.

My instinct often tells me to punch someone in the head. I choose not to do that because I am not my instincts.

My instinct often tells me to eat a giant plate of nachos covered in cheese and banana peppers and a couple litres of beer every day. I choose not to do that because I am not my instincts.

My instinct often tells me not to get out of bed and come into work every day because it's comfy and warm and I want to sleep in. I choose not to do that because I am not my instincts.

We all are attracted to other people. Whether we choose to act on that attraction or not when we are in a committed relationship is a question of character, not biology.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

I'm a former wayard and I wouldn't classify myself as flawed. I've always been an impulsive spur of the moment type of guy. I had so many failed business ventures and burnt through so much cash at one point that my wife's family thought I should be put on SSRIs. I refused of course because I was happy with myself the way I was. Eventually things came together for me.

The gambler/risk taker in me is what led to my biggest successes and my biggest disappointments too. Admittedly, this personality aspect did not make me the ideal husband when I was younger. I do think my personality did make me more likely to cheat, but I'm hesitant to call it a flaw. I view it more as a lack of maturity.


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

Being impulsive is seen as a flaw. A frontal lobe issue. Executive functioning is important to successful adult life.


----------



## Lister (Jan 29, 2013)

johnnycomelately said:


> You are confusing paedophilia and ephebophilia. Paedophilia is the sexual interest in pre-pubescent children and ephebophilia in post-pubescent children, as in teenagers. The laws of most countries make a distinction between the two because of the biological factor.
> 
> No-one on this forum has used biology as an 'excuse' but it is better to acknowledge that the biological factor is there in our desire to have sex with others rather than ignore it and hope for the best. Part of solving any problem is acknowledging that there is one and getting to the root of it. Just saying 'overcome it' has been tried for decades and is apparently failing in too many cases. That attitude is not going to get us any closer to solving the problem.


I stand corrected, ephebophilia is what i was referring to. My point is i have heard biological arguments used to explain and justify this behaviour. 
Not sure if anyone on this forum would use it to justify waward behaviour as it would result in a severe kicking, but i am prepared to bet that there are WSs who have used it to ease their guilt. Why do i say this, because i was one. During the A and after my A was discovered i tried to find anything to avoid the conclusion that i was a complete self centred b*****d. This included the normal fault finding with my wife, mid life crisis and giving in to natural biological urges. All of these are delusional , the bottom line was I wanted to have fun and damn the consequences.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

marduk said:


> Yes, we are hard wired to want to have sex with multiple people.


Not buying this. Once again, if this was true, then ALL of us would want sex with others despite our marital/relationship status.

I was with a man who was angry, controlling and abusive. I got to a point where I had no desire to have sex with him. But I also didn't want to have sex with anyone else, either. Yet, I still had those biological "urges" that I satisfied myself. 

I would be very happy to have sex with ONE person for the rest of my life without feeling that I'm "missing something".


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> Not buying this. Once again, if this was true, then ALL of us would want sex with others despite our marital/relationship status.


False. People *range* from highly monogamous to higly promiscuous. Not everyone is identical, and biologically there are many different mating strategies and preferences that succeed. Many if not most would want sex with others if they could do so without harming their SO - and many do so even when that risk clearly exists. If people were strictly monogamous, few if any would engage in sex with anyone but their partner.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
People have all sorts of natural urges. Civilization is based on having the control to not act on those urges.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> People have all sorts of natural urges. Civilization is based on having the control to not act on those urges.


YES!! Monogamy DOES take a certain degree of self-control. And it seems like the people who find that having any degree of self-control to be uncomfortable or difficult are the ones who decide that monogamy is 'unnatural'...and therefore shouldn't be _expected_. 

Of course, isn't it ironic how MANY cheaters expect the NON-cheater to control their own 'natural urges'? 

Oh, the things that make you go, "Hmmmm..."


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

clipclop2 said:


> Being impulsive is seen as a flaw. A frontal lobe issue. Executive functioning is important to successful adult life.


I can see how many would see it that way. But I think the world needs all types of people. I don't know, I guess it just feels like everybody wants to be the same these days. That's why I was offended when some people around me wanted me to change. To me they were trying to take my edge away. It may be considered a flaw but without it I know I wouldn't have accomplished as much as I have professionally.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

ReformedHubby said:


> I can see how many would see it that way. But I think the world needs all types of people. I don't know, I guess it just feels like everybody wants to be the same these days. That's why I was offended when some people around me wanted me to change. To me they were trying to take my edge away. It may be considered a flaw but without it I know I wouldn't have accomplished as much as I have professionally.


"Your weaknesses are your strengths pushed to extreme."


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ReformedHubby said:


> I'm a former wayard and I wouldn't classify myself as flawed. I've always been an impulsive spur of the moment type of guy. I had so many failed business ventures and burnt through so much cash at one point that my wife's family thought I should be put on SSRIs. I refused of course because I was happy with myself the way I was. Eventually things came together for me.
> 
> The gambler/risk taker in me is what led to my biggest successes and my biggest disappointments too. Admittedly, this personality aspect did not make me the ideal husband when I was younger. I do think my personality did make me more likely to cheat, but I'm hesitant to call it a flaw. I view it more as a lack of maturity.


Dude, you say you're not flawed and then detail the fact that:
a) you're impulsive
b) risked your family's financial well-being
c) immature

I'm glad you're happy with who you are. But those are some serious flaws worth some introspection about.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Vega said:


> Not buying this. Once again, if this was true, then ALL of us would want sex with others despite our marital/relationship status.
> 
> I was with a man who was angry, controlling and abusive. I got to a point where I had no desire to have sex with him. But I also didn't want to have sex with anyone else, either. Yet, I still had those biological "urges" that I satisfied myself.
> 
> I would be very happy to have sex with ONE person for the rest of my life without feeling that I'm "missing something".


I struggle with this.

Just because you weren't tempted doesn't mean that you couldn't be. Anyway, my point was that you don't go from being attracted to people to only being attracted to one person because you have a ring on your finger.

I mean, I was in a similar place. Ex was quite abusive and angry all the time. I was given all kinds of opportunities to stray and was never really tempted because of my emotional pain.

But it doesn't mean that my body didn't notice other people, or that someone wasn't attractive to me.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lister said:


> My point is i have heard biological arguments used to explain and justify this behaviour.
> Not sure if anyone on this forum would use it to justify waward behaviour as it would result in a severe kicking, but i am prepared to bet that there are WSs who have used it to ease their guilt. Why do i say this, because i was one. During the A and after my A was discovered i tried to find anything to avoid the conclusion that i was a complete self centred b*****d. This included the normal fault finding with my wife, mid life crisis and giving in to natural biological urges. All of these are delusional , the bottom line was I wanted to have fun and damn the consequences.


+1 for honesty, thanks for this.


----------



## murphy5 (May 1, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> You have to be careful with spending a lot of time in the CWI forum. It becomes the new reality, with nothing but cheaters, everywhere. In the real world there are many who don't ever cheat.
> .


I LOVE ice cream, candy, cookies, buttered toast with cinnamon and sugar....but I know if I eat them my blood sugar will spike, I will put on fat, and it will be very bad for me. Hence, I do not do it. You could say it is in my DNA to be predisposed to love carbs! But I use my mental powers to refuse to wallow in them.

What is the difference between that and cheating. I am a HD guy. I see attractive women all over the place, some even hitting on me. But, I have a brain, and can override the thought, even if Mr. Happy is starting to stir! 

So although there IS a biological component to cheating, I do not think it is anywhere near as important as the lack of will power. Or maybe a better term would be "a lack of morals"


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

marduk said:


> Dude, you say you're not flawed and then detail the fact that:
> a) you're impulsive
> b) risked your family's financial well-being
> c) immature
> ...


I hear ya, but do keep in mind I was only addressing the personality attributes that I believe led me to stray. There is a lot more to me than just those three items. 

Overall I wouldn't say that I'm still immature. My infidelity happened years ago. Regarding the other two items well I guess its just how I'm wired. I will always be willing to risk it all to achieve an important goal.


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

ReformedHubby said:


> I hear ya, but do keep in mind I was only addressing the personality attributes that I believe led me to stray. There is a lot more to me than just those three items.
> 
> Overall I wouldn't say that I'm still immature. My infidelity happened years ago. Regarding the other two items well I guess its just how I'm wired. I will always be willing to risk it all to achieve an important goal.



_"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for anything one has a mind to do" - Ben Franklin_


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

Reformed-

I know this is a stupid question however...

Do you think you would be happy with an open marriage? 
Do you feel that cheating would of had the same allure as it did for you if you didn't have to hide it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

Trickster said:


> Reformed-
> 
> I know this is a stupid question however...
> 
> ...


Not a dumb question at all. I don't mind answering honestly. But as a disclaimer please keep in mind that my answers are for the most part a reflection of how I felt back _then_, when I was cheating.

I would not be happy with an open marriage. Not back then and not now. I honestly could not handle my wife being with someone else. As for it being open just for me and closed for her I didn't want that either. Because then I would have had to admit to myself that I had no intention of stopping. I didn't want to face that I was a terrible person. It was easier to keep telling myself it was the last time.

I really can't relate to the posts about the secrecy adding to the excitement. I think for me it would have had the same allure even if I didn't have to hide it. For me it was about the different experiences, not the secrecy. Looking back my biggest problem was that I didn't seem to have a "no" switch. Whenever an opportunity presented itself instead of saying, "I'm married", my mind would say, "Why not?". Lots of married men get hit on all the time and don't follow up because its the right thing to do. I almost always followed up to see where it would lead.

I know I'm not exactly endearing myself to the masses here with a glimpse into my past, so I feel its important to emphasize that it is the*past*.


----------



## JustGrinding (Oct 26, 2012)

Men are also biologically predisposed to tear the male trespasser limb-from-limb with bare hands and teeth, and to summarily exterminate (and even cannibalize) trespasser's offspring.

So, just how far do you want to go in deconstructing the tenets of civilized co-existence we've built over thousands of years of trial and error?

But hey, whatever y'all decide. I'm good with it either way.


----------



## cpacan (Jan 2, 2012)

ReformedHubby said:


> Not a dumb question at all. I don't mind answering honestly. But as a disclaimer please keep in mind that my answers are for the most part a reflection of how I felt back _then_, when I was cheating.
> 
> I would not be happy with an open marriage. Not back then and not now. I honestly could not handle my wife being with someone else. As for it being open just for me and closed for her I didn't want that either. Because then I would have had to admit to myself that I had no intention of stopping. I didn't want to face that I was a terrible person. It was easier to keep telling myself it was the last time.
> 
> ...


I liked the post, not because I like what you did, but because you are able to put into words and reflect on it. It also reflects my wife's thought process to a T, it seems. Thank you for the post.


----------



## Dyokemm (Apr 24, 2013)

It is the old debate of 'nature' v. 'nurture' in understanding human behavior.

Both play a factor for sure, but it is clear IMO that 'nurture' plays a far greater role in guiding behavior.

It is true that human beings are NOT biologically designed or predisposed to monogamy.

However, the socializing process in human communities and groups counteracts that by establishing rules and mores that control or restrict breeding activities.

These social mores do indeed differ from culture to culture, and monogamy is only ONE form of social institution to regulate behavior.

Polygamy and polyandry are not unknown in other cultures, so in no way can it be claimed that monogamy is in any way 'natural' or a function of human biology.

That said, the reason that human social groups have established mores and rules about acceptable relationship/breeding behavior is because the complete chaos of merely following 'biological' urges would create jealousies, competitions, and strife that would threaten to tear the community apart if unchecked....and human beings have evolved for GROUP survival instincts/patterns, not individualized ones. Individually, humans are slow and weak, easy prey for other predators....it is our ability to work in groups, including the advanced tool making this makes possible, that has allowed us to reach the peak of the food chain.

The reason infidelity, and other forms of betrayal, are considered so heinous is precisely because they threaten to splinter and destroy the community/group that is so essential to human survival.

However, modern societies have grown so large and sophisticated that this basic truth is now called into question....it is obvious that our society will not collapse because of a (relatively) small amount of infidelity and violation of society's norms/mores on marriage and reproduction.

This had led to a relaxing of the penalties for adultery as well as a certain toleration/acceptance of its occurrence....while it is horribly painful and detrimental to those individuals unfortunate enough to be victimized by it, the fallout from infidelity does not (at current rates) threaten to destabilize society as a whole.

This is the confused and contradictory situation we find ourselves living in today....the very success of human societies have created a situation where many members of the community can indeed indulge their 'natural, biological' urges and flout the traditional mores governing pair bonding and reproduction without endangering the society as a whole...so it is tolerated legally, even if still looked down upon and socially disapproved.

Barring a sudden collapse in civilization that returns human societies to a subsistence level economically and socially, I do not foresee that this trend will get any better from the perspective of loyalty and honesty in M relationships.

Marriage, unfortunately, seems to be one of those social institutions that is a victim of its own success, in a way.

Traditional M and families provided the foundation on which modern civilization was built...however, the evidence suggests that modern civilization may have indeed 'outgrown' its dependence on them for its own continuation....though this may only remain true IF the rate of those abandoning traditional mores remains relatively small compared to the total population.

After all, the pain and dysfunction that hits families torn by infidelity is very real...and if it ever started to hit a MAJORITY of the families in our society, the ensuing chaos might threaten to bring down even our advanced culture.


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

droog said:


> The common theme on this forum seems to be that these cheating spouses have flaws and that we are best to dump them and move on, to find better mates.
> 
> But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.
> 
> ...


My view of marriage has certainly changed. I was only married once, and she cheated. I'm thinking that's enough for me.


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

Dyokemm said:


> It is true that human beings are NOT biologically designed or predisposed to monogamy.
> 
> .


Says who? 'Empathy and pair bonding' is pretty normal, ordinary stuff going back as far as anybody knows.

This is a silly debate. People have been killing each other for as long as there have been people. Shall we debate, "Are humans biologically predisposed to murder each other? And if they are, does this mean it's OK to murder each other?".

Pure sophistry.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I have the urge and impulse and capability to kill or seriously maim people who piss me off or cross me. Self control and self discipline is an attribute of a higher order. Justifying crappy behavior by pointing at lower life forms has always seemed a pathetic argument.

Dogs do it in the street and eat crap. It seems a waste of humanness to behave like a dog.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> Have you ever been in a polyamorous relationship? If not, then I can tell you that you are definitively wrong. I think you may be coming from a position where you've been indoctrinated into the monogamy myth.




About as close to a poly amorous relationship I have gotten is surf and turf night at the local restaurant - see I love steak and I love lobster but neither is enough to completely satisfy me so I have to have both oh and occasionally I like a baked potato on the side to fulfill my dinner needs.

Yeah my opinion of poly amorous is that one or the other person in the relationship explains that well you are just not enough for me so I want some on the side and the other partner doesn't have the balls or self esteem to tell them p1ss off I will find someone who is satisfied with what I have to offer so they stay and play along. Something tells me when one or the other partner fails to have the same success as the other then bad feelings start after all it's no fair for you to be getting some and I am not right.

This opinion must be from drinking the monogamy kool aid me and a large percentage of the world's population of course our way is somewhat more successful than yours.


Funny thing I don't have a problem with poly amorous relationships or any other kind for that matter(gay marriage. etc) I believe you find what works for you and if it makes you happy then it is a good thing this world is too harsh as it is without being forced to live a certain way.
I do however have a problem with condescending a$$holes who think their way is more highly evolved and better than the rest and we are just lemmings following the crowd.

P.S. by the way the etc. for other relationships is all those lonely sheep and goat herders out there who am I to judge.


----------



## Dyokemm (Apr 24, 2013)

"Says who? "

Ummm.....science....biologists in particular.

There are indeed some species of animals who will only mate with one partner for their entire lifespan...period.

Humans are not biologically wired that way....but we are SOCIALIZED to follow our culture's mores/norms on relationships and breeding primarily because group cohesion was so vitally important for human survival in the past.

My point was, modern society, by its very size and success, has lessened the danger of deviation from these norms, at least as long as the percentage of 'rule breakers' remains small in comparison to the total population.

A small group of subsistence farmers or hunter/gatherers (there are few such groups of humans left in the world today) would still be threatened with dissolution and destruction from such violations, which is why studies of those groups still show a strong taboo nature towards those who violate the group's norms/mores.

None of this is unheard of to those who have studied sociology...if you reject it that's fine.

To each there own.


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

Dyokemm said:


> "Says who? "
> 
> Ummm.....science....biologists in particular.
> .


Calling BS on that.

I am fairly well-read on evolutionary biology and anthropology, and there's no such consensus. Saying that other arrangements and cheating have also occurred doesn't change the fact that there is also a long history and evidence of a pre-history for pair-bonded relationships with our species as well.

In fact, as far as we know (and our collective knowlege is somewhat limited here), pair-bonding pre-dates us being humans 

Like I said, murder was probably more common among hunter-gatherers (there is a lot of evidence to support that anyway), but that doesn't mean we jump to some sophist conclusion that not murdering is not natural for humans. There are and must have always been plenty of humans not predisposed to murdering others over the slightest provocation or we wouldn't be here most likely . It's not all "nuture". That debate is over. The debate is over the extent to which biological predispositions toward things like pair bonding, empathy, and so on have contributed to the creation of social mores and norms and to what degree social mores and norms affect biological predispositions toward particular behaviors.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ugg..I missed the mammoth and hit George with my atlatl dart. 

Darn, I feel so bad. Well, I will have to try to comfort his wife. 


A poor attempt at humor.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

TimeHeals said:


> Says who? 'Empathy and pair bonding' is pretty normal, ordinary stuff going back as far as anybody knows.


Sure. Humans are OK at serialized monogamy.

But we as a species don't generally mate for life the way, say, certain bird species do.


> This is a silly debate. People have been killing each other for as long as there have been people. Shall we debate, "Are humans biologically predisposed to murder each other? And if they are, does this mean it's OK to murder each other?".


It's not a silly debate at all. In fact, there's an entire field of anthropology devoted to it.

Studies of sexual dimorphism in primates is actually a large topic, and the primate line leading to genus **** and ourselves seems to fall somewhere between monogamous and polygamous in terms of our evolutionary morphology.

So it's actually a fascinating question in terms of mating strategy.

It is very likely that we as a line have been coping with this since Australopithecus, 2-4 million years ago.

That's actually a pretty interesting question for the modern world: how much monogamy can we as a species actually expect from each other?

I believe the answer is we need to somewhat sow some wild oats to settle down in general, but that's me.


> Pure sophistry.


Non sequitor.

It's not a false argument at all.

In fact, by comparing it to murder you're opening yourself up for the same criticism.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

TimeHeals said:


> Calling BS on that.
> 
> I am fairly well-read on evolutionary biology and anthropology, and there's no such consensus. Saying that other arrangements and cheating have also occurred doesn't change the fact that there is also a long history and evidence of a pre-history for pair-bonded relationships with our species as well.
> 
> ...


Many biologists would not agree with your assertion that we are evolved for monogamy.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

droog said:


> The common theme on this forum seems to be that these cheating spouses have flaws and that we are best to dump them and move on, to find better mates.
> 
> But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.
> 
> ...


It's a straw man tactic, that is a paradox. How can anyone who claims to be "modern" and does not believe in monogamy become a cheater. 

In actuality it's not about monogamy, it's about deception. It's rare that someone will be honest about their view that monogamy is unnatural, to argue this would leave them with a smaller pool of potential partners.

The view that monogamy is un-natural to the human species by those that cheat is a cheap argument. If someone who truly believes and practices non monogamy will never become a cheater.

Sincere non monogamous individuals do not cheat by definition....


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Served Cold said:


> In actuality *it's not about monogamy, it's about deception.* It's rare that someone will be honest about they're view that monogamy is unnatural, to argue this would leave them with a smaller pool of potential partners.


What is bolded is key. 

When someone says that monogamy isn't 'natural', I'm always tempted to say, "So WHAT?" or "Even if it isn't, what's your POINT?" Usually the person follows up by saying that we shouldn't EXPECT monogamy from a partner because humans are 'wired' to want sex with as many partners as possible.

In reality, EVERYONE is not wired the same way. While SOME people would bed as many people as they can, others are perfectly content remaining with ONE partner for life. 

It is the DECEPTION that's the problem. And in most cases, it is the partner who desires to be non-monogamous who will deceive the loyal partner; not the other way around. 

Yet quite a number of non-monogamous people expect their SPOUSE or PRIMARY PARTNER to be monogamous to _them_. So the non-monogamous partner wants to have the freedom to be non-monogamous while remaining with a partner who will remain monogamous to him or her. 

It seems that the question of whether or not infidelity is 'biological' or 'character' leads to deeper questions, such as whether or not HONESTY about fidelity should be expected in a relationship. 

As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "Man(kind) could not live together without the confidence that they were being truthful with one another".

And while being truthful with potential partners would DEFINITELY reduce the pool of potential partners, there are still plenty of partners for the non-monogamous partner to bed in a lifetime. 

Seems that the non-monogamous partner is simply being greedy. 

I wonder if it's 'natural' to be greedy...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Vega said:


> What is bolded is key.
> 
> When someone says that monogamy isn't 'natural', I'm always tempted to say, "So WHAT?" or "Even if it isn't, what's your POINT?" Usually the person follows up by saying that we shouldn't EXPECT monogamy from a partner because humans are 'wired' to want sex with as many partners as possible.
> 
> ...


I agree.

What I actually find interesting is once one acknowledges that we are not hard-wired for this trait, and yet desire it...

How does one go about creating a life strategy to support it?


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

marduk said:


> Many biologists would not agree with your assertion that we are evolved for monogamy.


Sigh.

You are arguing with yourself.

I never said what you are claiming I said.

And I quote myself, " Saying that other arrangements and cheating have also occurred doesn't change the fact that there is also a long history and evidence of a pre-history for pair-bonded relationships with our species as well.".

Kids.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Dad&Hubby said:


> Hmm, it's interesting topic. I do believe that humans are mildly driven by our hormonal impulses, but to a MUCH larger extent, our thoughts and beliefs. Probably at least 80/20.
> 
> I've seen my wife get hot for me because of a number of reasons. *But I've never seen a woman go "into heat" and a group of men fight over her and then the winner jumps her like in the animal kingdom....go figure.
> *
> Sure biology drives us, much like a motor provides power to a vehicle, but without and actual driver (our thoughts and brain) that car isn't going anywhere.


And to take this a step further, most men don't want to have sex with a woman who has too obviously had already so much experience.......

Knowing that men have fought over her starts to suggest that there must be something psycho about her in the human being kingdom.....


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

TimeHeals said:


> Sigh.
> 
> You are arguing with yourself.
> 
> ...


Sorry I missed that...


----------



## See_Listen_Love (Jun 28, 2012)

Lister said:


> The same should be true of adultary. It is irrelevant that you have the urge to be unfaithful, you need to have the strength to overcome those urges for the sake of those you love.


Yes, true, in our culture now and here. 

But this IS a cultural opinion, and a cultural argument. OP's question was whether it is biology (nature) or culture (nurture).

What you think is irrelevant can be of importance to OP.


(BTW a character flaw can also be biology...)


----------



## See_Listen_Love (Jun 28, 2012)

Dad&Hubby said:


> Hmm, it's interesting topic. I do believe that humans are mildly driven by our hormonal impulses, but to a MUCH larger extent, our thoughts and beliefs. Probably at least 80/20.


Most of our thoughts and beliefs are unconscious though, and irrational at that. 

And maybe....those could be influenced by our hormones and circumstances AND genes.

So imho: We are not so rational as we would like to think.


----------



## Dyokemm (Apr 24, 2013)

"Calling BS on that".

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree....no big deal though and definitely no ill feeling towards you since we have a difference of opinion.


----------



## See_Listen_Love (Jun 28, 2012)

TimeHeals said:


> Calling BS on that.
> 
> I am fairly well-read on evolutionary biology and anthropology, and there's no such consensus. Saying that other arrangements and cheating have also occurred doesn't change the fact that there is also a long history and evidence of a pre-history for pair-bonded relationships with our species as well.
> 
> ...


Besides the argument with Dyokemm, I really try to understand what you are saying, but I cannot figure it out.

What is your opinion about the subject you mention?


----------



## murphy5 (May 1, 2014)

Dad&Hubby said:


> I've seen my wife get hot for me because of a number of reasons. But I've never seen a woman go "into heat" and a group of men fight over her and then the winner jumps her like in the animal kingdom....go figure.
> .


actually, I DID see that once, in a good porn movie. The original Emmanuelle movie had two muay thai fighters fight for Emmanuelle, and the winner got to bed her. I was...pretty erotic now that you mention it.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

TimeHeals said:


> Sigh.
> 
> You are arguing with yourself.
> 
> ...


Lots of species pair-bond but very few of them are monogamous. Most pair-bond and then get a bit on the side when they can. DNA studies have shown that most species we once thought were monogamous are not. 

Humans have never been truly monogamous. Even in the cultures that have aspired to being so, it was usually only the women who were expected to remain faithful. In reality we have only tried to restrict men to being full monogamy for the last 60 or 100 years or so. You can see for yourself how successful that has been.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> False. People *range* from highly monogamous to higly promiscuous. Not everyone is identical, and biologically there are many different mating strategies and preferences that succeed. Many if not most would want sex with others if they could do so without harming their SO - and many do so even when that risk clearly exists. If people were strictly monogamous, few if any would engage in sex with anyone but their partner.


I completely agree with your statement about the range. I am a 100% monogamous man. It's not having low T-levels, or anything "biological". It's my own personal PSYCHOLOGY about sex.

We always hear "the brain is the biggest sex organ". Because so much of our sexuality (desire, wants etc.) comes from our mind, not our hormones. Even in many polygamous wired people, does the desire come from wanted to "spread or collect seed" or does it come from desires of THOUGHT. The want to "collect notches on the bed post etc."

Also in regards to desires without consequences...that's a poor argument. 

If there were "no consequences". I'd eat everything bad for me and never exercise. I'd never discipline my children. I'd buy anything I wanted without worrying about a budget.

Most people don't live that way because there ARE consequences. Fear of consequence can override "biology".


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

marduk said:


> I struggle with this.
> 
> Just because you weren't tempted doesn't mean that you couldn't be. Anyway, my point was that you don't go from being attracted to people to only being attracted to one person because you have a ring on your finger.
> 
> ...


Biology is like an underground river. It's there, it feeds the soil of our bodies, but you'll never get sucked under by the current. Our MINDS are the culprits to most of our problems.

Biology says "I'm horny". Our minds say "let me go masturbate, let me go find my SO, let me go find some strange, let me quell the urge and abstain". It's up to the person's mentality to determine which one of those 4 that happens.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Dad&Hubby, I agree with your above post, except for this part:



> Even in many polygamous wired people, does the desire come from wanted to "spread or collect seed" or does it come from desires of THOUGHT. The want to "collect notches on the bed post etc."


Polyamorous people are often motivated by love - they are capable of and want to love and be loved by multiple partners. It is usually not about notches or reproduction. There may be an underlying motivation based on a higher tendency towards the promiscuous end of the reproductive strategy scale, or it may only be about the psychosocial dynamic.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

See_Listen_Love said:


> Most of our thoughts and beliefs are unconscious though, and irrational at that.
> 
> And maybe....those could be influenced by our hormones and circumstances AND genes.
> 
> So imho: We are not so rational as we would like to think.


Now we're just guessing.

Noone knows where our thoughts and beliefs come from.

Heck maybe Deepak Chopra has it right and we're just antennas with each person tuned a little different and the thoughts are just floating out there and because of our "tuning" we collect certain ones. Noone actually creates any thoughts etc. we just receive them.

Maybe hormones have zero affect on our thoughts, maybe they completely control them....we don't know this yet. 

I know I've physically been hungry but had no desire to eat and didn't think about food. I know I've been horny, and 100% ignored it all day without any effort.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> Dad&Hubby, I agree with your above post, except for this part:
> 
> 
> 
> Polyamorous people are often motivated by love - they are capable of and want to love and be loved by multiple partners. It is usually not about notches or reproduction. There may be an underlying motivation based on a higher tendency towards the promiscuous end of the reproductive strategy scale, or it may only be about the psychosocial dynamic.


Thank you for bringing that thought process into it, I realize I painted a negative picture of polygamy and that wasn't my point or desire. 

We actually agree. The point I was making was that in polygamous people, the desire to bed multiple people isn't just biology. There's also psychological desires (I mentioned notches, while you mention love...which I agree with BTW).

My point being that it's our psychology that drives us more than our biology. It drives both polyamorous and monoamorous (LOL had to say it) people.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It's a lot more than a guess. A lot of of conscious thoughts are initiated by subconscious processes and those influenced by hormones and neurotransmitters. Many things are also influenced by genetics - 50% of both social attitudes and religiosity are controlled by genetics, as shown in multiple twin studies.


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> Humans have never been truly monogamous. Even in the cultures that have aspired to being so, it was usually only the women who were expected to remain faithful. In reality we have only tried to restrict men to being full monogamy for the last 60 or 100 years or so. You can see for yourself how successful that has been.


What's silly about this IMO : 

"Humans have never truly been monogamous". <- This is false the way it is written, and it only becomes true if you write "ALL humans..." because I can assure you "SOME humans... " not only are, but "some" seems to have happened with significant frequency.

So on the one hand, you're writing off vast segments of the species as some sort of anomally, and then on the other hand implying that the opposite is true for all societies across all time and without exception, and you really have to cherry pick available literature to get that.

Same thing with the polygny slant: despite the fact that many cultures have allowed that, all evidence suggests it just wasn't that common, even when/where it was allowed, and the way you have portrayed it is as if it were common. it wasn't.

I don't get this.

Anyway, nobody here is really interested in discussing anything, IMO. It's a bunch of pseudo-intellectual attempts to persuade folks, IMO.

To what end? I guess it depends on what somebody is trying to sell.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

TimeHeals said:


> What's silly about this IMO :
> 
> "Humans have never truly been monogamous". <- This is false the way it is written, and it only becomes true if you write "ALL humans..." because I can assure you "SOME humans... " not only are, but "some" seems to have happened with significant frequency.


If the majority have not been monogamous it is safe to say 'humans have never been monogamous' it wouldn't be useful to define any group by a minority subgroup, as in saying 'humans are homosexual' because a subgroup of humans are. Through the course of our history the humans who have been truly monogamous are a small minority. That is cold, hard fact. The number of cultures which have been even nominally monogamous are in the minority, never mind those who have actually achieved it. According to Murdock's Atlas of Human Culture only 17% of human societies practice it, now, never mind throughout history. 



TimeHeals said:


> So on the one hand, you're writing off vast segments of the species as some sort of anomally, and then on the other hand implying that the opposite is true for all societies across all time and without exception, and you really have to cherry pick available literature to get that.


I have no idea what you mean. Could you clarify what you are trying to say?



TimeHeals said:


> Same thing with the polygny slant: despite the fact that many cultures have allowed that, all evidence suggests it just wasn't that common, even when/where it was allowed, and the way you have portrayed it is as if it were common. it wasn't.


That seems to be a baseless opinion that you hold. Do you have any evidence to back it up?



TimeHeals said:


> Anyway, nobody here is really interested in discussing anything, IMO. It's a bunch of pseudo-intellectual attempts to persuade folks, IMO.


And yet here you are discussing it. What exactly am I trying to persuade people to do?


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> That seems to be a baseless opinion that you hold. Do you have any evidence to back it up?


You could start with the Ethnographic Atlas. Good grief.

Even in societies that accept polygyny, it is fairly rare and usually practiced by a wealthy minority.

The outlier and exception to that rule presently seems to be Senegal (where at 47% of the population, it is a near-majority).

This is what I mean by "this is a silly discussion". If you aren't even going to look at widely available academic literature....

As for why you are attempting to persuade people of something when they can open a book or google to find out what you are posting is not accurate, I have no idea.

Internet crazy maybe? I have no idea. People spend all sorts of time on political message boards, for example. trying to persuade or insult each other and employ the most ridiculous distortions to do that, and I don't know why, nor do i care much.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

When some folks present monogamy as unnatural, what they're really saying is cheating is natural. It's a skewed paradox. 

I doubt anyone has a problem with an individual who chooses to have sexual relationships with more than one partner and is upfront and honest about it with whomever they are dating. In this scenario the potential lover or mate is being given the choice to decide if being with a non monogamous girlfriend or boyfriend is someone they would want to be with.

Being non monogamous is not a character flaw, being a liar about it is a character flaw. That's the difference.


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

Served Cold said:


> When some folks present monogamy as unnatural, what they're really saying is cheating is natural. It's a skewed paradox.
> 
> I doubt anyone has a problem with an individual who chooses to have sexual relationships with more than one partner and is upfront and honest about it with whomever they are dating. In this scenario the potential lover or mate is being given the choice to decide if being with a non monogamous girlfriend or boyfriend is someone they would want to be with.
> 
> Being non monogamous is not a character flaw, being a liar about it is a character flaw. That's the difference.



:iagree:


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

Served Cold said:


> When some folks present monogamy as unnatural, what they're really saying is cheating is natural. It's a skewed paradox.
> 
> I doubt anyone has a problem with an individual who chooses to have sexual relationships with more than one partner and is upfront and honest about it with whomever they are dating. In this scenario the potential lover or mate is being given the choice to decide if being with a non monogamous girlfriend or boyfriend is someone they would want to be with.
> 
> Being non monogamous is not a character flaw, being a liar about it is a character flaw. That's the difference.


You mean that when dishonest, manipulative people who cheat employ a gross distortion of what is known about evolutionary biology as if it somehow justifies the lying and manipulative behavior, they're just being dishonest and manipulative yet again? 

Say it ain't so


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Served Cold said:


> When some folks present monogamy as unnatural, what they're really saying is cheating is natural. It's a skewed paradox.


That's actually not what _I'm_ trying to say at all.

What I'm trying to say is that we've evolved under reproductive pressure and seem to have in us a mating strategy that falls somewhere between monogamy and polygamy as a _species_.

What I'm trying to say is that once we put aside the expectation that our body or attraction or reproduction agenda expectation is to only target on our defined mate...

How do we as individuals respond to that fact of our nature?

Let me put that another way.

Yes, we can choose to be monogamous. But what can we do as partners to:

a) inspire our partners (and ourselves) to desire monogamy highly
b) protect/nurture our relationship to be self-sustaining and monogamous without undue stress or constraints on our freedom?


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

TimeHeals said:


> You could start with the Ethnographic Atlas. Good grief.


Good grief you are only looking at a small aspect of non-monogamy. If you can show that the majority of humans are truly monogamous I will accept your assertion. 



TimeHeals said:


> Even in societies that accept polygyny, it is fairly rare and usually practiced by a wealthy minority.


Yes and the rest? Are they monogamous? In many societies it is commonplace for men to keep mistresses, if they can, and to visit prostitutes if they can't. Regardless of the form of marriage that obtains in that society. This was also the case in Europe in former times. In Victorian London they estimate that one third of women worked as prostitutes. There is no evidence that the majority of humans have ever been truly monogamous. 



TimeHeals said:


> This is what I mean by "this is a silly discussion". If you aren't even going to look at widely available academic literature....


There is no need to be patronising. The fact that I didn't run off and google the Senegal factoid doesn't mean I haven't 'looked at the wider academic literature'. 



TimeHeals said:


> As for why you are attempting to persuade people of something when they can open a book or google to find out what you are posting is not accurate, I have no idea.


Ditto for your argument.



TimeHeals said:


> Internet crazy maybe? I have no idea. People spend all sorts of time on political message boards, for example. trying to persuade or insult each other and employ the most ridiculous distortions to do that, and I don't know why, nor do i care much.


Yet again, here you are doing the same thing. Point out any 'ridiculous distortions' I have made and I will defend them. If you 'don't car much' why do you keep posting and why are you getting so exercised by this? 

Have you noticed that any fact presented that is contrary to your argument you call a 'distortion' and any attempt to argue against your point of view is 'manipulation' and any argument you are losing is 'silly'?


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Served Cold said:


> When some folks present monogamy as unnatural, what they're really saying is cheating is natural. It's a skewed paradox.
> 
> I doubt anyone has a problem with an individual who chooses to have sexual relationships with more than one partner and is upfront and honest about it with whomever they are dating. In this scenario the potential lover or mate is being given the choice to decide if being with a non monogamous girlfriend or boyfriend is someone they would want to be with.
> 
> Being non monogamous is not a character flaw, being a liar about it is a character flaw. That's the difference.


That is exactly the point I am making. If we are less judgemental and conservative about alternative lifestyles people might be more honest and upfront about whether they want or, are capable of, monogamy and avoid so much heartache. Instead we push this one-size-fits-all model and we are surprised when a sizeable minority screw it up and hurt people. 

It is time for parents, church-leaders and society in general to stop pushing for traditional marriage and 2.4 kids.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

droog said:


> The common theme on this forum seems to be that these cheating spouses have flaws and that we are best to dump them and move on, to find better mates.


This is good advice.



> But there are many books such as "Sex at Dawn" that seem to hint that infidelity is really rooted in our biology.


Infidelity isn't rooted in our biology.
The drive to procreate with a desirable mate is rooted in our biology.



> Maybe our modern concept of marriage and monogamy is not natural to us as a species?


Not we're getting somewhere.
The concept of marriage conflicts with our biological imperatives.



> If that is true, then why do we continue to put ourselves through the pain of marriage and the inevitable divorces?


Because marriage in our culture aids us in building a strong family unit, gathering resources, and protecting offspring.
The usefulness of marriage in this context may be ending but those are the positive reasons it exists.



> It's heartbreaking for me to read stories on here of people who have been cheated on by multiple spouses. Are we chasing an ideal that is unlikely in the modern world?


I do think marriage is becoming more of a hindrance than an aid in our modern lives.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

marduk said:


> That's actually not what _I'm_ trying to say at all.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that we've evolved under reproductive pressure and seem to have in us a mating strategy that falls somewhere between monogamy and polygamy as a _species_.
> 
> ...


Excellent point, monogamy is a choice. To assume that just because someone is married they are no longer attracted to others is naive. Imagine a world where non monogamy was the norm. It would be a world of paternity testing, a world of distrust. 

I'm a dude, many of my buddies who cheat and are non monogamous would have a nervous breakdown if they were to discover that little Billy Junior was not their biological son. 

I hate to say it, until I was cheated on by my wife I was cool with my cheating buddies. I see things in a different light. 

To those that don't believe on monogamy but voluntarily get married and bring children into the world and then use biology as an excuse are full of it.


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

johnnycomelately said:


> That is exactly the point I am making. If we are less judgemental and conservative about lifestyles people might be more honest and upfront about whether they want or are capable of monogamy and avoid so much heartacher. Instead we push this one-size-fits-all model and we are surprised when a sizeable minority screw it up and hurt people. It is time for parents, church-leaders and society in general to stop pushing for marriage and 2.4 kids.



Ahh, so now we see what you agenda is. Thanks for sharing.

It's "society's" fault people 'must' lie and deceive and manipulate others to get what they want if what they want is not a monagamous partnership?

LOL.

It couldn't possibly be that they deceive others because they don't really care about those others, could it? I mean, they must absolutely hoodwink, lie, and defraud others by selling a fake self rather than seek out like-minded people, right?

Did it ever occur to you that monogamy is becoming more and more prevalent because that's what more and more people really want? I mean, not always, and maybe not everywhere and under all conditions, but it does seem to have always existed (as far as we know), and it does seem to be more the norm now than it was in more ancient agrarian times, for example (maybe not so much among purely hunter-gatherers under most circumstance)?

But then again, slavery was accepted then  And most people didn't own slaves, but it was accepted.

It must be society. You must teach the children what to think


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

TimeHeals said:


> Ahh, so now we see what you agenda is. Thanks for sharing.


My agenda is to promote monogamous marriage, as I have stated.



TimeHeals said:


> It's "society's" fault people 'must' lie and deceive and manipulate others to get what they want if what they want is not a monagamous partnership?


I didn't say that. 



TimeHeals said:


> It couldn't possibly be that they deceive others because they don't really care about those others, could it? I mean, they must absolutely hoodwink, lie, and defraud others by selling a fake self rather than seek out like-minded people, right?


To say that literally millions of people around they world are psychopathic is not useful nor is it born out by reality. It is not useful because it doesn't help us to get any answers as to why so many people damage their lives and those of others. It might be satisfying on a personal level to say they are all just 'bad' or 'flawed' but it is not going to move us towards understanding and prevention. 



TimeHeals said:


> Did it ever occur to you that monogamy is becoming more and more prevalent because that's what more and more people really want? I mean, not always, and maybe not everywhere and under all conditions, but it does seem toa have always existed (as far as we know), and it does seem to be more the norm now than it was in agrarian times, for example (maybe not so much among purely hunter-gatherers under most circumstance)?


I understand why monogamy is the aspiration of many societies. Hard as it is for you to accept that someone can have done some research and still disagree with you it is a fact. I reject that true monogamy is becoming 'more and more prevalent'. How many Americans today are truly monogamous?



TimeHeals said:


> It must be society. You must teach the children what to think


?


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> That is exactly the point I am making. If we are less judgemental and conservative about alternative lifestyles people might be more honest and upfront about whether they want or, are capable of, monogamy and avoid so much heartache. Instead we push this one-size-fits-all model and we are surprised when a sizeable minority screw it up and hurt people.
> 
> It is time for parents, church-leaders and society in general to stop pushing for traditional marriage and 2.4 kids.


Sorry bud, to blame society in general is BS. I've never attended a shot gun wedding. Perhaps if this was 1914 instead of 2014, I might agree with you. Your argument is 100 years too old. 

Just shag whomever you want, just don't blame your failure to be authentic on churches and the 2.4 kids.

Own it, and stop the bs.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

TimeHeals said:


> Ahh, so now we see what you agenda is. Thanks for sharing.
> 
> It's "society's" fault people 'must' lie and deceive and manipulate others to get what they want if what they want is not a monagamous partnership?
> 
> ...




These folk never complain that toilets or toilet paper, or the paternity of their children is unnatural.

Just ask non monogamous bleeding hearts if they would be ok if they were cheated on..lol....


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> That is exactly the point I am making. If we are less judgemental and conservative about alternative lifestyles people might be more honest and upfront about whether they want or, are capable of, monogamy and avoid so much heartache. Instead we push this one-size-fits-all model and we are surprised when a sizeable minority screw it up and hurt people.
> 
> It is time for parents, church-leaders and society in general to stop pushing for traditional marriage and 2.4 kids.





This reminds me of an old saying I don't care if you do right from wrong that's your choice but I due care if you at lest know right from wrong using society as an excuse for, cheating, deceiving, and manipulating someone for your won gain is just simply illogical In today's world people have more freedom to choose any way they wish to live there life weather be monogamous or non monogamous.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

Really, if someone is a non monogamy individual, why blame society as judgemental. If you're someone who needs multiple sexual partners, good for you and there's no judgement. 

Hell...if someone told me they wanted to marry a goat I'd go to the wedding and bring them a gift. Gay marriage, Swingers marriage, Mormon marriage, or being single non monogamous hipster party..sign me up...

The only party I wouldn't attend is a cheater party. Cheater parties suck. Cheater parties are about whining about what's wrong with haters. Cheaters are all about "don't be judgey" and if I cheat it's society that is to blame. 

It's obvious most self proclaimed non monogamous individuals are more about blame shifting than owning their own double standard.
A real non monogamous person does not cheat and blame society as the culprit.


----------



## TimeHeals (Sep 26, 2011)

Served Cold said:


> Hell...if someone told me they wanted to marry a goat I'd go to the wedding and bring them a gift..


I would seriously question whether the goat was a willing participant being treated as an equal partner in that arrangement 

Agree with the rest of it.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

TimeHeals said:


> I would seriously question whether the goat was a willing participant being treated as an equal partner in that arrangement
> 
> Agree with the rest of it.



Lol....


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Even if society and culture is wrong about pushing monogamous relationships on everyone, whether or not they are suitable for everyone, does not give those who disagree the right or justification to act unethically or irresponsibly towards people who do buy into the prevailing social view. They have a responsibility to educate and negotiate with potential or existing partners if they want things to be different.

It's clear - to me, at least - that the prevailing social view is fundamentally flawed, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people ignoring it. That also means that far more education and discussion is needed to find ways to solve this problem in an ethical manner. However it happens, eventually some new relationship models will come into existence. There will also be a lot of pain and suffering along the way.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Served Cold said:


> Sorry bud, to blame society in general is BS. I've never attended a shot gun wedding. Perhaps if this was 1914 instead of 2014, I might agree with you. Your argument is 100 years too old.
> 
> Just shag whomever you want, just don't blame your failure to be authentic on churches and the 2.4 kids.
> 
> Own it, and stop the bs.


For starters I am monogamous, so I shag only my wife, and occasionally my hand. Secondly you are fooling yourself. There is still an enormous amount of pressure to live in a monogamous relationship. Think of how well it would go down at Christmas lunch if your grandpa asked your 20 year-old kid when he was going to settle down and the kid said: "Actually I am part of a poly-amorous triad and will never commit to being monogamous". Half of the US still thinks being gay is an abomination. My argument is still current.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> For starters I am monogamous, so I shag only my wife, and occasionally my hand. Secondly you are fooling yourself. There is still an enormous amount of pressure to live in a monogamous relationship. Think of how well it would go down at Christmas lunch if your grandpa asked your 20 year-old kid when he was going to settle down and the kid said: "Actually I am part of a poly-amorous triad and will never commit to being monogamous". Half of the US still thinks being gay is an abomination. My argument is still current.


No offence, I'm perplexed by your argument as being current. 

On the one hand you seem to support non monogamy but it's 
half of America and Grandpa that is putting enormous pressure on being monogamous?


If it suits you blame it on Grandpa and half of America. The truth is ,Grandpa and half of America don't control keeping you pants zipped up. That's up to you.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Married but Happy said:


> It's clear - to me, at least - that the prevailing social view is fundamentally flawed, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people ignoring it. That also means that far more education and discussion is needed to find ways to solve this problem in an ethical manner. However it happens, eventually some new relationship models will come into existence. There will also be a lot of pain and suffering along the way.


Well most people on this forum seem to think there is no problem. It is all working just fine, apart from a few baddies. Let's just carry on as we are and shoot down anyone who dares question this wonderful model that we have that works...er...half the time.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Served Cold said:


> No offence, I'm perplexed by your argument as being current.
> 
> On the one hand you seem to support non monogamy but it's
> half of America and Grandpa that is putting enormous pressure on being monogamous?
> ...


I am saying that monogamy is not for everyone. Those who don't want it should feel less judged and less pressure to try and force themselves into a monogamous partnership only to blow it apart and cause pain and suffering for everyone.

It takes a huge amount of delusion to believe that monogamy is natural and not a social construct. If it was natural it would just happen...naturally. There would be no need for wedding vows, wedding rings, mate-guarding behaviour and all the other stuff we have come up with to support this 'natural' behaviour. If it was natural to just attach to one partner for life then it would just happen, save for a few anomalies. 

None of you who argue so vehemently that it is perfectly natural to be monogamous has explained why cheating is so common and universal. If you can't come up with something more realistic than saying that millions and millions of people have a 'character flaw' then you are simply wrong.

Again, this does not serve to justify cheating. We have to understand the problem before we can resolve it. Sticking our heads in the sand and shouting about 'bad' people is not going to help.


----------



## Served Cold (May 25, 2014)

johnnycomelately said:


> I am saying that monogamy is not for everyone. Those who don't want it should feel less judged and less pressure to try and force themselves into a monogamous partnership only to blow it apart and cause pain and suffering for everyone.
> 
> It takes a huge amount of delusion to believe that monogamy is natural and not a social construct. If it was natural it would just happen...naturally. There would be no need for wedding vows, wedding rings, mate-guarding behaviour and all the other stuff we have come up with to support this 'natural' behaviour. If it was natural to just attach to one partner for life then it would just happen, save for a few anomalies.
> 
> ...



I'm monogamous, I don't qualify that to sticking my head in the sand when it comes to why cheating is in your words " is so common". Does it make you feel better that you move with the herd. The distinction is not about monogamy, it's really about deception. 

I'm all for open relationships, in this day and age, it's not unattainable. What sucks are non monogamous individuals who falsely enter into monogamous commitment and then play the blame game, whether it's the biology excuse, grandpa, or half of America who is supposedly force feeding monogamy in your opinion.

Cheating is about deception. Monogamy or non monogamy is not about deception. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Lister (Jan 29, 2013)

johnnycomelately said:


> For starters I am monogamous, so I shag only my wife, and occasionally my hand. Secondly you are fooling yourself. There is still an enormous amount of pressure to live in a monogamous relationship. Think of how well it would go down at Christmas lunch if your grandpa asked your 20 year-old kid when he was going to settle down and the kid said: "Actually I am part of a poly-amorous triad and will never commit to being monogamous". Half of the US still thinks being gay is an abomination. My argument is still current.


Just a thought, when you use your hand are you thinking of your wife? If not , is this a betrayal of sorts? 
I ask because before my A I masturbated whilst fantasising. Since D Day I have stopped doing this as it feels wrong.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

Lister said:


> Just a thought, when you use your hand are you thinking of your wife? If not , is this a betrayal of sorts?
> I ask because before my A I masturbated whilst fantasising. Since D Day I have stopped doing this as it feels wrong.


A little off topic, but no. I don't usually think of my wife. As desiring others is perfectly natural, I see no harm in letting off steam on my own.


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

No matter what type of relationship you are in there are some rules or boundaries each partner is asked to follow by their SO.

I never been in a poly relationship but from what I have read and viewed through the magic of tv just because you have the ability(permission) to explore multiple romantic/sexual relationships doesn't mean you can hump the leg of anyone you see.

Even an "open" relationship has boundaries set by both parties on proper behavior.

Cheating can occur in any type of relationship, someone somewhere is crossing the boundaries they agreed upon with their SO.

Looking from a different angle the person in a poly or open relationship shouldn't have that biological urge, heck they are allowed to satisfy that itch, but I bet it happens just as much as in a traditional grandpa type of relationship.

Hard to blame biology on that.

We are pretty intelligent animals who walk around this life exerting our free will to do anything we so desire, my biology is similar(maybe the same) as any other man, it is my character the person I am that keeps me from cheating.

My biology may be responsible for my urges but my character is responsible for the choices I make.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

love=pain said:


> My biology may be responsible for my urges but my character is responsible for the choices I make.


100% :iagree:


----------



## tonedef (Aug 7, 2014)

I havent read this whole thread- but I will ask how can society seem to push monogamy but glamorize cheating simultaneously? I think both just simply exist and the character of the person chooses what they stand for. Has mental illness also been covered for reason for why infidelity? I know we are responsible for our decisions but a serial cheater has to have impulse, self serving, compartmentalization on a dysfunctional mental level.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lister (Jan 29, 2013)

johnnycomelately said:


> A little off topic, but no. I don't usually think of my wife. As desiring others is perfectly natural, I see no harm in letting off steam on my own.


Yes sorry, I realize it was about as personal a question as you can ask, thanks for responding at all (although you did raise the issue of the hand).

Maybe a little off topic but still relevant i think. It could be argued that biological urges lead to self relief and this involves fantasy possibly about people you know, work colleagues for example.. This in turn could lead to the fantasy becoming reality. I speak from experience on this one. 

Just to be clear, I am not using this as another excuse for my A, there are NO excuses. Not using it even as a reason, merely pointing out that it happened. I am well aware that millions of people can fantasize but never come close to acting out the fantasy, the fact that i did is to my eternal shame.

I have stopped partly because i thought about how I would feel about my wife fantasizing about another man. Have also stopped looking at any porn for the same reason. Made me think that in some ways there is a degree of unfaithfulness even in fantasy.

Sorry for the hijack, I may start a separate thread .... although maybe it's just me:scratchhead:


----------



## Acoa (Sep 21, 2012)

Sure, we see someone attractive and there is an urge to pursue. I think that's normal. The more secure and more fun you are having in your current relationship, the less other people are going to attract you. Let's face it, if you want to pursue another relationship, then you may not be satisfied with your current, or perhaps there is something missing in you that can't be filled by something (or someone) external. 

If both parties in the relationship agree that it's okay to see other people. Then I agree, there is nothing non-ethical about doing so. As long as communication is good and whatever rules that were agreed upon are followed. However, this does take attention away from the primary relationship and introduces a level of complexity that most people are not equiped to handle over the long term.

I think monogamy shows strength and control. It allows you to focus on that one person, to build something special. But you have to choose the right person. I think the problem is, we too often hide our true selves. When getting to know someone, we hide the things about ourselves that we don't like. The other person doesn't get to know the real you until there is a lot already invested in the relationship. Then we cling to that relationship too long, either out of fear of loss, or because we think if we try hard enough we can make it work. Some differences can be overcome, but I don't think having multiple relationships is helpful in achieving that goal, I think it distracts from it.


----------



## cuchulain36 (Jul 8, 2014)

Fact of the matter is hundreds of millions and probably billions of people remain faithful in monogamous relationships. Calling ourselves animals incapable of being decent and loyal is a copout used by cheaters to justify their actions.


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

tonedef said:


> I havent read this whole thread- but I will ask how can society seem to push monogamy but glamorize cheating simultaneously? I think both just simply exist and the character of the person chooses what they stand for. Has mental illness also been covered for reason for why infidelity? I know we are responsible for our decisions but a serial cheater has to have impulse, self serving, compartmentalization on a dysfunctional mental level.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Been threads about mental illness as a cause for infidelity, also seen dysfunctional family growing up, physical / sexual abuse either growing up or during the marriage.

But most that I have read (please correct me if I am wrong) is a sense of entitlement, a deep seeded selfishness and self esteem issues. All of which are character issues not mental health problems.

To me unless you have severe mental issues(bi polar, multiple personalities, etc) somewhere inside of you is the ability to choose right and wrong. That voice may be quieter in some than others but it is still there and cheaters choose to ignore it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

WalterWhite said:


> CHEATING IS IN MAN'S GENES, HIS DNA, HIS ROM. LETS NOT KID OURSELVES ABOUT THIS! ALL MEN WANT TO SCREW AS MANY WOMEN AS POSSIBLE INCLUDING ME. ALL MEN HAVE THIS TO VARYING DEGREES.
> 
> Females by nature look for males to give them sperm. *Females are programmed to be choosy and they seek the sperm of males who are the strongest, smartest, most resourceful, and kind that they can find. Females do their best to seduce a man into giving his sperm only to here because she and their offspring need his protection from danger.*
> 
> In modern times, up through 2014 and going forward, females have attained the same economic strength as males, *and this is causing females to behave like males regarding sex. Modern females now desire to have sex with as many males as possible, yet they still hold on to the need for monogamy*.


You have this all wrong. There is a lot of science now showing us that previous generations (going very far back) made these things up. "Men are promiscuous but women are choosey" was never true. This was actually just a way that men justified their desire to cheat at the same time they did not want to be cheated ON. 

Both men and women are *hard wired* to get it on with a wide variety of mates. Women were NEVER wired differently than men. It was a fairy tale people told themselves that women's sex drive was any different than men's...sadly that fairy tale has caused a lot of heartbreak. 

If we can stop trying to make men the bad guys who want sex and women the gate keepers and change it instead to be "both men and women are capable of being highly sexual", we can possibly get to a new understanding of sexuality in general that will help those who want to be monogamous do so, and those who want to be non-monogamous do so.

Here's one of many articles about the new paradigm (that has always been true, it was just rejected previously):

The truth about female desire: It’s base, animalistic and ravenous - Salon.com


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

All it takes is knowing yourself, and having the character not to try to be someone you're not and thereby deceive yourself and the (potential)spouse.


----------



## TryingToRecover (Dec 19, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> You have this all wrong. There is a lot of science now showing us that previous generations (going very far back) made these things up. "Men are promiscuous but women are choosey" was never true. This was actually just a way that men justified their desire to cheat at the same time they did not want to be cheated ON.
> 
> Both men and women are *hard wired* to get it on with a wide variety of mates. Women were NEVER wired differently than men. It was a fairy tale people told themselves that women's sex drive was any different than men's...sadly that fairy tale has caused a lot of heartbreak.
> 
> ...


I agree with your comments. I am highly sexual and have a higher sex drive, by a bit, than my WS. Every day or EOD would be great for me. 

As if pertains to monogamy, I have been married twice and was/am monogamous in both relationships. First marriage was short lived and no cheating involved AFAIK, we were both just too young/immature for marriage. Current marriage is 20+ years and WS wanted kids FAR more than I did, we have three kids now in their 20's. My kids are grown and I love them more than life but I was not seeking sperm, as it were. I could have lived a life without kids and been happy on that path too. 

I rarely turn WS down when it comes to sex. HB post affair was great for both of us but I really enjoyed the frequency. It's unfortunate society must generalize so much and so often, such as all men being horny dogs and all women being sexual gatekeepers. Then if a woman does openly say she enjoys sex and has had multiple partners, it is often considered "****ty." A man is often expected to have that type of sex life and when he does, it's high fives. When he hasn't or has chosen not to, he's gay and in the closet or there's something wrong with him. 

I like sex, like it often, like it only with my WS, and nearing the end of my reasonable childbearing years so I'm not seeking sperm for the purposes of reproduction. Even if I could have more kids, I don't want any more and my tubes were tied immediately after having my youngest in the mid 90's.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## droog (Jul 19, 2014)

marduk said:


> That's actually not what _I'm_ trying to say at all.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that we've evolved under reproductive pressure and seem to have in us a mating strategy that falls somewhere between monogamy and polygamy as a _species_.
> 
> ...


*You are getting to the root of why I asked this question in the first place.*


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

marduk said:


> That's actually not what _I'm_ trying to say at all.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that we've evolved under reproductive pressure and seem to have in us a mating strategy that falls somewhere between monogamy and polygamy as a _species_.
> 
> ...


Nothing. You either have it or you don't. You either want it and are willing to work toward making it the best you can because you like monogamy more than the alternative, or you don't. 

I think it's based in how we were raised, what we saw growing up, what our personal convictions are about the best way to live and find happiness, and what we believe deep down inside that can never be taken from us, no matter what.

We then choose the best person possible and do all we can to provide them with things that will make the marriage happy, to the best of our abilities at the time. When it fails, we look for blame because we don't have the ability to believe we did something to lose that one person in our circle of life that we believed was best for us, or that we were simply not good enough in whatever sense you want to place on yourself, to choose properly, know yourself well enough, make enough money, have enough status, etc., for that love of our lives.


----------



## PreRaphaelite (Dec 15, 2012)

Men and women do not desire sex simply for reproduction. Most of the time, reproduction isn't what they want.

Tracing infidelity back to reproductive causes usually results in silly explanations that don't illuminate our experience much at all.


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

PreRaphaelite said:


> Tracing infidelity back to reproductive causes usually results in silly explanations that don't illuminate our experience much at all.


The ultimate origin of sexual desire is reproductive. We have evolved to reproduce. If you don't begin with reproductive causes you are going to get a false view of sexuality.


----------



## See_Listen_Love (Jun 28, 2012)

TimeHeals said:


> What's silly about this IMO :
> 
> "Humans have never truly been monogamous". <- This is false the way it is written, and it only becomes true if you write "ALL humans..." because I can assure you "SOME humans... " not only are, but "some" seems to have happened with significant frequency.
> 
> ...


I think you examplified your point with your own posts.

QED! :rofl:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> Maybe a little off topic but still relevant i think. It could be argued that biological urges lead to self relief and this involves fantasy possibly about people you know, work colleagues for example.. This in turn could lead to the fantasy becoming reality. I speak from experience on this one.


Actually, I think you've hit on the reason many men think porn is okay and should not be offensive to their wife. It's because there is no way a guy would figure he would ever meet the woman in the movie or have a ghost of a chance getting her in the sack. 

As for thinking of the neighbor, I just wouldn't do it, myself. I think that would lead to more.


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

It is funny if a guy would think that just because he isn't likely to do what he would really like to do, meet and have sex with the porn star he is fixated on at the moment, that she would be happy with it.

How about she would be happy that he isn't lusting after anyone else whether real or imagined? That he isn't priming the pump for dissatisfaction in his marital traditional?


----------



## johnnycomelately (Oct 30, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> As for thinking of the neighbor, I just wouldn't do it, myself. I think that would lead to more.


I think that is fanciful thinking. The neighbour does have a say in it for starters and secondly just because you beat off to it doesn't mean you would actually do it in real life. 

I have been beating off to my neighbour, friends, workmates and students (don't worry, they are adults) all my adult life and haven't even so much as flirted with any of them. 

Biology is there and it has its effects, but that doesn't mean it can't be controlled. The idea of the uncontrollable male libido is a very dangerous one.


----------



## Cabsy (Mar 25, 2013)

It's both. It's natural to be attracted to other people and to have desires, but when you break a solemn vow to satiate those base desires, you have shown a weakness in character.


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

All action begins with thought.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

clipclop2 said:


> All action begins with thought.


Probably not - at least not _conscious _thought.



> “Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.


And: 



> Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.
> 
> The work calls into question the ‘consciousness’ of our decisions and may even challenge ideas about how ‘free’ we are to make a choice at a particular point in time.


(From Brain makes decisions before you even know it : Nature News )


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

I give up.

Yeah, its a free for all. You aren't responsible for anything 

:banghead:


----------

