Cheating normal?

[Silly_Girl]

But euthanasia IS that, so although I find it incredibly unlikely, I just can't say with any sure knowledge. I (hopefully) have 50 years or more of living to do. I have no clue what might transpire.

[MissBee]

The one that always gets me is euthanasia. So easy to have a judgement but if it were your own child.... well, I personally just find it the easy way out to say 'I KNOW how I'd behave'. I think it's the safe way. It doesn't threaten your principles or require self-interrogation.

Hopefully it's all irrelevant anyway...

 

 

That's reinforcing my point SG...such things are uncontrollable. I cannot control whether or not my child ends up in some coma or has some terminal illness and if I'd have to pull the plug. Of course I don't know how I'd react to that.

 

That' the difference. Never say never about things that are truly uncontrollable, I believe that. But some things are. It's not about your reaction after the fact...euthanasia and other circumstances are things you can only react to after something uncontrollable already happened and I do believe that you may not know your reaction in the face of such traumatic situations...but an affair is really not something that just blindsides you...sorry...every single day while in the affair I was conscious and chose it and was conflicted and could have stopped and I eventually did. I didn't wake up in it and wake up out of it. It wasn't some overnight life twist that befell me...I had ample time to see exactly what was going on. I have been involved in an affair before...so I know exactly how it happens, it's not some theoretical/hypothetical scenario of which I have no experiential knowledge. Which is even more so why I can safely say, having been there, done that, I am even less apt to do it again.

 

No affair sneaks up on you....mine didn't and no one else's I've heard here sounds like it either although some say it like it is, but when you really look at it, the steps can be delineated without much effort. A series of choices from the point of initial attraction lead into an affair....

 

Is it your belief that it makes no sense to have standards of what you will and won't do beforehand since life may blindside you?

 

That is how it comes off...that because life may blind side you, every thing you do should be prefaced by some type of statement that makes it clear that you can't know how you'll react.

 

I am of the belief that when you have a plan beforehand it is much easier to stay on course and alter your plans as life happens, than if you had none to begin with. I do believe it is easier to not have an affair if you have made that a tenet for yourself....I do believe it is easier to have one if you have the attitude that "Hey maybe I will or won't...I can't know".

 

Put it this way....condoms and birth control aren't 100%, but having a plan of safe sex beforehand and establishing for yourself that you don't have unprotected sex, is a far better bet and it is less likely that that individual will be bindsided by pregnancy than the person who had no specific standard about it and whose attitude is that you still can never be 100% safe with bc and condoms sooo doesn't even make sense to say what you will and won't do.

Edited July 4, 2011 by MissBee

[woinlove]

On the discussion of what one will or will not do: not everyone has the same values and even some with the same values do not necessarily have the same maturity or skills needed to live their life according to their values. Some people end up having an affair with their daughter's or son's spouse, others value their relationship with their children too much and they have the necessary self-awareness and control to ensure they don't do that. Some extend this boundary to close friends and other family members, and some do not.

 

While I tend not to say never myself (insanity could strike, a head injury could change my personality, ... ) it seems more fruitful and interesting to me to have a discussion on values and living up to one's values than to argue about what circumstances and rare probabilities are excluded from the use of the word never.

[Silly_Girl]

While I tend not to say never myself (insanity could strike, a head injury could change my personality, ... ) it seems more fruitful and interesting to me to have a discussion on values and living up to one's values than to argue about what circumstances and rare probabilities are excluded from the use of the word never.

 

Fair point. Within my values it's important to me to try and understand what has driven someone to act as they have before I condemn that act. So it naturally follows on that I would not speak in absolutes when in comes to predicting my own behaviour in comparison to another's.

[Lizzie60]

I have not read the thread.. but personally, I think it's inevitable.

 

We live in a disposable society.. and it includes relationship.

 

I truly don't believe that we can be faithful to the same person for our whole life.

 

Those who thinks that no one around them ever cheated.. well... sorry but unless you are with the person 24/7 there is no way you can know FOR SURE that the person never cheated.. it's just impossible.

[Cabin]

I will never fly to the moon

 

I will "never" be Queen of England... doesn't pack as much punch when you don't really get to choose to "never" do it...

[jwi71]

I suppose I should check the entire thread to see if anyone else called you out on this hogwash but I will say I don't buy it.

 

Why?

Is your life view on R's and M so jaded that you believe humans to be incapable of committing to one another and seeing it through?

 

For me, this whole topic reminds of a friend I know who once traveled. All he saw was hot steamy jungles, poor infrastructure and primitive living conditions. Well, that was his normal for this place. Its what he saw and understood it to be. And, following on his experience, its how he describes the entirety of the country to all who will listen. Its not a very nice place in his eyes - in his defense, its all he saw.

 

As luck would have it I've been there too. What he failed to see, through no fault of his own, is the wonderful, clean modern city on the other side of that jungle. That was my normal.

 

Who's view is more normal? Or more correct?

Does my experience invalidate my friend's or vice-versa?

Is his view hogwash? Or mine?

 

WW is an intelligent individual who has the capacity and understanding of the broader spectrum and when she looked at the stats of her known circle I'm sure she wouldn't have considered it postworthy if she thought all of her A-partaking group were like-minded.

 

Yet her view, her normal of rampant infidelity is NOT hogwash?

Why is one view, mine, "hogwash" while the other, WW's, is not?

 

My personal stats came from people of all walks of life, all religious and class backgrounds. What's interesting is not that we are like-minded, but that people tend to confide easily in people like WW and me. It occurs to me that we are open-minded, WW and I, and have earned the trust of those who have confided in us.

 

I have no idea why you include that.

Do you presume I do not have a cross-section of friends?

That I am not trustworthy?

That I am not open minded?

 

There is really no way for you to know that your circle hasn't partook in As. It's much much easier to deny so than it is to admit so. And nobody is going to open up their A past or present to someone who is so vocal about being anti-A.

 

Correct. And knowing that I said "no known".

 

And I can PROMISE I have never cheated. Ever. Not in school, my taxes, or a partner (provided their was reasonable expectation of exclusivity). What I don't understand is if, lets pretend uncle Bob cheats like a politician, how that would affect MY message or belief or reputation?

 

I think its far more simple - I grew up in an honest family whose values were passed down. Using those values, I selected like-minded friends. And its thusly non-existent in my world - to my knowledge.

[wheelwright]

Why?

Is your life view on R's and M so jaded that you believe humans to be incapable of committing to one another and seeing it through?

 

For me, this whole topic reminds of a friend I know who once traveled. All he saw was hot steamy jungles, poor infrastructure and primitive living conditions. Well, that was his normal for this place. Its what he saw and understood it to be. And, following on his experience, its how he describes the entirety of the country to all who will listen. Its not a very nice place in his eyes - in his defense, its all he saw.

 

As luck would have it I've been there too. What he failed to see, through no fault of his own, is the wonderful, clean modern city on the other side of that jungle. That was my normal.

 

Who's view is more normal? Or more correct?

Does my experience invalidate my friend's or vice-versa?

Is his view hogwash? Or mine?

 

Yet her view, her normal of rampant infidelity is NOT hogwash?

Why is one view, mine, "hogwash" while the other, WW's, is not?

 

I have no idea why you include that.

Do you presume I do not have a cross-section of friends?

That I am not trustworthy?

That I am not open minded?

 

 

 

Correct. And knowing that I said "no known".

 

And I can PROMISE I have never cheated. Ever. Not in school, my taxes, or a partner (provided their was reasonable expectation of exclusivity). What I don't understand is if, lets pretend uncle Bob cheats like a politician, how that would affect MY message or belief or reputation?

 

I think its far more simple - I grew up in an honest family whose values were passed down. Using those values, I selected like-minded friends. And its thusly non-existent in my world - to my knowledge.

 

I think WF is absolutely right when she suggests people just don't get to hear stuff if they wear certain principles on their sleeves. It makes sense.

 

I suspect the stats go across the board, but the amount of guilt and subterfuge vary.

 

And on this board, we are au fait with the term EA. I suspect many Ms in less than tolerant communities involve secret infidelity in this way.

 

But I perhaps only speak of my own loss of innocence. I once saw the world differently.

[wheelwright]

I suppose I should check the entire thread to see if anyone else called you out on this hogwash but I will say I don't buy it.

 

WW is an intelligent individual who has the capacity and understanding of the broader spectrum and when she looked at the stats of her known circle I'm sure she wouldn't have considered it postworthy if she thought all of her A-partaking group were like-minded.

 

I could have written the EXACT same OP myself with the exeption of ONE co-worker who claims she never partook in an A. She's pretty young though...

 

My personal stats came from people of all walks of life, all religious and class backgrounds. What's interesting is not that we are like-minded, but that people tend to confide easily in people like WW and me. It occurs to me that we are open-minded, WW and I, and have earned the trust of those who have confided in us.

 

There is really no way for you to know that your circle hasn't partook in As. It's much much easier to deny so than it is to admit so. And nobody is going to open up their A past or present to someone who is so vocal about being anti-A.

 

You are right WF, as usual.

 

The stats were taken from a wide group, the only common element being that people were either educated or intelligent, or gave birth to people who are.

 

I feel bad about my A, for the pain, but I also have it in perspective after this realisation. I feel bad for my H's pain, not because I did something so overboard I'm morally certifiable.

[shadowofman]

Wow. I missed a lot.

 

A couple things.

 

I never said cheating was not a choice. A natural and normal choice. I base this on the fact that it is a rampant trend in human behavior, exhibited by normal men and women for all time. They predate "civilization".

So let me make it clear: normal does not equal moral.

And while it is a choice, it often takes extraordinary feats of willpower to deny the urges our chemical minds present us with.

 

Murder and rape are extremely complex topics and should be excluded from the debate based on this fact. I would argue that while rape and murder have occurred throughout human history, they represent actions initiated by cultural/sociological deficiencies. Murder is a unique phenomena likely due to "civilization" and tribal struggle. But that's another book.

 

Also, someone said that we are half monkey, half swan. My argument is that we are all swan. A species which is very well adapted to bonding pairs/harems, but quite often is found to have very high cuckoldry rates in the population. As I have said, many of the species we once thought to be monogamous are in fact found to be pseudo-monogamous. Cheating is rampant.

[drifter777]

I sat for a while tonight and let my thoughts wander.

 

And I worked out that I have no family or friends who haven't either been cheated on, cheated on a partner, or been involved in an EMR while single. For one out of the 50 or so it was EA only. She is quite a new friend.

 

I admit that in counting this up, I have included Rs before M, if they were years rather than months old.

 

Not a single one.

 

And the force of this anecdotal stat struck me quite hard.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Back to the OP, I think just about all scientific evidence supports the fact that monogamy is NOT "natural" for humans. Here's a good introduction to the science:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html?iref=NS1

 

I believe humans can (and many do) choose to commit to one person and keep their vow to be sexually faithful to that person. I also believe that many people make the same commitment and take that same vow, but fail to remain faithful. In my opinion, the ability to remain faithful is a true test of character and moral fiber.

 

There are no circumstances that excuse cheating since one spouse can simply tell the other that they no longer wish to remain married and will no longer honor their marriage vows. Then get a separation and file for divorce and you are free to screw whomever you choose. A spouse unwilling to do this before entering into a sexual relationship with another person is a lazy, dishonest, selfish, hurtful cheater.

[shadowofman]

Exactly. Though I wouldn't call monogamy not natural at all. It's simply not the norm. The fact is that promiscuousness is the default tendency of all life on earth. From the simplest sexual organisms randomly bumping up against one another, fish spawning several times with several mates in one season, or monkey troops that exhibit open free love.

 

So the OP is about CHEATING. Promiscuous species by definition are not cheaters. There is no ability to cheat when there are no rules.

 

Some species have adopted monogamous tenancies for child rearing purposes (some birds, some humans). Especially species where raising a child is so laborious. Some others have pointed this out already in this post. It is among these populations where cheating occurs, and the statistics suggest that it occurs so often that "cheating" is likely the norm.

 

By no means should cheating be considered moral, it's just normal and fairly excusable in that respect. In other words, lets not stone people that commit adultery to death. If you get cheated on, are you really surprised? I would be surprised if I was never cheated on.

[woinlove]

The female human is the only mammal (or one of the only mammals) that doesn't go into estrus.

 

Meaning we are designed to mate at any time.

 

Not a very good design for promoting monogamy as the "norm."

 

I wonder why God made us this way?

 

Maybe God wants us to f*ck a lot?

 

The lack of estrus, or in some mammals a very long estrus so that the female is almost always receptive to sex, is typically associated with the ability to form long-term pair bonds. Sex is no longer strictly for procreation but also a means of bonding and communicating. This would suggest, from strictly a biology point of view, that monogamy is possible and more likely in humans than most mammals. And human behavior bears this out.

 

In addition to the ~25-75% of people who never cheat (based on the range of estimates), of the ones who do cheat, only a tiny fraction spend much of their lives cheating. Some are faithful for 10 years or more, and may only cheat for a year or less before either ending the affair or ending the M.

 

This suggests that cheating on spouses is much less common than cheating on taxes, since taxes only come up once a year. It is estimated that every year, a sizeable fraction cheat on their taxes while the estimates for spousal cheating at any one instance in time are in the single digits. If some humans are wired to cheat on their spouse, it seems even more are wired to cheat on their taxes. One can argue both of these based on biology, but that misses the key point of why some people cheat and others don't.

[shadowofman]

^^^ This is an anthropological mystery.

 

There are many hypothesis. I personally believe that it is evidence of a pseudo-monogamous norm. Hidden ovulation allows a women to mate and nest build with a suitable provider. And it also allows her to increase her genetic opportunities. Since the nest builder is unaware that she is in heat, he cannot monopolize her. Also, when she eventually becomes pregnant, no one can be entirely sure who's the father.

 

Also, watch this TED talk

[xxoo]

In addition to the ~25-75% of people who never cheat (based on the range of estimates), of the ones who do cheat, only a tiny fraction spend much of their lives cheating. Some are faithful for 10 years or more, and may only cheat for a year or less before either ending the affair or ending the M.

 

I think this point is so important. Even among people who do cheat in their lifetime (and it isn't 100%), cheating is usually atypical behavior for them. Most people spend most of their lives being faithful to a partner.

 

If cheating is normal, then serial cheaters would be the norm. But, in reality, serial cheaters are the exception.

[shadowofman]

Fair enough. But I will counter this by suggesting that thought is a form of adultery and that people can not help but have love and lust for others in their hearts and minds for their entire adult lives. You may disagree with me and Matthew 5:27-28.

 

I actually find this to be one of the most wise passages. Except I see no sin in it.

[xxoo]

shadow, I never figured you for a biblical man!

 

I disagree with a lot of what is found in the Bible. And when it comes to cheating, I definitely distinguish between thoughts and actions. I do agree that having thoughts about other people is perfectly normal.

[woinlove]

Fair enough. But I will counter this by suggesting that thought is a form of adultery and that people can not help but have love and lust for others in their hearts and minds for their entire adult lives. You may disagree with me and Matthew 5:27-28.

 

I actually find this to be one of the most wise passages. Except I see no sin in it.

 

Really? I have an open M, so we are free to develop feelings and lust after others and all this is discussed with each other. Even under these circumstances, the majority of our 25 years together has been spent only loving and lusting after each other. And some people spend time not lusting after anyone, their spouse or otherwise. Perhaps you meant to say some people can not help... ??

[shadowofman]

Well, obviously. A bit of hyperbole is acceptable. And you know the point I was making. Interestingly, people in open relationships often find themselves not wanting others but very rarely. As you describe. Forbidden fruit being so much more enticing. This is all adequately explained in chemical dopamine observations. Something that humans have very little control over.

[woinlove]

Well, obviously. A bit of hyperbole is acceptable. And you know the point I was making. Interestingly, people in open relationships often find themselves not wanting others but very rarely. As you describe. Forbidden fruit being so much more enticing. This is all adequately explained in chemical dopamine observations. Something that humans have very little control over.

 

Haha, perhaps that is correct. Also, nothing like your nearest and dearest, with his/her own perspective, bringing one down to reality when one is trying to go off the deep end of fantasy-infatuation. Although my H and I are inclined not to disrupt the occasional temporary insanity, provided we don't see anything too bad likely to happen.

 

Yes, we are a bag of chemicals, but it is how we each strive to control our own bag of chemicals that makes all the difference.

[shadowofman]

That is why I say that such people are extraordinary and not normal. Most people exist as slaves to genetic, chemical slaves. Even when it goes against everything they have been raised to believe, they are nearly powerless to the pressures. *Insert name of Christian evangelical homosexual drug addict here*

[Mimolicious]

Cheating normal? Yeah, it's pretty normal.

 

What's really NOT normal is the drama that it creates and how some people waste their lives indulging in it.

[GorillaTheater]

The older I get the more I think that there is no "normal", per se, only behaviors that we are or are not willing to put up with either in ourselves or in others.

[Mimolicious]

bahahahahaha.. Almost everyone has cheated on taxes even if it is in the tiniest way !! And I believe your numbers for people who NEVER CHEAT are uber low!!!

 

 

You're perhaps confusing itemizing on taxes and actually "cheating" on taxes. No, not almost everyone cheated on their taxes. I think it's been pretty obvious that those who do, pay the price for it, more than infidelity if you think about it. Who really goes to jail for cheating on their S nowadays? That's actually one phone call nobody wants to receive.

 

There are people who don't cheat. There are people who don't admit to it. There are people who get caught. There are people who don't give a fack.

*Applications are being taken*

That simple. Join the group that suits you most.