Would extra effort in the bedroom stop the cheating?

[Scrivdog]

The question you asked is simple and straightforward. As a "cheater" - I'll give you my take:

 

The answer is yes. If the wife acted like my OW does, there would be no OW.

 

The answer is simple - but it never happens.

[OpenBook]

I think there's as many reasons as there are cheaters. But there is a subset of guys that post here that are in an untenable position:

 

- They have childern they won't be parted from

- They have a wife uninterested in sex and unwilling to address the issue

- They have a home and assets they've worked their whole life to accumulate

 

Of those in that group that cheat, extra effort at home would have kept them in line...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

Yes, that is certainly the case they make. But I thought it was more than just a "subset" of guys... I posed my question in this thread under the assumption that in the overwhelming majority of cases of infidelity, the main reason for the infidelity is that the MM isn't getting it (or enough of it) at home -- and their W refuses to work on it.

 

However, the overwhelming majority of FEMALES who answer this question say it's NOT about the sex. It's about some kind of personality flaw in the cheater ("something missing" ... "they're just looking for someone else to blame").

 

So now I'm REALLY confused.

Edited January 6, 2008 by OpenBook

[marlena]

The notion that people who have affairs are flawed seems ludicrous to me. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of time. It is human nature. Some people have more control over their primitive urges than others. It all depends on the degree of social conditioning one has been subjected to.

[Curmudgeon]

The notion that people who have affairs are flawed seems ludicrous to me. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of time. It is human nature. Some people have more control over their primitive urges than others. It all depends on the degree of social conditioning one has been subjected to.

 

If i was a player then you'd be the perfect wife -- one who would readily excuse my wanderings as being mere human nature.

 

Then again, if you'd indulge my primitive and animalistic urges I'd have no reason to wander at all, would I.

 

Either way, I'd just be "normal."

 

I won't mention having a "thing" for redheads!

[marlena]

Curm darling,

 

Rest assured it would be the second!!!

 

No to mention I have a lion fetish!!

[Curmudgeon]

Curm darling,

 

Rest assured it would be the second!!!

 

No to mention I have a lion fetish!!

 

I never doubted it, and lion fetishes are good. We're very much in favor of them!

[michaelk]

The notion that people who have affairs are flawed seems ludicrous to me. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of time. It is human nature. Some people have more control over their primitive urges than others. It all depends on the degree of social conditioning one has been subjected to.

 

I agree with this. I feel that, generally, men have an innate tendency toward sex with multiple partners, while women have an innate desire to find a suitable mate and establish a stable environment for the resulting children. (Not very romantic, is it? )

 

I raised this as a question to my therapist, who stated that studies have shown, among animal species, testicular size can be correlated to the level of monogamy/polygamy. Animals with proportionally smaller testes tend to be monogamous, and vice versa. Human beings, it turns out, are right on the cusp when it comes to testicle size, so I guess this means we can go either way! When you look at human male-female relations, this makes so much sense because the tension between the desire for family-building vs. promiscuity is glaringly evident, as everyone here on the infidelity boards can attest.

 

And no, none of this is a license to cheat. But I think we should acknowledge the power of our basic natures and realize that rather than being 'flawed', people who hurt their spouses and cheat are all TOO human.

[michaelk]

To answer the OP's question, I think that men indeed have a desire to 'spread their seed' and when they don't, it's either because 1) they care so much for their partner that they wouldn't risk hurting her, 2) they care so much for what other people think that they want to avoid 'looking bad' or 3) there is some psychological aspect to them that holds them back (e.g. low self-esteem).

 

Does this hold even if your partner is a supermodel? I've never been with a supermodel (way too skinny for me), but I suspect the answer is YES.

 

And what about the wife of many years who starts giving head, dressing in lingerie, being kinky, etc? That might be a stop-gap measure. In other words, you might satisfy his need for variety that way for a while. But the deeper question is how does he feel about you? If he no longer cares about you as a person, then no amount of sex is going to keep him home. At our lowest point, I was so disconnected from my wife that I could hardly get an erection on the infrequent occasions we did have sex! And when I stepped out on her, I literally didn't care whether she got hurt or not.

 

So the bottom line is that Curmudgeon was right. Sex, in and of itself, is not the issue. Having a good, well-connected relationship is what you need to keep your man from cheating. And if you don't have that, he may choose to 'cheat' with you for a while (the new kinkier you), but there's a limit to how far that will take you.

[OpenBook]

I raised this as a question to my therapist, who stated that studies have shown, among animal species, testicular size can be correlated to the level of monogamy/polygamy. Animals with proportionally smaller testes tend to be monogamous, and vice versa. Human beings, it turns out, are right on the cusp when it comes to testicle size, so I guess this means we can go either way! When you look at human male-female relations, this makes so much sense because the tension between the desire for family-building vs. promiscuity is glaringly evident, as everyone here on the infidelity boards can attest.

 

Well, blow me down! It never would have occurred to me that there was a correlation like this to the subject I started this thread with... nor would I have ever anticipated this kind of insight. I don't know what to say. Oh. My. Gawd. OK, I know what to say... Why does this strike me as the same thing as saying, "The bigger a woman's breasts are, the more motherly she is"??

[OpenBook]

So the bottom line is that Curmudgeon was right. Sex, in and of itself, is not the issue. Having a good, well-connected relationship is what you need to keep your man from cheating. And if you don't have that, he may choose to 'cheat' with you for a while (the new kinkier you), but there's a limit to how far that will take you.

 

This makes sense and has the ring of truth in it... I just hope you guys are right. Thanks for your insights!

[michaelk]

Well, blow me down! It never would have occurred to me that there was a correlation like this to the subject I started this thread with... nor would I have ever anticipated this kind of insight. I don't know what to say. Oh. My. Gawd. OK, I know what to say... Why does this strike me as the same thing as saying, "The bigger a woman's breasts are, the more motherly she is"??

 

What can I say? Your comment on male seed-spreading triggered this thought, and I threw it out there!! But that's one of the great things about LS, isn't it? Those unexpected insights you get, sometimes from the most unexpected places!

[OWoman]

I agree with this. I feel that, generally, men have an innate tendency toward sex with multiple partners, while women have an innate desire to find a suitable mate and establish a stable environment for the resulting children. (Not very romantic, is it? )

 

I raised this as a question to my therapist, who stated that studies have shown, among animal species, testicular size can be correlated to the level of monogamy/polygamy. Animals with proportionally smaller testes tend to be monogamous, and vice versa. Human beings, it turns out, are right on the cusp when it comes to testicle size, so I guess this means we can go either way! When you look at human male-female relations, this makes so much sense because the tension between the desire for family-building vs. promiscuity is glaringly evident, as everyone here on the infidelity boards can attest.

 

And no, none of this is a license to cheat. But I think we should acknowledge the power of our basic natures and realize that rather than being 'flawed', people who hurt their spouses and cheat are all TOO human.

 

Ah but Michael, more recent sociobiological studies have shown that FEMALES are far from monogamous in nature - they're just a lot better at hiding it so that the males THINK they're monogamous! Often the male that the female wants rearing her young is not the male she wants spawning them, so she'll lure one in to bond with, mate with another on the side, and have the advantage of both - good strong genes and a loyal step-father who thinks he's dad.

[Cobra_X30]

Well, blow me down! It never would have occurred to me that there was a correlation like this to the subject I started this thread with... nor would I have ever anticipated this kind of insight. I don't know what to say. Oh. My. Gawd. OK, I know what to say... Why does this strike me as the same thing as saying, "The bigger a woman's breasts are, the more motherly she is"??

 

Technically that is why men tend to be attracted to large breasts. Its a sign of health and fertility.

 

Breeding strategies are generally complex however, please note that human children take more engery and time from the parents to reach adulthood than most other animals. So there is a biological incentive for men to be relatively monogamous. It's also the reason women have masked fertility cycles, and why sex is enjoyable.

 

Which leads directly to your original question. I can't say for sure, however I would wager a guess and say that more effort in the bedroom would indeed lower the chances of your H going astray. I think each guy has his own % based on situations, and opportunity. If you remove a good chunk of the situational aspect... the opportunity may not be as appealing.

 

Ah but Michael, more recent sociobiological studies have shown that FEMALES are far from monogamous in nature - they're just a lot better at hiding it so that the males THINK they're monogamous! Often the male that the female wants rearing her young is not the male she wants spawning them, so she'll lure one in to bond with, mate with another on the side, and have the advantage of both - good strong genes and a loyal step-father who thinks he's dad.

 

I've seen studies on this in certain bird groups. The males can often smell chicks that are not thiers and will destroy the offspring and leave... So while it does happen the percentages are on the lower end.

 

Keep in mind that nature works on a point - counter point system.

[Trimmer]

The notion that people who have affairs are flawed seems ludicrous to me. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of time. It is human nature. Some people have more control over their primitive urges than others. It all depends on the degree of social conditioning one has been subjected to.

 

 

And no, none of this is a license to cheat. But I think we should acknowledge the power of our basic natures and realize that rather than being 'flawed', people who hurt their spouses and cheat are all TOO human.

You're using "human" here as a negative - as a kind of apology. I would turn that on its ear, and propose that the urge toward polygamy is perhaps a part of our "human nature" - as pointed out by michaelk's therpaist - but as it's in the nature of many other animal species, it is not by any means a hallmark of humanity. It is a drive, an urge shared widely across the biological realm.

 

Something that is unique and distinguishing about humanity, however, is our ability to make agreements that require negotiation, give-and-take, and a recognition that it's not all about serving me,me,me, and to give our word as our bond.

 

So we sit at a red light, delaying our own progress but offering the benefit of not crashing into other people, and in return, we receive the benefit of not being crashed into ourselves. While it's natural and understandable to be in a hurry, when someone breaks this agreement, we don't write it off and say "oh, it's so very human to be in a hurry and ignore the needs of the community..." We say, boy, it was pretty stupid and dangerous to run that red light. Bad person.

 

I make an agreement to sell you my car for a sum of money, and once you give me the money, I don't run off with both the money and the car. Isn't it a natural drive to want to collect as much wealth as I can? But if I did that, I wouldn't get much understanding from the courts our the buyer or anyone, like "Oh, it's so human to want to take as much for yourself as possible..." No, it would be "What is wrong with you???"

 

And if I make an agreement with my spouse that I will forsake all others, I don't cheat. While it's natural and instinctive to find other women outside my marriage sexually attractive, I don't fall back on "It's so human..." because it was specifically those elements of my humanity that elevated me above the animals in the first place and gave me the ability to make that agreement, give my word, control my behavior in spite of my urges, and to represent honorably that another human being could count on me.

 

I agree that polygamy is instinctive, from animals all the way up to us. I completely agree - and know from personal experience - that sexual urges are instinctive, all along that same chain from animals to human beings. Where I depart from "it's so human..." is in the breaking of a bond, a promise - in the lying that accompanies it. I'm not saying I expect anyone to be perfect - specifically, I am certainly not. However, as understandable as our polygamous instincts and wide ranging sexual urges may be, cheating is not human nature, it is rather a failure of these unique human gifts and abilities, and in fact, a reversion to our animal nature.

 

Don't lie to me about keeping your promise even as you are breaking it; leave me first, say goodbye, and then go on to seek your next conquest. Then I will consider you both human, and humane.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Trimmer

[OpenBook]

I agree that polygamy is instinctive, from animals all the way up to us. I completely agree - and know from personal experience - that sexual urges are instinctive, all along that same chain from animals to human beings. Where I depart from "it's so human..." is in the breaking of a bond, a promise - in the lying that accompanies it. I'm not saying I expect anyone to be perfect - specifically, I am certainly not. However, as understandable as our polygamous instincts and wide ranging sexual urges may be, cheating is not human nature, it is rather a failure of these unique human gifts and abilities, and in fact, a reversion to our animal nature.

 

Well said, Trimmer, and I happen to agree with you. But I think there are many MM out there in sex-starved M's who would beg to differ. "What - I'm supposed to just give up and be celibate for the rest of my life?!?" To most men, sex is vital to their wellbeing (or at least they SAY it is), and they do not handle it well when they go without. Should we expect them to in order to remain "human"?

[OpenBook]

I've seen studies on this in certain bird groups. The males can often smell chicks that are not thiers and will destroy the offspring and leave... So while it does happen the percentages are on the lower end.

 

Keep in mind that nature works on a point - counter point system.

 

Don't lions do this too? Where's Curmie when you need him??

[marlena]

a reversion to our animal nature.

 

So then you agree that essentially we humans are by nature animals. Animals by your definition are polygamous. So to mate copiously would be human. Ergo, to not mate copiously would be inhuman.

 

N'est-ce pas?

[OWoman]

Technically that is why men tend to be attracted to large breasts. Its a sign of health and fertility.

 

Actually not - SOME men in SOME cultures are attracted to large breasts. In some cultures breasts are not viewed as sexual at all - in many African societies women walk around bare breasted but cover their waists to their knees, as that is where fertility lurks. Breasts, and breast milk in particular, are viewed as emasculating and men avoid contact with them and especially with lactating women.

 

Cross-cultural studies show that the only constant in what men find attractive about women is a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 - everything else is attractive in some cultures but not universally.

[OpenBook]

Breasts, and breast milk in particular, are viewed as emasculating and men avoid contact with them and especially with lactating women.

 

That's odd. When I was breastfeeding my daughter, my H wanted to "hook up" to it as well. He wouldn't leave me alone. Drove me nuts.

[Cobra_X30]

Don't lions do this too? Where's Curmie when you need him??

 

Lots of animals do this. Human males have been known to do this even if the paternity is in question.

 

Do you know that studies have shown that women can often tell by smell if a baby is thiers or not.

 

Actually not - SOME men in SOME cultures are attracted to large breasts. In some cultures breasts are not viewed as sexual at all - in many African societies women walk around bare breasted but cover their waists to their knees, as that is where fertility lurks. Breasts, and breast milk in particular, are viewed as emasculating and men avoid contact with them and especially with lactating women.

 

Cross-cultural studies show that the only constant in what men find attractive about women is a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 - everything else is attractive in some cultures but not universally.

 

Yes, this is a very good point that I have tried often to make in other threads. The whole.... I'm just not attracted to my H line is pure and utter garbage.

 

See we have an instinctual predisposition to find certain traits attractive in a mate. However, our culture and behavior is what ultimately decides this for us. Which is why we need to be very aware of what our media saturated culture does to our attraction compass. I think it messes with poeple in a way we have never really addressed.

 

You realize how many young poeple expect to be on an episode of Cribs by the time they turn 30?

[bish]

I've posed this question in several threads lately, and it hasn't been answered. I am really curious to know. If the W of a CH put more effort into their lovemaking - wearing lingerie, teasing her H, giving him BJ's, etc. - would it satisfy him enough to where he would stop the cheating?

 

Like Woggle said...nothing will satisfy a cheater. If someone has to bust their ass in bed...not because they want to, but because they are afraid their partner will cheat...then their partner is a worthless pig and all that effort is just a response to emotional extortion.

 

 

Now I'm not so sure. Is it all about "wanting some strange"?? That even if you were married to a supermodel, you would get tired of it after awhile, and you just need somebody different to "feel alive again"?

 

I'd say that sums most cheaters up to a T right there.

 

 

Nearly all of the MM posting here claim that they still really love their W's and do not want to leave the M. If this is so, do they believe that it's POSSIBLE for the same woman to satisfy their sexual needs throughout their lifetime? And if she just put a little more effort into it, he'd be happy?

 

Nope...men who think this way are nothing but little boys who aren't mature enough to handle long-term relationships. Nothing will satisfy them for the long haul.

 

 

Or are we all doomed to suffer the male biological urge to spread their seed to as many women as possible?

 

I know this is suppose to be some well respected finding in the psychology world...but I think its a load of crap.

 

No, we are not ALL doomed to suffer this ludicrous idea....only ones doomed to suffer it is the entitlement princes, cheaters, and little boys who don't know what love and commitment are.

[michaelk]

You're using "human" here as a negative - as a kind of apology. I would turn that on its ear, and propose that the urge toward polygamy is perhaps a part of our "human nature" - as pointed out by michaelk's therpaist - but as it's in the nature of many other animal species, it is not by any means a hallmark of humanity. It is a drive, an urge shared widely across the biological realm.

 

I did not emphasize 'human' in my statement to draw a distinction between us and animals. I was making the point that the natural human behavior is not necessarily to stick with a single mate, and that by contrast to remain in the kind of monogamous relationship that society has come to define as 'normal' is in fact against our basic natures.

[Trialbyfire]

I did not emphasize 'human' in my statement to draw a distinction between us and animals. I was making the point that the natural human behavior is not necessarily to stick with a single mate, and that by contrast to remain in the kind of monogamous relationship that society has come to define as 'normal' is in fact against our basic natures.

It's also human instinct/nature to gorge on food, when it's readily available. Some people do this and others don't. Why not, if it's basic human nature?

[michaelk]

Actually not - SOME men in SOME cultures are attracted to large breasts. In some cultures breasts are not viewed as sexual at all - in many African societies women walk around bare breasted but cover their waists to their knees, as that is where fertility lurks.

 

Very true. One idea I've heard floated as to why Americans are so obsessed with breasts is that it's a reaction to the independent nature of our society. We prize individuality and self-sufficiency above close nurturing relationships, and longing for the breast is a way of seeking that nurturing that society denies us. Don't know if I buy it, but it's an interesting idea.

 

Breasts, and breast milk in particular, are viewed as emasculating and men avoid contact with them and especially with lactating women.

 

Wow! I can't even relate to this. I guess it just goes to show what a big factor societal norms are in defining our behavior.

[michaelk]

It's also human instinct/nature to gorge on food, when it's readily available. Some people do this and others don't. Why not, if it's basic human nature?

 

Excellent question.