american-woman Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 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? When I first came on LS, it struck me how the men who posted were all pretty much saying the same thing -- that what they REALLY want is their W back... the woman they married, not the staleness of what their M has become. They want HER, their W (not somebody else) to be more like the woman she was when they got married. They don't want to go outside the M, but felt they were forced to because their W was ignoring their needs. 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"? 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? Or are we all doomed to suffer the male biological urge to spread their seed to as many women as possible? Affairs are`nt usually about sex, one nite stands are. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Excellent question. Do people live to eat and mate, or do they eat and mate to live? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I guess my last question is what I see as the defining line between primates and homo sapien sapiens. It's also our basic nature to crap where ever we feel like it. That most adults have learned to control their urges and isolate where we defecate, means we are capable of learning healthy behaviours. Link to post Share on other sites
michaelk Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I guess my last question is what I see as the defining line between primates and homo sapien sapiens. It's also our basic nature to crap where ever we feel like it. That most adults have learned to control their urges and isolate where we defecate, means we are capable of learning healthy behaviours. I understand completely. And none of this discussion on human nature is intended to say we can't learn to do things differently. But I think it's important to understand why we do the things we do, because beyond a certain point it's probably NOT healthy (mentally) to be going against your basic nature. To answer your previous question, I think the reason some people act certain ways and others don't stems from each of us having different physiologies and social conditioning. This can change how much we feel our 'urges', and how we behave when we feel them. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I understand completely. And none of this discussion on human nature is intended to say we can't learn to do things differently. But I think it's important to understand why we do the things we do, because beyond a certain point it's probably NOT healthy (mentally) to be going against your basic nature. To answer your previous question, I think the reason some people act certain ways and others don't stems from each of us having different physiologies and social conditioning. This can change how much we feel our 'urges', and how we behave when we feel them. I agree that physiologies and particularly social conditioning, have much to do with how we react to urges. On the other hand, we as adults are responsible for ourselves, with more than sufficient external influences, to know that morally, cheating in itself, is not acceptable. We can only blame our upbringing for so long, as adults. Each adult needs to sooner or later, own their behaviours. Once behaviours are owned, each adult needs to decide if they're behaviours they're willing to accept within themselves or behaviours they wish to change. If they choose not to change their behaviours, they also need to own this decision and the impact of such. For example, if you're the type of person who isn't going to be able to remain faithful, why get married or why not find someone who agrees to an open marriage or relationship? If you're a high-drive person, why marry someone with a different libido? Link to post Share on other sites
cj1988 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I agree with the other post Affairs are not really about sex, ONS are completely about sex ! Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 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. Next time marry an African man then - he won't touch you until he's sure his manhood will be safe Link to post Share on other sites
marlena Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I agree with the other post Affairs are not really about sex, ONS are completely about sex ! Yes, this is true. Link to post Share on other sites
Mustang Sally Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 This may not be a valid point of view, on this thread, as I am a woman who has considered cheating (rather than a man), but here goes.... It wouldn't matter to me what H did in the bedroom. If I had decided to cross the PA line, it would be because I had already mentally checked out of the M a long time ago and no amount of effort in the sack on his part would likely change that. Just one woman's opinion - do with it what you will. Link to post Share on other sites
cj1988 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Mustang, I believe you and I agree. When I suspected my H of having an EA, I was trying everything I could to get him back including doing things in bed that he wanted for so long.....it did not work.....no matter what I did he was still distant and at some point told me he was not interested in my sexually anymore, it was too late......although he still claims it was not the EA because he never had one and that it was US and our fighting for years that killed, I do not believe him....for whatever reason he had checked out emtionally so his LUST for me and or attraction was gone as well.....NO MATTER WHAT I DID IN BED ! Link to post Share on other sites
Mustang Sally Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I cringe a bit whenever I read the "men are naturally polygamous and women are naturally monogamous..." line of defense. I am very familiar with the sociobiologic rationale for this line of thinking. And I can see some validity to it, certainly. But as a female who is finished with child-bearing, I would caution all men who take it for granted that their women aren't capable of or likely to have straying thoughts. It is a silly myth perpetuated by an antiquated (victorian) view of female sexuality, in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
Mustang Sally Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 CJ - While of course, I don't know your situation well enough to make any real judgements on it, I would say that it is certainly possible that BOTH things added to his distance. In my case, the discord between H and I are what started the formation of the gorge between us. I never had thoughts of other men or other relationships before this initial marital distance developed. But, once the distance was there, I realized that there is literally a whole world of opportunity out there for a spouse that desires to participate in infidelity. I truly had no f*cking clue how readily available it was, or how prevalent it is, until I started mentally distancing myself from my M due to primary issues between my H and I. Previously, I bought into the "it could NEVER happen to me - I'm not that kind of person" line of thinking...that is why I think it is so dangerous. Anyway, once an emotional bond is forged with another person other than one's spouse, of course it continues to widen the canyon. Link to post Share on other sites
herenow Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 What seems to be left out of this thread is the fact that the state of the marriage is the responsibility of both partners. If the wandering spouse makes the choice to stray without giving the betrayed the knowledge of what is happening, then blame can only be placed on the cheater. It really doesn't matter what the problem is in the marriage, if there is no communication between the two people who are married, there is no way to fix it or prevent the actions that one spouse makes on their own. I agree 100% that the problem lies within the cheating spouse. There are problems in every marriage. When humans have problems, we usually have discussions about those problems in an attempt to solve them. When a human has issues in dealing with problems, the problems continue. In my opinion, no matter what happens in marriage, the cheater will continue their pattern until they find and fix what is missing inside them. I do think that many people site sex as a reason, but I think that is an attempt to place blame on someone else. I think that many BS will tell you that they had a great sex life, but their spouse still cheated. As humans, we have the gift of being able to express ourselves with more than just animalistic physical actions. It is our human responsibility to use that gift when we are dealing with other humans as well as animals who don't have that ability. To say that we are just giving in to human desire is a true insult to our intelligence. It is the ultimate of shifting responsibility for ones actions. Actually, this thread explains so much about what is going on in the world today. Since so many here seem to think that we are no better than animals, it's no wonder our planet is in such danger. It truly scares me that humans can think this way. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Actually, this thread explains so much about what is going on in the world today. Since so many here seem to think that we are no better than animals, it's no wonder our planet is in such danger. It truly scares me that humans can think this way. I have to agree 100%. I saw posts to this effect and didn't quite know how to respond...I mean, if you have dismal expectations for your own or other's behavior, that's what you get. Link to post Share on other sites
sarme Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 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? Gluttony is not a natural human instinct, it is an illness or a biproduct of another problem, it is is NOT a natural human tendency by any stretch. It's like saying everyone has a natural tendency to smoke, how come some do and some don't? Ahhh because smoking is not a natural human tendency. Link to post Share on other sites
marlena Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 As humans, we have the gift of being able to express ourselves with more than just animalistic physical actions. Making love to someone we love is a physical action through which we express our most profound emotions for that person. When two bodies unite in the act of love it is subliminal and trangresses the finite. Desire is what kindles love and prevents it from dying. Sex for the sake of sex is also therapeutic. It releases tension, stress and anxiety. It is a basic need that when not met can lead to mental and emotional disturbances. Many a psycopath is born because of sexual deprivation. I am not condoning affairs. I am only saying that I can understand why they happen. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Gluttony is not a natural human instinct, it is an illness or a biproduct of another problem, it is is NOT a natural human tendency by any stretch. It's like saying everyone has a natural tendency to smoke, how come some do and some don't? Ahhh because smoking is not a natural human tendency. Actually I just watched Nature on PBS last night. They were discussing desert lions, their social and developmental differences compared to lions who live in prides on the plains. There was one instant where two lions came on a wild herd of donkeys - bred for their passive nature, they have no instinct to run away. The lions had a field day and killed more donkeys than they needed to. The narrator mentioned that restraint is not instinctual in the animal kingdom, and is even less prevalent in predators. Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra_X30 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I have to agree 100%. I saw posts to this effect and didn't quite know how to respond...I mean, if you have dismal expectations for your own or other's behavior, that's what you get. Yes, we all have instincts and biological urges. However we have been provided the means to control ourselves. The idea that we cannot exercize this ability to control our behavior is pretty lazy. Doesnt it just sound like an easy excuse? Link to post Share on other sites
herenow Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Gluttony is not a natural human instinct, it is an illness or a biproduct of another problem, it is is NOT a natural human tendency by any stretch. It's like saying everyone has a natural tendency to smoke, how come some do and some don't? Ahhh because smoking is not a natural human tendency. I agree that gluttony is not a human instinct, but it is, in some cases, an animal instinct. Since this thread is comparing us to animals, I don't think the analogy is too much of a reach. Again, I find this whole thing so sad. Human intelligence is a gift. To say that we are like animals to justify affairs is plain sick. Link to post Share on other sites
herenow Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Making love to someone we love is a physical action through which we express our most profound emotions for that person. When two bodies unite in the act of love it is subliminal and trangresses the finite. Desire is what kindles love and prevents it from dying. Sex for the sake of sex is also therapeutic. It releases tension, stress and anxiety. It is a basic need that when not met can lead to mental and emotional disturbances. Many a psycopath is born because of sexual deprivation. I am not condoning affairs. I am only saying that I can understand why they happen. Certainly sexual urge is human, but making a promise to another human should not be ignored simply because one partner wants to fill a selfish need. In the context of this thread, I have to say that I think the cheater will cheat no matter how much sex he or she is having at home. I don't think the cheating is about the sex, it's about the cheater and their inability to deal with their own issues. Link to post Share on other sites
marlena Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I don't think having an affair automatically designates a person with issues. Besides, we all have "issues." This is one word that has been grossly abused in my opinion. Everything doesn't boil down "issues." I wonder if all this psycho mumble jumble is doing any of us any good. Some things just are. Period. Link to post Share on other sites
JustBreathe Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I am one who thinks the notion that men and women are not supposed to be monogamous is untrue. We are not like other animals. We are the most evolved species there is. We can reason. We have a sense of right and wrong. We are capable of moral judgment. If you take an animal and put his food in the same spot every day and then one day remove the food and instead give him an electric shock, he does not reason, he just knows that if he goes there, he gets pain instead of reward. This isn't the same thing as reason or a sense of right and wrong. If we are not meant to be monogamous then why do most of us couple at an early age? Seek out a life partner and get married? Because we reason that having one partner brings us (among other things) warmth and security and love. Because we want to be monogamous, have one person to love and love one person. Because it is natural for us to do so. Even though some of us have a problem doing that. To say that people aren't meant to be monogamous because they're driven by instinctual animal urges is to say we have never evolved in our thinking and sense of right and wrong, and lack the ability to create values and exercise moral judgment. We can all reason, etc., but there are people with values and judgment that don't match the people they married. I am talking about repeat cheaters, your garden variety philanderer. Sure polygamy has been around since the dawn of time. However, polygamists don't experience love and relationships in the same way. These people do indeed something missing inside and seek to find it by using people to fill the void. Some of us have a different sense of right and wrong, it is flexible according to what they feel they need. For others, the sense of right and wrong is less flexible. One kind of person isn't better than the other, just different. It is possible for people to make mistakes in judgment and these are the ones who cheat once, suffer great guilt and disappointment in themselves and don't do it again. However, I am not sure that the reason they don't do it again is out of love for their partner, but rather, like the animal above they learn that to cheat means pain, disappointment in themselves, and discomfort. I'm still trying to decide about that one. This is only my opinion and I don't want to rile anyone. -------------------------------- To answer the initial post, I am not an unattractive or unloving woman. I loved my husband very much. I tried to keep him happy both in and out of the bedroom. I kept myself in great physical condition, worked out all the time, did indeed wear the lingerie in fact he would buy it for me to wear. Folks, we did it ALL believe me, I am no prude provided I genuinely care about and trust whoever I'm making love with. I loved sex with him and it was good. Except for maybe things like S and M, hurting each other physically, or humiliating each other, we had great sex. We had sex 3-4 times a week after 15 years of marriage. Yet my husband was a philanderer (I didn't know it, of course). He says it was insecurity and a need for validdaaaation from women *smirk*. I think he is damaged goods and always will be. Link to post Share on other sites
herenow Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I don't think having an affair automatically designates a person with issues. Besides, we all have "issues." This is one word that has been grossly abused in my opinion. Everything doesn't boil down "issues." I wonder if all this psycho mumble jumble is doing any of us any good. Some things just are. Period. Then please tell me why a person who is unhappy in their marriage, for whatever reason, wouldn't have that discussion with their spouse before having sex with someone else. If you say that the cheater did tell his or her spouse that they were unhappy and going out to get some sex, and the spouse did nothing, then OK, no problem. I would think that if every cheater was honest, they would either be single in a hurry or working to fix their marriage. Link to post Share on other sites
sarme Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Again, I find this whole thing so sad. Human intelligence is a gift. To say that we are like animals to justify affairs is plain sick. so do I, I agree that it is sickning to that we are being compared to animals. animals are not monogamous by nature and in some species it is the female that seeks variety etc. So to compare us to our 4 legged friends is regressing in everything we have achieved in humanity. Also Herenow I wanted to mention earlier that I really agree with your previous post about it being unfair that the cheater not communicate his dissatisfaction of the marriage to the partner before they turn to an A I think that is the root of all problems and how As start, one partner acts out for themselves and not with the well bieng of the marriage in mind. If you are commited to your partner you must consider them in every major decision that you take that could possibly affect the two. And A most definitely affects the two. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I cringe a bit whenever I read the "men are naturally polygamous and women are naturally monogamous..." line of defense. I am very familiar with the sociobiologic rationale for this line of thinking. And I can see some validity to it, certainly. But as a female who is finished with child-bearing, I would caution all men who take it for granted that their women aren't capable of or likely to have straying thoughts. It is a silly myth perpetuated by an antiquated (victorian) view of female sexuality, in my opinion. Sociobiology explains trends, not individuals - it explains natural selection for certain traits, but adaptations in any generation are possible since human intelligence allows for learning to a far greater extent than other animals. I also do not fit with sociobiological trends, since I've been rather more "promiscuous" than any of the males I've been involved with. I'm more of a bonobo than a chimpanzee, perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts