Why Powerful Men have Affairs

[OWoman]

I've always thought that the whole Mars & Venus thing was just so much donkey bollocks, so I was interested to see a reputable publication like the Observer giving it some column inches. So his latest theory is that

 

powerful men have higher than average levels of testosterone, which they seek to "top up" when their reserves become depleted. One way they do that is to have an affair. According to Gray, long-term relationships generate oxytocin, dubbed the "love hormone", which encourages bonding between couples and helps to lower female stress levels. But that benefit comes at a price for alpha male partners.

 

"With oxytocin and alpha men, as the women's stress level goes down when she gets oxytocin from a loving monogamous relationship, the man's testosterone level is going down, so he's getting more stressed and more inclined to seek out risky behaviour to push it back up again. The concept is that intimacy can lower a man's sexual drive."

 

In days gone by women would have turned a blind eye, says Gray. "When I was raised, in the fifties, for my mother a good husband was someone who had a job, he didn't drink or smoke too much, he didn't yell or shout. She said that for that generation a provider was what women wanted. She had a lifestyle which kept her oxytocin levels up so she was happy. She says the lack of romance wasn't a big deal and if she suspected he might have 'other responsibilities' somewhere else it didn't bother her. In the eighties women wanted romance. In the nineties women wanted communication. Now noughties women want romance, then communication, then they are saying, 'I get nothing in the way of domestic help.' That's all mixed up.

 

So while women are obsessing with help with the housework and men are obsessing with casual sex, their relationships are being riven apart.

 

"In America the startling statistic is that the average length of a relationship is five years. That's three years of passion and two years of gathering the evidence they need to leave."

 

This theory is not too far off Esther Perel's theory, expounded in "Mating in Captivity", about the dichotomy between intimacy and passion. She argues that as couples become more intimate during a LTR, they become less passionate - because the two are oppositional. Her arguments have always made a great deal of sense to me, resonating with my own experience, and as a result my H and I have ensured throughout our R that we balance the two.

 

The difference, I guess, is that Perel describes a dynamic which happens in a couple over time, while Gray ascribes the dynamic to gender, taking it a step further than Perel. Perel says, "this happens to (many) couples over time", while Gray says "this happens to couples because powerful men get emasculated by all that oxytocin and need to top their testosterone levels up". I guess I find the first (Perel) argument easier to accept than the second (Gray) - if only because I don't give a monkey's about housework, and do care fervently about passion.

 

But, beyond that, I wondered what others made of the argument/s - particularly those who have liked Gray's other Mars *In days gone by women would have turned a blind eye, says Gray. "When I was raised, in the fifties, for my mother a good husband was someone who had a job, he didn't drink or smoke too much, he didn't yell or shout. She said that for that generation a provider was what women wanted. She had a lifestyle which kept her oxytocin levels up so she was happy. She says the lack of romance wasn't a big deal and if she suspected he might have 'other responsibilities' somewhere else it didn't bother her. In the eighties women wanted romance. In the nineties women wanted communication. Now noughties women want romance, then communication, then they are saying, 'I get nothing in the way of domestic help.' That's all mixed up.

 

So while women are obsessing with help with the housework and men are obsessing with casual sex, their relationships are being riven apart.

 

Does this resonate with anyone's experience?

[Spark1111]

While I think it is true for many relationships, the changes afforded the female gender over the last 40 years have turned the concept of male as provider somewhat on its ear.

 

Women today are providing quite well for themselves, thank you. And so they have come to want what many men have had for hundreds of years; a wife.

 

What working woman wouldn't want to come home to ironed clothes, clean house, well-behaved kids, and a strong gin and tonic!

Plus passion, excitement and sexual variety.

 

Not only can we control our own sexuality with birth control, we can also control our own finances. And with that freedom which was in the past, solidly a man's domain, comes the ever changing role of women.

 

Does a man's testosterone increase with new partners? Most definitely proven yes! by science.

 

However, what is surprising scientists (I mean, really, are they all men?) is the potential for a woman's libido to skyrocket with a new partner too.

[OWoman]

But, beyond that, I wondered what others made of the argument/s - particularly those who have liked Gray's other Mars *In days gone by women would have turned a blind eye, says Gray. "When I was raised, in the fifties, for my mother a good husband was someone who had a job, he didn't drink or smoke too much, he didn't yell or shout. She said that for that generation a provider was what women wanted. She had a lifestyle which kept her oxytocin levels up so she was happy. She says the lack of romance wasn't a big deal and if she suspected he might have 'other responsibilities' somewhere else it didn't bother her. In the eighties women wanted romance. In the nineties women wanted communication. Now noughties women want romance, then communication, then they are saying, 'I get nothing in the way of domestic help.' That's all mixed up.

 

So while women are obsessing with help with the housework and men are obsessing with casual sex, their relationships are being riven apart.

 

Does this resonate with anyone's experience?

 

Apologies for the weirdness that happened (above) with the quoting - noticed it too late to edit!

[OWoman]

While I think it is true for many relationships, the changes afforded the female gender over the last 40 years have turned the concept of male as provider somewhat on its ear.

 

Women today are providing quite well for themselves, thank you. And so they have come to want what many men have had for hundreds of years; a wife.

 

What working woman wouldn't want to come home to ironed clothes, clean house, well-behaved kids, and a strong gin and tonic!

Plus passion, excitement and sexual variety.

 

Not only can we control our own sexuality with birth control, we can also control our own finances. And with that freedom which was in the past, solidly a man's domain, comes the ever changing role of women.

 

Does a man's testosterone increase with new partners? Most definitely proven yes! by science.

 

However, what is surprising scientists (I mean, really, are they all men?) is the potential for a woman's libido to skyrocket with a new partner too.

 

Yes, exactly - I have no issue with the dynamic as described, but assigning gender to it is what gets up my nose.

 

I'm sure ANY partner who is an achiever in the outside world who starts to feel too "cosied in" at home feels the need to reassert themselves beyond their domestic role - whether that is through their sexuality (an A) or through some stellar business performance or whatever, to show that they are not "merely" the H or W or whatever that they might feel reduced to in the oxytocin-suffused claustrophobic home environment. Quite possibly it is a testosterone vs oxytocin thing, but women also have testosterone! and men also have oxytocin! It's not mutually exclusive simply because of ownership or otherwise of a pair of spheroid gonads!

[greengoddess]

Yes, exactly - I have no issue with the dynamic as described, but assigning gender to it is what gets up my nose.

 

I'm sure ANY partner who is an achiever in the outside world who starts to feel too "cosied in" at home feels the need to reassert themselves beyond their domestic role - whether that is through their sexuality (an A) or through some stellar business performance or whatever, to show that they are not "merely" the H or W or whatever that they might feel reduced to in the oxytocin-suffused claustrophobic home environment. Quite possibly it is a testosterone vs oxytocin thing, but women also have testosterone! and men also have oxytocin! It's not mutually exclusive simply because of ownership or otherwise of a pair of spheroid gonads!

lol wait. Are you saying you are insulted because of the gender roles because as a women you feel the man scenario describes you?

[silktricks]

I'm not really sure that I would completely agree with either Gray or Perel. I do think some people have stronger "risk taking" genetic structure, and that those people have a need to crank things up when/if they start getting too tame. I would venture to say that there are more men than women who fit the mold, but do not agree that it is strictly gender based behavior.

 

I don't think either Gray or Perel's theories necessarily have anything to do with the apparent increased incidences of infidelity amongst powerful people, though. In my opinion powerful and/or wealthy people often become drunk on their own power. They use (and abuse) people because they have developed the idea that they are better and more deserving than others - and that includes their spouses.

[donnamaybe]

In my opinion powerful and/or wealthy people often become drunk on their own power. They use (and abuse) people because they have developed the idea that they are better and more deserving than others - and that includes their spouses.

Yep. Totally agree with this.

[jwi71]

Oh this is easy.

 

Google " South Park Sexual Healing" for the answer.

 

Not only did I laugh till I cried but they answer the question as well.

 

Warning: NSFW

[Owl]

The answer to this question is simple...

 

...because they can.

 

Women are attracted to powerful men. Powerful men are used to getting what they want regardless of the cost to others.

 

Where's the need for all the silly scientific support of something as basic as this?

[silktricks]

The answer to this question is simple...

 

...because they can.

 

Women are attracted to powerful men. Powerful men are used to getting what they want regardless of the cost to others.

 

Where's the need for all the silly scientific support of something as basic as this?

 

 

It's just the psychologists version of proving 2 + 2 = 4 to a mathematician.

[John Michael Kane]

I agree with Owl. They do it because they want to and they know most likely they'll get away with it.

 

Obviously ego stroking.

[anne1707]

The answer to this question is simple...

 

...because they can.

 

Women are attracted to powerful men. Powerful men are used to getting what they want regardless of the cost to others.

 

Where's the need for all the silly scientific support of something as basic as this?

 

Plus they are more like to have the resources & excuses to carry out an affair - travel for work, be able to pay for hotels, dinners, work late, etc

[Mimolicious]

Answer to the question- Because they find willing weak-minded, starstruck groupies who are willing to give it up. That simple. It's like getting a notch on their belt. Then they get caught up in the scandal...

 

Just like it happens with all the other citizens of the world, daahhling.

[carhill]

In this equal opportunity world, powerful people engage in all sorts of activities, including affairs, legal and illegal, moral and immoral, right and wrong, because they can. Power can be a corrupting influence; the id can run wild. We're nowhere closer to evolving beyond that state than we were ten thousand years ago; it's only the activities and the means which are different. I doubt we'll ever evolve out of that state; we'll likely destroy ourselves first. Maybe that isn't a bad thing, evolutionarily speaking.

 

The really interesting part is that powerful people exist solely due to the choices we make. We choose to give them power, whether monetary or political or other. Without us, they would be impotent and meaningless. Food for thought.

[OWoman]

lol wait. Are you saying you are insulted because of the gender roles because as a women you feel the man scenario describes you?

 

No, that wasn't what I said. Everyone else seems to have understood.

[Woggle]

Because they feel entitled to do whatever the hell they want. If you look at other areas of life that same entitlement usually comes out.

[OWoman]

In this equal opportunity world, powerful people engage in all sorts of activities, including affairs, legal and illegal, moral and immoral, right and wrong, because they can. Power can be a corrupting influence; the id can run wild. We're nowhere closer to evolving beyond that state than we were ten thousand years ago; it's only the activities and the means which are different. I doubt we'll ever evolve out of that state; we'll likely destroy ourselves first. Maybe that isn't a bad thing, evolutionarily speaking.

 

The really interesting part is that powerful people exist solely due to the choices we make. We choose to give them power, whether monetary or political or other. Without us, they would be impotent and meaningless. Food for thought.

 

Interesting point. Is it always willingly given, though? If someone sits behind a computer terminal and buys and sells stocks and shares on the stock market, it's an anonymised process - no one is really choosing to sell to that particular person rather than someone else offering the money, or to buy from them rather than the next guy. It's just numbers. So they could make their money quite outside of anyone's conscious "choice" - and then benefit from the power that that provides them.

 

Similarly with despotic leaders, who rule through fear. Sure, the populace is making a choice - the choice to remain safe and alive rather than rising up to overthrow the tyrant. So that power is not necessarily willingly conferred by others.

 

On a less extreme note - what about "stolen" elections - like George W Bush, or Robert Mugabe? People vote, but the majority candidate does not get elected because the system cheats them. So is that person the beneficiary of willingly conferred power?

 

Sure, one could choose not to ratify that power - but if Joe Soap, say, decided to act as if GWB or RGM was not really the leader of that country and ignore their decrees, where would that get Joe? Behind bars, most likely, as the leader (legitimate or otherwise) invoked the machinery of the state to enforce their will. Sure, they could revolt - but revolutions are not always successful. And if the choice is between life and death, can it really be said that that power is willingly conferred?

[OWoman]

Seems to be a way to sell media. Here's another article on the same thing...