Cheating and Perception

[Bramblethorn]

A Cosmopolitan magazine survey and article seemed to indicate that 1) the percentage of women cheating was much higher than most other surveys said, and 2) the thrill, and the fact that they could, was far more prevalent than previously thought. In the interviews with some of these women, that seemed to be the case. However, I suspect that some of the numbers were higher due to some self-selection bias in the survey.

That last issue there is the clincher. The self-selection issue is likely to be so strong that it makes it impossible to draw any quantitative conclusions about women in general.

 

[SeraphNocturne]

Speaking as someone who is in their mid-forties and looking down the barrel of a lifetime of poor food choices - diabetes, cholestoral blocking specific arteries to the brain, fatty liver and generally feeling shitty. And if I do die early from any of these, my family is going to be affected by it. The most weight I ever lost was after and as a direct result of my first daughter being born and I kept it up for a few years, but quickly backslid.

So, I'd say they actually are pretty much the same. Decision that our inner Mr Spock has no problem in telling us are objectively wrong and yet we still need to resist doing anyway.

My mother died early of said ailments after my taking care of her since I was thirteen years old. Congestive heart failure; on top of her hypertension, out of control diabetes, and everything else she gained from daily visits to McDonalds.

The pain I felt by comparison to being cheated on by my husband while I was pregnant with our child is minuscule… not to shit on your choices or comparison at all, but these are two extremely different circumstances, in my opinion.

I felt far more anger than soul crushing sorrow at my mother for ignoring every instance I tried telling her not to drink soda or spent money to try getting her to switch to sugar free options. Every time I tried to get her to the gym with me, or even take a damn walk down the street… every time I begged her to stop smoking cigarettes.

After her death at fifty one years old, I eventually felt relief over it, because I spent most of my childhood being mother to her instead of being a child. She wasn’t suffering anymore. I still feel anger that she didn’t care enough about her family to take better care of herself. So believe me when I say I’ve been there and done that.

I still haven’t recovered from the devastation of being cheated on, but I’m working on it. I’ve only ever been with one man on account of much separate traumas; and somehow, at some point I wasn’t good enough for him.

 

[SeraphNocturne]

Speaking as someone who is in their mid-forties and looking down the barrel of a lifetime of poor food choices - diabetes, cholestoral blocking specific arteries to the brain, fatty liver and generally feeling shitty. And if I do die early from any of these, my family is going to be affected by it. The most weight I ever lost was after and as a direct result of my first daughter being born and I kept it up for a few years, but quickly backslid.

So, I'd say they actually are pretty much the same. Decision that our inner Mr Spock has no problem in telling us are objectively wrong and yet we still need to resist doing anyway.

Ultimately, I’ll agree to disagree with you, I can’t tell you how to feel about whether or not cheating is more severe than causing your family pain due to poor dieting. But having lived the traumatic effects of both things, I can say that from experience… they’re worlds apart by my concerns. Apples and oranges.

I do wish you good health, it isn’t too late. Trust me when I say it fucking sucks having to go on without a parent.

 

[TheRedChamber]

While acknowledging a mention of "with the support of the biological family members", I still think this discussion neglects the importance of the broader social group. If you're living in a tribe where it's understood that people share what they gather and share responsibility for child-care, the options are very different to those in a society where everybody is expected to live in units of mum, dad, and 2.5 kids. I've raised a child who wasn't biologically mine, and I know plenty of others who do similar things, not because they're misled about the kid's parentage or because they're getting some big material benefit for doing so, but because the capacity for cooperation isn't restricted to close genetic relatives.

Yes, absolutely. I'm trying to distill a whole scientific field (of which I'm not an expect in) down into one post (which I didn't quite finish yesterday anyway), but one of the interesting things to remember is that genetically we share as much code with our siblings as we do our children (i.e. 50%) and as much with their children as with our grandchildren (i.e. 25%) - so not having children at all and pooring resources into the extended family is a reasonable genetic strategy (although its probably better to focus on the 'next generation' rather than the 'current one' and if everyone in the same family group shares that trait it might be a problem...).

Co-operation on a tribal level is a good strategy for survival anyway and many of the tribespeople would share at least some percentage of the common genes. As animals we have relatively long gestation periods, only (usually) have one child at a time and childbirth is far riskier than it is for some species. Possibly because of this there is more of a tendancy to look after children who are not our own. (I prefer this explanation to the idea that by bonding with a child we can fool our evolutionary processes into believing its our own). And a child raised to a certain age can be a 'valuable member of society' anyway and help the rest of the family. It's probably safe to say that an intelligent fish species that spawned thousands of young, might not have the same view of the sanctity of life that we've developed.

Even within the harem scenario (presumably a single M/multiple F harem and not the other way around), there's an assumption here that it's all about the man providing resources and how those are divvied up. In fact, in a family unit where you have one man and several women, it's quite possible that the support those women are getting from one another outweighs the support they're getting from the man.

Possibly. A surface reading of the theory might suggest that the harem women are in direct competition with each other for the male resources as their relative offspring share none of the same genetic material from the mothers (that they share father genetic material is irrelevant from the perspective of the propogation of the mothers genes). But things get complicated and there are a million variations, because obviously successful co-operatation aids survival for everyone. The harem theory does indeed usually assume that the man has a huge surplus of resources to make up for having to 'share' him with other women - I suppose if the man in question is genetically much superior to others or if there is a shortage of men in general this might not be the case.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Ultimately, I’ll agree to disagree with you, I can’t tell you how to feel about whether or not cheating is more severe than causing your family pain due to poor dieting. But having lived the traumatic effects of both things, I can say that from experience… they’re worlds apart by my concerns. Apples and oranges.

I do wish you good health, it isn’t too late. Trust me when I say it fucking sucks having to go on without a parent.

Ultimately, and possibly though I phrased is somewhat facitiously to begin with, the relative harm of either isn't really what I was arguing about. All I really wanted to say about them is that they are both objectively poor choices which are often driven by instinct rather than logic.

 

[SeraphNocturne]

Ultimately, and possibly though I phrased is somewhat facitiously to begin with, the relative harm of either isn't really what I was arguing about. All I really wanted to say about them is that they are both objectively poor choices which are often driven by instinct rather than logic.

I can agree that poor choice plays a part in the committing of both situations, but the aftermath from either situation is dramatically different by my experience… hence my earlier opinion.

You are right, a lack of willpower could easily be considered a similar factor by both. Both are ultimately selfish choices, though I think made for two very different reasons—a lot of people who struggle with health and weight tend to have addiction, sugar especially is one of the most addictive substances in the world.

So… my view of these two topics being very different on the whole isn’t going to change, because I consider the fallout of both acts as holding just as much importance when making the comparison. In any case, I hope I haven’t bummed you out, that’s never my intention here on the forum.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Co-operation on a tribal level is a good strategy for survival anyway and many of the tribespeople would share at least some percentage of the common genes. As animals we have relatively long gestation periods, only (usually) have one child at a time and childbirth is far riskier than it is for some species. Possibly because of this there is more of a tendancy to look after children who are not our own. (I prefer this explanation to the idea that by bonding with a child we can fool our evolutionary processes into believing its our own). And a child raised to a certain age can be a 'valuable member of society' anyway and help the rest of the family. It's probably safe to say that an intelligent fish species that spawned thousands of young, might not have the same view of the sanctity of life that we've developed.

I don't know if it's more common among humans than other species, but we're certainly not the only species to take care of infants that aren't closely related to us, so I'm not sure if we need a human-specific theory here.

(Definitely not all species, though. Lions don't make good stepfathers.)

Possibly. A surface reading of the theory might suggest that the harem women are in direct competition with each other for the male resources as their relative offspring share none of the same genetic material from the mothers (that they share father genetic material is irrelevant from the perspective of the propogation of the mothers genes).

Is it, though?

Even if we assume that the propagation of one's own genetic material is the only thing people care about (which isn't my preferred lens for viewing the world), there's still a motive for cooperation there. You might not share any genetic material* with your sister-wife's kid, but her kid and your kid are half-siblings with whatever incentive that gives them to look out for one another. So when you help keep her kid alive, you're protecting somebody who might be looking out for your kid one day, and helping that share of your own genes to survive.

But things get complicated and there are a million variations, because obviously successful co-operatation aids survival for everyone.

Yup. If creatures from entirely different species are capable of forming symbiotic relationships, it might be possible for humans too.

*or more pedantically, none by recent common ancestry; any two humans share a lot of genetic material!

 

[EmilyMiller]

A Cosmopolitan magazine survey and article seemed to indicate that 1) the percentage of women cheating was much higher than most other surveys said, and 2) the thrill, and the fact that they could, was far more prevalent than previously thought. In the interviews with some of these women, that seemed to be the case. However, I suspect that some of the numbers were higher due to some self-selection bias in the survey. It is an interesting take on modern marriage though.

In my marriages, neither of us ever had an affair, and though it sounds as if I was a bit of a male slut, she probably had more one-offs than I (opportunity), and to tell you the truth, we did more sharing than being apart.

Cosmo is not a peer-reviewed journal, hun.

Em

 

[NoTalentHack]

Cosmo is not a peer-reviewed journal, hun.

Em

Oh shit, my dissertation!

 

[TheRedChamber]

Is it, though?

Even if we assume that the propagation of one's own genetic material is the only thing people care about (which isn't my preferred lens for viewing the world), there's still a motive for cooperation there. You might not share any genetic material* with your sister-wife's kid, but her kid and your kid are half-siblings with whatever incentive that gives them to look out for one another. So when you help keep her kid alive, you're protecting somebody who might be looking out for your kid one day, and helping that share of your own genes to survive.

Well, the point is not that its the only thing people care about. It's that genes which do not assist in ultimately continuing the species get bred out eventually. But every gene is likely to have strengths and weaknesses. The gene for 'build me a massive body' is great for hunting other animals, but needs a ton of food to sustain which might not be so great when times are hard. Similary the gene for 'develop independant thought' is great when those humans develop, say, refrigeration and are able to store massive amounts of food, but suddenly a liability when the genes find that there is suddenly a sheet of rubber between them and their ultimate destiny and that those pesky bodies they've built are making a mockery of the whole process of procreation.

But as noted above there are whole levels to this stuff and the genes for 'build me a functioning society' is a pretty useful one. However people may or may not feel about it at a personal or evolutionary level, some societies have adopted the harem strategy (not a good one IMHO, since it leads to a lot of males with no hope of ever finding a mate, which can be disruptive...)

That said - imagine the following...

"Hi honey. This is Laura. Yes, she's pregnant with my baby. She's going to be living in the spare room and I'll be sleeping there with her every other night. Oh, be a darling and nip down to the bank tomorrow and transfer half the savings from Billy's college fund into a new account for the nipper."

Or, to bring things back to Loving Wives...

"Hi darling. Funny story. I've been meaning to tell you, never got round to it. Todd isn't yours. Yeah, you remember Steve who I worked with - great abs. But look on the brightside. Susan definately is yours and Todd is a great older brother to her - probably better than a weaklings like you. So, bet you're still glad you spent 18 years raising him eh."

It's almost impossible to unentangle behaviours that are innate (or genetic) from behaviours that are socially programmed, but I'm guessing the reaction to these is going to be fairly animalistic on some level.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's almost impossible to unentangle behaviours that are innate (or genetic) from behaviours that are socially programmed, but I'm guessing the reaction to these is going to be fairly animalistic on some level.

I'm less sure of this. I think nature plays a big role, but that our genetic inheritance is flexible enough to accommodate an extremely wide range of behaviors that can be learned over time.

 

[cowboyup6977]

Everyone looks but most don’t touch
We discovered early on that we both wanted to touch
So we made a pact we can’t cheat without the other one present

 

[lc69hunter]

Cosmo is not a peer-reviewed journal, hun.

Em

Yeah, we all know that, but nobody is claiming otherwise, but the fact is that women are still being slut shamed for having the same desires and doing the same thing that men do.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Yeah, we all know that, but nobody is claiming otherwise, but the fact is that women are still being slut shamed for having the same desires and doing the same thing that men do.

Not my point, hun.

Em

 

[lc69hunter]

Wow. For a fairly shallow story, this has taken off in a bunch of different directions. And I guess I need to apologize. I had no clue that non-monogamy of almost any sort, was such a hot button issue, especially on this site.

We are all different, and our relationships are all different. I respect that

 

[SeraphNocturne]

Wow. For a fairly shallow story, this has taken off in a bunch of different directions. And I guess I need to apologize. I had no clue that non-monogamy of almost any sort, was such a hot button issue, especially on this site.

We are all different, and our relationships are all different. I respect that

I wouldn't say non-monogamy on the whole is a hot button issue. Cheating on the other hand, well... take a stroll through Loving Wives.

I'm almost certain your essay and the ensuing discussions didn't quite pan out the way you expected? Your thread has definitely lead to some interesting points of view, and information I wouldn't have thought to seek out on my own, so kudos for an engaging topic.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I'm less sure of this. I think nature plays a big role, but that our genetic inheritance is flexible enough to accommodate an extremely wide range of behaviors that can be learned over time.

I don't think I'm arguing against this so much as noting that the original premise of the thread was that men and women's brains were wired differently. Humans have evolved a remarkable ability to learn both social behaviours and independent rational thought. But this is layered on top of millions of years of instinctual evolutionary behaviour and, as I discussed, there are enough differences between men and women to suggest that both might have different ideal strategies for mating and thus reactions to cheating (without necessarily knowing what exactly they are or suggesting what they should be).

Then you have social programming on top of that which may be 'rewiring' brains to some extent, but there are probably limits to what can be rewired - to crib from another recent thread, would it be possible to socially programme a male not to like female breasts? Or to ask the simple questions, to what extent do abstinance programmes actually work? Or why did that conservative politician, the one whose whole career relies on not getting caught having illicit extra-marital homosexual sex, just get caught having illict extra-marital homosexual sex?

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think I'm arguing against this so much as noting that the original premise of the thread was that men and women's brains were wired differently. Humans have evolved a remarkable ability to learn both social behaviours and independent rational thought. But this is layered on top of millions of years of instinctual evolutionary behaviour and, as I discussed, there are enough differences between men and women to suggest that both might have different ideal strategies for mating and thus reactions to cheating (without necessarily knowing what exactly they are or suggesting what they should be).

Then you have social programming on top of that which may be 'rewiring' brains to some extent, but there are probably limits to what can be rewired - to crib from another recent thread, would it be possible to socially programme a male not to like female breasts? Or to ask the simple questions, to what extent do abstinance programmes actually work? Or why did that conservative politician, the one whose whole career relies on not getting caught having illicit extra-marital homosexual sex, just get caught having illict extra-marital homosexual sex?

I'm fairly agnostic on the "brains wired differently" theory because I don't feel qualified to have a definitive opinion. My impression from being in my profession for over 30 years is that there's no difference between men and women in terms of their brains' abilities to do the tasks required by the job. There may be mean behavioral differences that are influenced by hormonal differences. But these are, at most, mean differences only, meaning that among the populations of men and women you'll find individuals that range across the spectrum of behaviors.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I'm fairly agnostic on the "brains wired differently" theory because I don't feel qualified to have a definitive opinion. My impression from being in my profession for over 30 years is that there's no difference between men and women in terms of their brains' abilities to do the tasks required by the job. There may be mean behavioral differences that are influenced by hormonal differences. But these are, at most, mean differences only, meaning that among the populations of men and women you'll find individuals that range across the spectrum of behaviors.

Well, again, maybe we can take 'wired' too literally. There are a whole bunch of different genetically-embedded behaviours which can be triggered by hormones. Pump someone who is biologically female full of testosterone and they start to display behaviours that are typically considered 'male' and visa versa - so maybe it isn't so much the wiring as it is the 'on/off' switches. Genetics varies from individual to individual so you're never going to get any one behaviour that is completely 'fixed' and not 'mean' between individuals and sexes.

And, yes, it all becomes intensely political because if you start to go down the 'men and women are different' then certain people start to hear 'only men/women should do certain jobs' - and its rare to find a job that is so tightly bound to one specific type of genetically defined behaviour that it actually becomes important, can't be balanced out by other talents, or can't be trained around.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That said - imagine the following...

"Hi honey. This is Laura. Yes, she's pregnant with my baby. She's going to be living in the spare room and I'll be sleeping there with her every other night. Oh, be a darling and nip down to the bank tomorrow and transfer half the savings from Billy's college fund into a new account for the nipper."

We're still assuming that the man is providing all the resources in the relationship, then?

 

[TheRedChamber]

We're still assuming that the man is providing all the resources in the relationship, then?

Fine, fine...

"Oh, be a darling and nip down to the bank tomorrow and transfer (1/2 * my yearly contribution * Billy's age) from Billy's college fund into a new account for the nipper."

Happy now?

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Wow. For a fairly shallow story, this has taken off in a bunch of different directions. And I guess I need to apologize. I had no clue that non-monogamy of almost any sort, was such a hot button issue, especially on this site.

We are all different, and our relationships are all different. I respect that

I mean, have you ever read the comments underneath a LW story?

It’s the ultimate relationship violation, and one of the most notorious relationship killers. There's a reason "Crimes of Passion" is an established label. I'd venture to claim that most people have made their own experiences with infidelity in some capacity, and are quite familiar with the wide array of negative emotions it entails. So, of course people will react accordingly if you publish something that makes cheating seem like not that big of a deal, while also blaming and demeaning people for having negative emotions about it.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Wow. For a fairly shallow story, this has taken off in a bunch of different directions. And I guess I need to apologize. I had no clue that non-monogamy of almost any sort, was such a hot button issue, especially on this site.

We are all different, and our relationships are all different. I respect that

Non-monogamy is reasonably well accepted if it's ethical. Not with everyone, of course, but with I would say a plurality of the readers and most of the authors here. Consensual swapping, swinging, sharing, open relationships: they're more and more well-accepted as time goes on. It's cheating that people have a problem with, the abuse of trust. The breaking of a pact. You don't really seem to differentiate the two, and that's where you're getting all the pushback.

You do differentiate one-off cheating from an affair; I get where you draw the line, but I can't think of a single person I've ever met that would openly espouse that position. It's either "infidelity is always wrong" or "ethical non-monogamy is fine as long as everyone agrees to the rule." Your particular bright line is one that, for most folks I've ever met, mixes the worst of both worlds: the break in trust of cheating, the belief that there's a line that's just too far even in consensual non-monogamy, and combined with an idea that yours is the most superior position morally.

If someone said "design the position on non-monogamy that will anger the most people," I don't think I couldn't create a better one.

 

[MillieDynamite]

A man who constantly cheats on his SO is called a ladies man, a hound dog, or libido driven man. A woman is called a whore, a slut, a nymphomaniac. But cheating is cheating no matter how you slice, dice, or blend it. Often it's just poor impulse control. Then there are the carefully planned excursions plotted between the two willing cheaters. These are the more serious type of cheaters, the backstabbers, who are very selfish individuals.

 

[policywank]

Yeah, we all know that, but nobody is claiming otherwise, but the fact is that women are still being slut shamed for having the same desires and doing the same thing that men do.

Alicia Walker has written a couple of books on why men and women cheat. I don't think her books meet the standard of a scientific study, but they had some interesting observations regarding the why question.

Conventional thinking suggests that women cheat due to something missing in their marriage, such as some kind of emotional connection that is lacking. Her findings indicated that women were just as likely to simply be seeking a different or better sexual experience. Crudely put it isn't always about anything any deeper than wanting to get fucked by someone new. Meanwhile conventional thinking about men was that they were just after the physical experience whereas many reported seeking a connection they weren't getting in their marriage. In other words conventional thinking misses the mark and depending how you read the results it either actually has the gender perspectives backwards or there simply isn't nearly as much difference in why each gender cheats as previously thought.

Her results also indicated that when asked about an open marriage women were substantially more inclined to consider it.

I think that environmental factors have a notable impact on observed behaviour and how we interpret it. For instance why have we conventionally been inclined to think that a women had different reasons for cheating than men. Is it because women are shamed so much more for wanting sexual adventure that we sought a different more sympathetic rationale? Is it because men have an easier time being regarded as emotionally distant than as sexually inadequate in any way so they prefer to see the former as their wife's reason for cheating?

I don't know. My comments are just opinion and interesting but not quite scientific study. I do think that it is fairly clear that attitudes towards male and female sexuality driven by a patriarchal society are a fairly big factor in observed behaviour. We don't really have a control group of women who have lived entirely independent of those dynamics so I don't see how one can truly separate the nurture from the nature in this discussion.