Cheating normal?

[fooled once]

That explains why some posters on this forum can smugly proclaim they know few to no people who have been cheaters/been cheated on.

 

The truth is, nobody knows anything about other people's private lives. And if you think you know what goes on between any two people in their marriage, you are either naive or arrogant.

 

 

who is "smugly" proclaiming they know few to no people who have been cheaters/been cheated on? A question was asked and many, many people answered. how are people who said "no" to knowing cheaters being smug?

 

And you are so correct that nobody knows anything about others private lives...no matter how many times an OW proclaims she knows what goes on in the marriage. SHE DOES NOT KNOW; she only knows one persons version.

 

If people don't want to be monogamous then don't commit to a monogamous relationship. Just play around honestly. Is it really that hard?

 

I agree. Why get married if you can't be loyal? And if you (general you) find that you can't be faithful, why stay married? Why not leave? Why decide "I want her to throw me out so I am not the bad guy"? Divorce is NOT hard. Divorce and set the betrayed spouse free. Heck, don't even tell her what a cheater you were - just set her free!

 

 

I'm monogamous by nature. I don't want to hear from someone who is non-monogamous that there is something wrong with me or that I'm a "bitter" person because I am a jealous sort . But someone who is non-monogamous shouldn't hear from me that there is something wrong with them. We're just different.

 

Good post silk!

 

Nobody tells you when you're young and dating and getting engaged that monogamy can be so difficult. Nobody tells you that you might be too young to know what you want. Nobody tells you that other people will cross your path who you are better suited to be with. Nobody tells you that you won't always feel so "in love" with your partner. Nobody tells you that sexual chemistry can die. Nobody tells you that you'd better make damn sure you are highly sexually compatible before getting married.

 

And I know it isn't anyone else's "job" to tell those things... but I think for the most part our society engages in, what I like to call, "The Big Pretend" where we celebrate engagements and weddings, and never speak honestly about how hard marriage is. We rejoice over rings and cake and wedding dresses, but we don't openly share how inconsequential all those things are.

 

So nobody gets married thinking, "I don't want to be monogamous but I'm going to commit to a monogamous relationship anwyay."

 

What happens is that people commit to monogamy believing that how they feel in that moment will last, and that is is sustainable in the long term.

 

Most people don't think they're going to have trouble with monogamy because most of the stories we tell in our society make monogamy seem perfectly natural and easy.

 

And it ain't!

 

Many people don't have trouble with monogamy. Many people have values and beliefs that will not 'let them' be a cheater. I can say proudly I will never cheat on my H. I know me and know that is not something I would do. I would divorce first. Being loyal and faithful is NOT that hard. IF you fall out of love with your spouse and make the decision that you don't want to be married, GET A DIVORCE. No one is forcing anyone else to stay married. That is the point, IMHO. Why is the first instinct to cheat? Why not separate and divorce???

 

No one tells us? Is this really a big secret?

 

The truth is, no one CAN tell a young couple in love (or an old couple, for that matter!) much about the realities of marriage and relationships. Their love is different! They are the first to have ever felt such love! Their love is true.

 

I love this post!!!

[Cabin]

Many people don't have trouble with monogamy. Many people have values and beliefs that will not 'let them' be a cheater. I can say proudly I will never cheat on my H. I know me and know that is not something I would do. I would divorce first.

 

Ahh... sounds like something I could have said two years ago. Speaking in absolutes - "always", "never" - is almost never very safe... most people only think they know how they will act/react in hypothetical future situations, and then if/when they find themselves there, they discover how little they really knew.

 

How many people swear upside down and sideways that they'd definitely divorce a spouse for cheating, only to find themselves maintaining the relationship after infidelity?

 

How many people don't end up cheating because they simply don't have the opportunity? Or they don't have the opportunity with someone they are equally attracted or drawn to?

 

I think there are many monogamy "purists" who can preach about fidelity and morality because meeting someone else just wasn't something they had to worry about.

 

(This comment is not to piss people off, so don't overheat yourselves when replying. I'm putting it out there as a discussion point, not an argument.)

[2themoon&back]

Ahh... sounds like something I could have said two years ago. Speaking in absolutes - "always", "never" - is almost never very safe... most people only think they know how they will act/react in hypothetical future situations, and then if/when they find themselves there, they discover how little they really knew.

 

How many people swear upside down and sideways that they'd definitely divorce a spouse for cheating, only to find themselves maintaining the relationship after infidelity?

 

How many people don't end up cheating because they simply don't have the opportunity? Or they don't have the opportunity with someone they are equally attracted or drawn to?

 

I think there are many monogamy "purists" who can preach about fidelity and morality because meeting someone else just wasn't something they had to worry about.

 

(This comment is not to piss people off, so don't overheat yourselves when replying. I'm putting it out there as a discussion point, not an argument.)

 

Man do I get this …. I never cheated on a man I was married to, I said I never would, said I would leave and I did.

 

BUT … I did not look past that statement …. I got involved with a MM instead…. I never saw that coming...ugh... I guess you could say I should have read the “whole book” …. I read the parts that I thought at the time only applied to me … and my perception of things.

 

I have since stopped using words like, never, should, and always…. I only use them after words like … I hope I never…. I have always in the past, and oh hell I never use should it’s such an ugly word to me (it comes with too much pressure)!!! and I would be caught dead saying "my husband will never do that to me again"

Edited July 2, 2011 by 2themoon&back
to add

[shadowofman]

As much as it is hard to understand, who we are now is not who we will be in the future. Your brain will literally change and dramatically over time. Neurons making new connections and losing old ones. You are literally now not the same person you once were. And different people change to various degrees.

 

On the hard wired topic. My ex is the daughter of an affair. Her mother will not talk about the facts, but from the tiny bit of information she has given, she lost her damn mind for the man and never saw it coming at all. It is this sort of situation where we say that people are being controlled by their genes. Millions of years of evolution has favored people that lose themselves to instant gratification. We are their children. That's how they were able to survive plagues and wars.

[jwi71]

Ahh... sounds like something I could have said two years ago. Speaking in absolutes - "always", "never" - is almost never very safe... most people only think they know how they will act/react in hypothetical future situations, and then if/when they find themselves there, they discover how little they really knew.

 

I agree.

I would also say it would depend on the circumstance in question. I can safely say I would never commit murder. I can also say that I would sleep like a baby after butchering the person threatening my children. Circumstance.

 

And one thing I CAN say is regardless of circumstance, I will NEVER betray my partner. Clearly, for some, they can and do. Which I find sad all the way around because everyone suffers.

 

How many people swear upside down and sideways that they'd definitely divorce a spouse for cheating, only to find themselves maintaining the relationship after infidelity?

 

Dunno. Maybe head over to infidelity section and ask?

Kinda the same as asking how and why many OW stay as OW after D-day and "her MM" doesn't immediately file for D and leave. Seems to me that both situations are awfully similar. And as hint, they both stay for similar reasons.

 

How many people don't end up cheating because they simply don't have the opportunity?

 

None. EVERY person has the opportunity to cheat, they're called prostitutes or gigolos.

 

Or they don't have the opportunity with someone they are equally attracted or drawn to?

 

A distinctly woman's thought. Speaking as a man, I don't need to like you or even know your name to sleep with a woman.

 

I think there are many monogamy "purists" who can preach about fidelity and morality because meeting someone else just wasn't something they had to worry about.

 

I disagree. Like I said above they are called prostitutes.

 

Cheating is a choice. One people make every day.

The interesting question to me is "why".

And why doesn't the WS file for D? I do agree that they cheat because the M is no longer satisfactorily for them - that's easy to see. Wondering why they prolong things by cheating instead of filing for D? That's what I don't get.

 

I do have my theories though. Its all about fear. Cheaters don;t leave because they are afraid. Maybe I'll start asking what are they afraid of? What keeps them in the M?

 

How about it Cabin...I'll ask you first (don't you feel all warm and fuzzy). What fear keeps you M to your H?

[shadowofman]

What if, over the course of a 20 year marriage, your partner becomes complacent or irritable. Nothing that would make you leave the relationship, but enough to not "feel" loved. And then they go away for a while, maybe the military. And they tell their best friend to watch over you while they are gone. That was the situation I was speaking of. A circumstance where a woman in her perceived love starved situation, fell into a circumstance where she was feeling the attention she had craved for years. You do not know what you would do in this instance.

[jwi71]

What if, over the course of a 20 year marriage, your partner becomes complacent or irritable. Nothing that would make you leave the relationship, but enough to not "feel" loved. And then they go away for a while, maybe the military. And they tell their best friend to watch over you while they are gone. That was the situation I was speaking of. A circumstance where a woman in her perceived love starved situation, fell into a circumstance where she was feeling the attention she had craved for years. You do not know what you would do in this instance.

 

I can most certainly say what I would do.

The moment the M becomes unsatisfactory take ACTION to IMPROVE the M.

Maybe a simple chat will suffice. Maybe MC.

 

For me, I would ACT to IMPROVE the M.

 

And if my spouse refuses to act, change or whatever then I have a horrible choice: stay in the current unchanging M or leave. I say this because now my spouse has clearly indicated his/her desire to NOT meet MY needs. Needs I have clearly communicated.

 

TO me, that indifference to MY needs is sufficient to file for D. After all, my spouse has overtly shown with inaction his/her refusal (and its a refusal) to meet MY needs. Do I want to remain married to this person? Is this person NOW the one for me given the current and apparently long running lack of willingness to change? Is this a person I can count on - clearly not given their inaction in the face of clearly stated issues.

 

Having been through the whole infidelity cycle, I KNOW what would do.

 

Explain and ask for change.

Then demand it.

Then I would leave. That person is NOT for me. A shame but it happens.

 

(and yes, walked from 15 years with two small kids under 5 - don't tell me it can't be done...I wasn't AFRAID)

 

Of course, you hit upon a key point: perceived. Because this person you speak of missed the overt action of asking a friend to "watch over".

 

My .02

[shadowofman]

Well maybe you are one of the more reasonable people. In my particular last situation, she perceived a lack of loving behavior from me, and I perceived this as a delusion. So she began an EA via text message while I stayed at home practicing my monogamy.

 

So the question is, if you make attempts to improve your partner, but you partner does not perceive a need to change. Not just a need, but a means to change. Would you really leave? You say it's a horrible choice. I personally do not think many people would do this. Especially if the improvement is trivial.

[Woggle]

The way some people here put makes human beings out to be these undeveloped animals who simply can't control themselves. People who get themselves involved in affairs are the same kind who get hooked on drugs or gambling. They have no self control or something along the way screwed up their ability to have a healthy relationship. I have sympathy for people who genuinely want to change but don't tell me that something that leaves so much pain and hurt in it's wake should be romanticized or promoted.

[shadowofman]

It should not be romanticized or promoted. It's just an undeniable fact of nature. Humans are underdeveloped animals, and it takes extreme acts of willpower to overcome instinct. So rather than demonizing the cheater, we should be shining light on the few extraordinary individuals that are able to abstain.

 

Even in the animal world proper, genetic testing has proven that pair bonding animals cheat. Many bird species which appear monogamous for life often have offspring outside their "marriages" and pass the young off as of the cuckolds brood.

 

The problem with cheating is that it can be a problem. As an impulse, it is somewhere on a scale between severe drug addiction and sugar addiction. A vast majority of people abstain from severe drug addition and hardly anyone abstains from sugar. Extramarital sex falls somewhere in the middle as far as people's will power to abstain is concerned. Bottom line is that our brains want what our brains want. And our brains are often wired to want sex where we can get it.

[OldOnTheInside]

Millions of years of evolution has favored people that lose themselves to instant gratification. We are their children. That's how they were able to survive plagues and wars.

Funny, I thought it had something to do with being the smartest and the strongest. And genetic variation and environmental adaptability...blah blah blah. Face it, the people who know how to play the game intelligently, have the advantage.

 

Eating till we turn into piggies, getting high till our brains have turned into mush, or effing everything that moves until we have more STDs and baby mommas than James Bond, isn't playing intelligently.

 

So rather than demonizing the cheater, we should be shining light on the few extraordinary individuals that are able to abstain.

 

Agreed. Most people don't look at the positive side enough.

[shadowofman]

Survival of the fittest is not as simple as you are making it out. Yes, the smartest and strongest have an advantage. It is about variation and adaptability. But so do the sickest and most self destructive survive and often thrive. One has but to survive to procreating age (12 years old) in order to pass on one's genes and often these young men exhibiting the most risky behavior are better able to pass on their genes. Women like "bad boys" and always have. Hardly the mature folks you have in mind for your ancestors. Who cares if one develops STDs beyond this point in an evolutionary perspective. It's all about passing on genes and therefore variation to the next generation. I have spent my 20 years of my life studying what all this means. Read "Survival of the Sickest". Read Desmond Morris's "Naked Ape" trilogy. Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee". He has a chapter on specifically human behaviors (like drug use) and how they were/are influenced by evolution. Franz de Waal's "Our Inner Ape".

 

The point here is, every human being alive today is the son and daughter of highly promiscuous men AND women. For millions of years men and women could not even communicate abstract concepts like infidelity. We basically raped each other at whim, as animals do today. Then, for tens of thousands of years men owned women like property, sometimes in large numbers. It has literally only been a couple of generations that we have entertained strict monogamy. Now that society has deemed monogamy king, cheating is the natural outlet for millions of years of evolutionary instinct. Doesn't make it right. It's simply the facts.

[xxoo]

What if, over the course of a 20 year marriage, your partner becomes complacent or irritable. Nothing that would make you leave the relationship, but enough to not "feel" loved. And then they go away for a while, maybe the military. And they tell their best friend to watch over you while they are gone. That was the situation I was speaking of. A circumstance where a woman in her perceived love starved situation, fell into a circumstance where she was feeling the attention she had craved for years. You do not know what you would do in this instance.

 

So much for the "best friend"

 

The gaping hole in this story is the "years" that she was love starved before she "fell into a circumstance". She had years to address the problem that led to her weak moment.

 

Millions of years of evolution has favored people that lose themselves to instant gratification.

 

Can you explain this assertion?

 

It seems to me that millions of years of evolution have provided humans uniquely with higher reasoning. Arguably, the "fittest" have developed the ability to delay gratification.

[shadowofman]

Agreed. Most people don't look at the positive side enough.

 

You could not have responded more inappropriately or missed the point more. The positive side would be a happy world where cheaters are not the normal. In this dismal world, cheaters are the norm. I'm not asking that you look at the world from any side, other straight forward and how it truly is.

 

Basically, stop talking smack about 99 percent of the world's population. Like they are the strange ones. Your ancestors were cheaters! Accept the fact that nearly everyone you encounter on a daily basis will, has, or is cheating on their partner. Not 99% of the people on LS. This place is an exception to the rule. Normal people, cheating people, don't typically ask the sort of philosophical questions we here beat into the ground. But nearly everyone out there is a cheater and therefore cheating is the norm. Non-cheaters are exceptional.

 

 

PS This excludes the millions of people that have trouble getting even one sexual partner. These people are often so overtly monogamous due to sexual starvation that they can't even fathom the temptation of promiscuity.

[shadowofman]

It seems to me that millions of years of evolution have provided humans uniquely with higher reasoning. Arguably, the "fittest" have developed the ability to delay gratification.

 

You only think this is advantageous. And you only think this because you hold such willpower in high esteem. As do I. The real world doesn't work like this. A majority of babies born in the world today are of uneducated, impoverished, teens. That is the way evolution works and always has. The most impulsive pass on more genes than the reserved.

[OldOnTheInside]

Survival of the fittest is not as simple as you are making it out. Yes, the smartest and strongest have an advantage. It is about variation and adaptability. But so do the sickest and most self destructive survive and often thrive.

Agree with the first sentence. But eff me, I graduated so I wouldn't have to write 10 page essays.

 

The bolded bit...I find curious.

 

You see, in the modern world, I would agree with you. We're relatively forgiving to the sick and self-destructive nowadays. But in a purely, natural unforgiving, and unbiased environment...

 

I'll have a look at those books perhaps.

 

You could not have responded more inappropriately or missed the point more. The positive side would be a happy world where cheaters are not the normal. In this dismal world, cheaters are the norm. I'm not asking that you look at the world from any side, other straight forward and how it truly is.

Dunno what you are on about. I'm saying that people need to have a more positive outlook on life in general.

[shadowofman]

Correction:

That is the way evolution works and always has.

 

This is the way HUMAN evolution works since CIVILIZATION. To suggest that our ancestors were ALWAYS like this would be incorrect. We have flip-flopped between what is advantageous to survival over the centuries. Pair bonding has its advantage in times of scarcity while abundance (often accompanied with decadence) selects for promiscuity. From the time that the dinosaurs exited the world, mammals have experienced a vacuum, a world of abundance. When the ice age began, the African Savannah dried up and a period of scarcity arrived. This was the driving force that produced the first hominids and likely, the origins of human pair bonding. It's a billion year old story with twists and turns all the way.

[shadowofman]

Dunno what you are on about. I'm saying that people need to have a more positive outlook on life in general.

 

Chalk this up to a communication problem here. My point is that reality is not positive in this respect.

 

The best example of Survival of the Sickest:

Malaria ravages the tropics. People with a debilitating diseases called Sickle Cell are best adapted to fight the infection. The sickest people survive the epidemic.

This is but one example of how the least fit are best suited for the particular environment. Admittedly, it's about infection and off topic. More on topic, the most promiscuous men passed on more genes to more babies. Genghis Khan alone spawned .5% of the total world population today. And if there is anything at all to genetic influence over behavior, it is in the desire for procreation.

 

So whatever your moral opinions of sluts, they ARE the best suited for the environment. Where a monogamous couple might spawn one to a dozen children, promiscuous men of old where able to out breed them 10 fold.

[OldOnTheInside]

Chalk this up to a communication problem here. My point is that reality is not positive in this respect.

 

The best example of Survival of the Sickest:

Malaria ravages the tropics. People with a debilitating diseases called Sickle Cell are best adapted to fight the infection. The sickest people survive the epidemic.

This is but one example of how the least fit are best suited for the particular environment. Admittedly, it's about infection and off topic. More on topic, the most promiscuous men passed on more genes to more babies. Genghis Khan alone spawned .5% of the total world population today. And if there is anything at all to genetic influence over behavior, it is in the desire for procreation.

 

So whatever your moral opinions of sluts, they ARE the best suited for the environment. Where a monogamous couple might spawn one to a dozen children, promiscuous men of old where able to out breed them 10 fold.

 

If we are talking about Sickle Cell, that is an example of variation and adaptability. The people that have it, are resistent to malaria and are better adapted to survive in their environment, relative to that one particular factor. The people that don't have it, are, like you said, more vunerable to malaria.

 

Genghis Khan is a relatively unique case. He wasn't just a "slut". He was intelligent, charismatic, and physically fit and healthy. Basically, an ace in all areas. If Joe Schmoe tried to pull a Genghis Khan...well, he would fail miserably. So...survival of the fittest you know.

 

We are basically saying the same things with different labels.

Edited July 2, 2011 by OldOnTheInside

[Cabin]

None. EVERY person has the opportunity to cheat, they're called prostitutes or gigolos.

 

A distinctly woman's thought. Speaking as a man, I don't need to like you or even know your name to sleep with a woman.

 

A distinctly male response.

Women - by and large - do not cheat for physical or sexual reasons. Of course, there must be some who do, but that is not the predominant appeal of a "new man" for a woman.

 

Women wind up in affairs for emotional reasons and matters of the heart.

 

So while every married woman *can* go hire an escort or male prostitute, few ever actually would. Honestly, no thought could have been further from my mind... I'd be more likely to commit murder than pay some male stranger for sex. Yuck.

 

What many married women may not have to deal with is being approached by a worthy/desirable man... so it's easy to speak in absolutes about cheating because that woman really never found themselves being complimented, flirted with, "wooed" by a man who she also finds attractive, sexy and interesting.

 

I work with and have regular interaction with about 40 males on my work team and not a single one does or could cause me to think twice about them. I have large social circles with many male friends and male "friend of friends", and NOT ONE entices me in the least.

 

Mutual interest, attraction, and desire are the prerequisites for an affair... and that just isn't easy to come by (for a woman).

 

And thank god for that - or else affairs would be even more rampant than they appear to be now!

 

(To answer your other question, my H is moving out in the coming weeks and we are drafting our separation papers. I am not disclosing the A. My AP and his W are talking with their MC about how to support the children best when he moves out. I acknowledge that he may not ever be out, so my plan is not contigent on him. I will proceed with my split regardless.)

[shadowofman]

If we are talking about Sickle Cell, that is an example of variation and adaptability. The people that have it, are resistent to malaria and are better adapted to survive in their environment, relative to that one particular factor. The people that don't have it, are, like you said, more vunerable to malaria.

I was merely describing the concept of survival of the sickest. The fittest in the traditional sense of the word died of malaria.

 

Genghis Khan is a relatively unique case. He wasn't just a "slut". He was intelligent, charismatic, and physically fit and healthy. Basically, an ace in all areas. If Joe Schmoe tried to pull a Genghis Khan...well, he would fail miserably. So...survival of the fittest you know.

 

How do you know what Khan was like? For all you know, he took a majority of those women by force and threat of death. My example here is to highly his fitness in the form of promiscuity. Something that was not at all unique in human history. He prolly had several STDs. The argument was that monogamous people are the fittest. Stop trying to confuse me.

 

Funny, I thought it had something to do with being the smartest and the strongest. And genetic variation and environmental adaptability...blah blah blah. Face it, the people who know how to play the game intelligently, have the advantage.

 

Eating till we turn into piggies, getting high till our brains have turned into mush, or effing everything that moves until we have more STDs and baby mommas than James Bond, isn't playing intelligently.

In the modern world, intelligence often lowers your number of offspring. Stupid people breed more, with more baby-mommas, and a very high number of their children reach breeding age themselves; therefore passing on their high testosterone genetics.

 

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to see that cheating is normal, or the norm for humans. All I can imagine is that it's denial. I think women want to believe there are more honest men out there then really is because otherwise you'd all be abstinent for life.

[OldOnTheInside]

I was merely describing the concept of survival of the sickest. The fittest in the traditional sense of the word died of malaria.

The "traditional sense" can change quite frequently. That is one aspect of adaptability and variation. Change.

 

How do you know what Khan was like?

Read up on his list of accomplishments later. Average Joe wouldn't be able to pull that off.

 

For all you know, he took a majority of those women by force and threat of death.

Wouldn't be surprising really. He was kind of a d*ck.

 

intelligence often lowers your number of offspring. Stupid people breed more, with more baby-mommas, and a very high number of their children reach breeding age themselves; therefore passing on their high testosterone genetics.

The bold bit is a negative trait for humanity's survival. What advantages do we have over other animals? Our thumbs and our brains. If there are far more "stupid people" than "smart people" guess who is likely to die out more quickly...the masses. To put it bluntly, the stupid people are canon fodder.

 

One thing to point out: Whales are pregnant for roughly 9-12 months before having their offspring. Since their overall reproduction cycle is so slow, each whale's offsping is relatively valuable for the species' survival. In comparision, mice can produce a litter of 5-10 offspring every few months. Generally speaking, one death won't mean much for them. Now, since human reproduction rates are closer to whales than mice, what can we assess from this? That the quality of each offspring is infinitely more important than the quantity.

 

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to see that cheating is normal

Who doesn't understand that it is normal? Then again, there are many things that are "normal" that people don't give a eff about. Who wants to be normal? Edited July 2, 2011 by OldOnTheInside

[xxoo]

You only think this is advantageous. And you only think this because you hold such willpower in high esteem. As do I. The real world doesn't work like this. A majority of babies born in the world today are of uneducated, impoverished, teens. That is the way evolution works and always has. The most impulsive pass on more genes than the reserved.

 

But those babies/children are at substantially higher risk than babies born to parents who are able to provide for and protect them.

 

Birth rates drop as infant and child mortality rates drop.

[shadowofman]

Sigh. We have both failed to remain on topic.

 

Over the course of a lifetime, nearly everyone is bound to cheat. Though they may detest "cheating", it is due to the fact that their nature often demands it under certain circumstances. And indeed, this model of breeding is has been beneficial for countless species over millions of years. There are in fact very few species at all that would be truly monogamous, but psuedo-monogamous.

[xxoo]

What many married women may not have to deal with is being approached by a worthy/desirable man... so it's easy to speak in absolutes about cheating because that woman really never found themselves being complimented, flirted with, "wooed" by a man who she also finds attractive, sexy and interesting.

 

You think we'd all swoon "if only" attractive men would approach us?