Is infidelity wrapped up in human nature?

[zarathustra]

if the attraction and bonds are not still there, it may be more expedient to have an affair rather than risk divorce and losing some accumulated assets

 

Often, by then, an affair is not enough. The alienated spouse just wants out. Among professional, upper middle class couples whom I know, it's usually, although not always, the husband who wants to leave. This is usually absolutely crushing to the wife's self-esteem. To compound the problem, these exiting males frequently leave "Mom" for a younger, more attractive female:The trading up phenomenon.

 

If there was more to the marriage, I don't think as many men would heed the younger female's siren call. Or perhaps it's just easier to blame the "marriage" than to accept responsibility for defaulting on marital obligations. That takes us back to the original question: Is the problem of marriage the product of bad character or a failing institution?

 

The whole thing is frequently a mess. Mid-Life crisis may be a cliche, but it is one with a very, very sharp edge.

[BlockHead]

Tony

Having children is a very major sacrifice and a gamble that may or may not pay off. It's amazing to see humans do something so incredibly instinctual when reason would have them give such a whole lot more thought.

Unfortunately, some people use kids to cement relationships.

Tony

Having children is a very major sacrifice and a gamble that may or may not pay off. It's amazing to see humans do something so incredibly instinctual when reason would have them give such a whole lot more thought.

Are we coming to the conclusion that marriage and procreation are related?

 

Who’s Looking Out for You? Bill O’Reilly, p8.

Columnist Kathleen Parker nailed it. “Today having a baby is like swinging through McDonald’s for a burger. One baby all the way, hold the dad.”

[EnigmaXOXO]

Kids can also bond people closer together from what I have seen.

 

Shared interests, goals and dreams are what bonds two people together. The problem comes when you realize that raising your children is the only common interest you share. When they are gone, then so are your horizons and the very reason for that partnership.

 

Children are a wonderful blessing, but they are neither the bond that ties nor the wedge that separates two people. The success or failure of any relationship depends on the primary bond between the two people involved.

 

Children are simply the byproducts of our union, and too often the unwitting casualties of our own personal failures. Given that they are always placed in the middle, I always thought it less than fair to burden them additionally with the responsibility of holding our failed relationships together…or even worse, using them as scapegoats to justify our own inability to make responsible choices. (i.e.: infidelity)

[meanon]

I agree that children do not make for success or failure of a relationship, but they are the reason why many relationships continue when the marital bonds begin to weaken. I know of so many people who are staying for the kids. It is once the kids are grown or leave home that these long lasting relationships end. The ones that I know of, it's been the woman who wants out.

 

People change so much in a life time. The things they shared when setting out in life are no longer there 20 years later. If the love is strong enough, it's enough to sustain the relationship. Time is the greatest test.

 

You can't avoid risk in life. The people I know of who have divorced in later life do not have regrets. They have lived, loved and learned. They have beautiful families. It's worth it.

[zarathustra]

Well put, meanon. Perhaps the problem in many empty nester, middle aged marriages is...time.

 

Marriage is not a snap shot , but an evolving, dynamic and open ended process. People change and relationships change over 20 years. Why some 20+ year marriages accomodate these changes, and others do not, is the $64,000 Question.

 

It can't always be a question of character.

[Thinkalot]

Originally posted by zarathustra

People change and relationships change over 20 years. Why some 20+ year marriages accomodate these changes, and others do not, is the $64,000 Question.

 

 

LOL! It was about to be my question! My partner and I obviously believe WE will not be a divorce statistic, once we go down the marriage path. But we know there are risks of course. Minimising them seems to be a smart idea, but I guess some things simply lie beyond our control. I am thankful we have a solid friendship and many shared interests to start with. I am also glad we have already been strengthened through weathering some storms.

 

(Oh know, cried the control freak, Thinkalot, something I CANT control! )

 

 

Zara..if I may ask...do you speak from personal experience?

[zarathustra]

Zara..if I may ask...do you speak from personal experience?

 

 

I almost always speak from personal experience. That's both a charm and a curse.

 

Is my marriage as desolate as what I've described on this Thread? No.

 

Is marriage dead? Possibly.

 

I've seen a number of seemingly rock solid marriages crash and burn once the couple reach their late 40s/early 50s and the children have grown. These couples were smart, successful, responsible, relationship-savvy and in love. Then, as if someone had thrown a switch, each spouse went into his and her separate emotional direction and many of the marital feelings went "poof."

 

Something is happening, here, and all the Dr. Phils in TV land can't put these middle age, empty nester marriages back together.

 

Perhaps the institution of marriage should catch up to the reality of marriage. Fewer and fewer people are marrying and the majority of marriages don't last a life time. With today's life expectancies, a life time is too long for most marriages to meaningfully last. At 50, we're very different than what we were at 25. Yet we're expected to harbor the same enduring feelings.

 

Perhaps the problem lies not with the institution but with our reality-defying expectations for marriage. Marriage will not save our souls, it is not a state of grace, it is not an impregnable union, it does not usually last forever. Sometimes, just sometimes, good people start out with a good marriage, which, through no fault of their own, eventually, over time, becomes a bad marriage for them. Perhaps we are in need of a downshifting of expectations. This is life, messy life, where the promise always exceeds the performance. I prefer the gritty reality of serial monagamy to the illusion and tedium of a perfect union with one person forever. I'm an anti-romantic.

 

Falling out of love is not a blameworthy event. Nor is ending a marriage when the children have grown and the feelings are gone.

[moimeme]

I would really like to interview the flies who lived on the walls inside homes during some of these marriages. I'd like to know how the spouses treated each other throughout the years; how much work they did to keep the relationship alive. From all I ever hear, it sounds as though people let all the other things they have to do take up their time and attention. My suspicion is that the relationshps you speak of all die of neglect. Many, as you have suggested, may have begun or continued in error anyway so that their eventual end may well have been predictable.

[meanon]

Well it would be nice to think that all it takes is effort and attentiveness but it's just not the case. Most people want their marriages to work, the emotional, financial and practical costs of failure are so high. Every parent's instinct is to protect their children. It's not a matter of character either - people don't lose the ability to sustain a committment after 20 years.

 

I agree with Zara - loss of love is not a blameworthy event.

[Tony T]

So what you guys are saying is that when the feelings are gone (not a blameworthy event), the marriage is over. Well, that's pretty fricken scary since relatively few people are capable of sustaining almost anything over a number of years. Loving feelings easily go dormant and take this as an end to love.

 

I am clueless. Are we now at a place where instead of being "until death do we part" it's "until the feelings are gone?" You never know when that will be. Marriage is therefore for people who give little thought to the consequences. It's pretty frightening when you really give it some thought.

 

Why not just be truthful with each other and say we'll be married until the children are grown and then review the contract, that is, if we even last that long???

[BlockHead]

Tony

Are we now at a place where instead of being "until death do we part" it's "until the feelings are gone?"

More like omit the "for worse" clause from the wedding vows. Nobody wants to solve or deal with problems.

[meanon]

Why not just be truthful with each other and say we'll be married until the children are grown and then review the contract, that is, if we even last that long???

 

Sometimes love does last a lifetime. The nature of love is such that we think it will never end, it's the most intense, positive human emotion we experience and it's mutual. The vow is to love until death do us part, for better for worse etc. Not many would want to remain indefinitely in a loveless marriage.

 

There are problems, tests in every marriage. If people didn't want to deal with them their marriages wouldn't last 2 years, never mind 20. If it were simply the case that a willingness to work on problems was all that was required to make for a happy marriage then marriage counselling would almost always be successful. In fact the majority (not all!) of couples agree to separate after counselling.

 

Often problems can be overcome over time if there is love and patience. If there is a severe stress on a marriage (infidelity, death of a child) love can be absent for a time and regained as the couple recover from the experience. Apart from this, the ability to resolve problems successfully seems to be linked to the strength of the primary bond, to the presence of love.

 

People make great personal sacrifices for a reason - the successful raising of children being the most common one. Being in a loveless marriage is no picnic, particularly if you have much less in common at the end of a marriage than at the outset. Once it is clear that there is no prospect for happiness in a marriage, what is there to stay for? The commitment made to a spouse is to love them forever, it's been broken. The loss of the relationship is a reality, both people know it. Staying doesn't change that. When people ignore the warning signs and soldier on regardless, the result is often an increasing sense of alienation, hopelessness, bitterness and depression.

 

Our expectation of marriage is culturally determined. Most of us view the primary purpose of marriage as sharing of love, lives as well as the raising of children. In cultures where there are different expectations of marriage, lack of viable alternatives, taboos surrounding divorce or strong religious beliefs to take the place of the primary bond then loss of love has less of a role to play in the ending of long term marriages.

 

There are many marriages where love does last, in fits and starts maybe but enough to sustain a marriage. Falling in love, falling out of love, staying in love - we can do much to affect our chances of success or failure but in essence these are still mysteries of the human heart.

[zarathustra]

Our expectation of marriage is culturally determined. Most of us view the primary purpose of marriage as sharing of love, lives as well as the raising of children. In cultures where there are different expectations of marriage, lack of viable alternatives, taboos surrounding divorce or strong religious beliefs to take the place of the primary bond then loss of love has less of a role to play in the ending of long term marriages.

 

There are many marriages where love does last, in fits and starts maybe but enough to sustain a marriage. Falling in love, falling out of love, staying in love - we can do much to affect our chances of success or failure but in essence these are still mysteries of the human heart.

 

Does love lost necessarily mean a marriage's ending? No.

 

Like it or not, however, we (ie, affluent, educated secular Westerners) live in the Age of Love. Love is the existential and therapeutic measure of man (and woman). I love, therefore I am. While Romantic notions of "love" help fuel the multi-billion dollar Wedding-Industrial Complex, at the front end, there's often little "love" to be found at the back end of many marriages. What hath this love ideology wrought? Divorce.

 

With the weakening of religious injunctions, the growth of hyper-individualism through various self-help/actualization movements and the cult of authenticity , the mostly affectional ties that bind a modern married couple, after 20 years, are gossamer. If I want to lead an authentic, happy life--one rich in self-actualization--then why should I live a lie in a loveless marriage? I'm not being true to myself, am I?

 

 

 

Live by love; die by love.

[moimeme]

So what you guys are saying is that when the feelings are gone (not a blameworthy event), the marriage is over.

 

I'm not one of the 'guys' who said that or thinks that.

 

Well, that's pretty fricken scary since relatively few people are capable of sustaining almost anything over a number of years. Loving feelings easily go dormant and take this as an end to love.

 

I disagree. Feelings of being 'in love' easily go dormant, perhaps, but you can love someone a long time. You love parents, siblings, and friends for years. I've known several couples who remained married a very long time and were completely devoted to each other.

 

Love, however, is a verb and if people don't conjugate it, it will fizzle. You cannot simply live in the same house and remain in love. It requires effort. Sometimes you have to do things you don't feel like doing just to do something nice for the other person. Basically, you have to think of not only you.

 

And, in this day and age where everything is easy and people won't even bestir themselves to walk to the corner to get bread, people don't want to make an effort or give anything up. It's about me these days, not about us.

 

We've had people post that they wish to remain single, and one of the reasons some cite is that they don't want to be bothered thinking about another person. This is what I mean. People can't be bothered with others because others sometimes think differently or need things or don't do exactly what's wanted.

 

Tony wrote:

Are we now at a place where instead of being "until death do we part" it's "until the feelings are gone?"

 

Blockhead replied:

More like omit the "for worse" clause from the wedding vows. Nobody wants to solve or deal with problems.

 

For a change, I agree with Blockhead. People are so wrapped up in themselves they just don't want to have to deal with other humans. Heck, Tony, people don't even want to think for themselves and thinking doesn't even require effort!

[Thinkalot]

This thread might be all about realities, but it is also a little depressing! I am all for romance and ideals, I guess. I know the realities, and I am not silly enough to stick my head in the sand, but I still also believe in enduring love...maybe not in the 'romantic' sense, but in a companionate sense. I also believe there still exists cases where two people will have enough committment/love/energy/desire to keep a marriage together for a long time.

 

I'm afraid I am unable to accept complete loss of faith in marriage. For some reason I cling to these ideals I have, even in the face of the ugly realities I often see around me. I guess I really am a romantic and an idealist, with some realist thrown in to ensure I actually can strive towards maintaining those ideals!

 

My partner and I have already shown a willingness to work hard on our relationship. Already there have been times where it has been tested. We both believe strongly in committment and monogomy and working hard to sustain things. I am starting to understand how lucky I am to have found a man who is prepared to work with me in moving forward.

[meanon]

Lol Thinkalot, I'll come and visit you and when you are old and grey

 

I have not lost faith in marriage. I'm a romantic too, when it comes to myself I can't imagine a time when my husband and I won't love each other. For me the experience of knowing other people well who have tried and failed to re-capture lost love has made me value it even more. A degree of realism is healthy in a marriage.

 

people don't want to make an effort or give anything up. It's about me these days, not about us.

 

I think this is why some marriages end after a few years when the gloss has worn off. A 20 year marriage? I can't see it lasting that long without personal sacrifice. I've been with my husband for 17 years, we have and are having our share of problems. If we were not able to make the effort, to give things up willingly for the good of the other we would have split up after two years, no question. That's the experience of many people I know who have had long, happy marriages, whether they last or not.

 

Those couples I know who have split after long marriages (my parents - 36 years) have made the same effort and sacrifice - it's not been enough. They have an expectation of personal happiness, yes, but they are not selfish people. To characterise all people in failing marriages as such is to cause unnecessary distress and guilt as well as to be oblivious to the risks. Ignorance is not bliss. The moral: nurture love, especially in the bad times.

[Thinkalot]

Nurture love, nurture passion, stay committed...these seem to be the underlying themes. And if that doesn't work in the end, it's noone's fault.

[Tony T]

"For a change, I agree with Blockhead. People are so wrapped up in themselves they just don't want to have to deal with other humans. Heck, Tony, people don't even want to think for themselves and thinking doesn't even require effort!"

 

If you read my post...and what you quoted me as saying...you will see I asked a question. When did you start disagreeing with questions??? How many times do I have to tell you I don't have a clue...I have no answers...before it gets into your head???

[zarathustra]

Tony, your initial question raises fascinating issues at the intersection of biology, culture and psychology. Being "zara," I read your initial inquiry as asking: Is Lifetime Monogamous Marriage ('LMM") Dead in late capitalist, Western, predominately secular societies? (Not weddings, but good, old fashioned monogamous marriage for the life of both spouses.)

 

Do biology and culture conspire against LMMs?

 

I suspect that is true.

 

When so many have eschewed LMM, by deed if not by word, any social observer must ask why? Can these millions upon millions of people, of varying intelligences, races, religions, nationalities, classes and occupations all have pernicious character defects of which "selfishness" is numero uno? Is LMM dead because of a character "flaw"? Or is something else happening, here?

 

I suspect that people now live longer, are more exposed to one another in anonymous urban and exurban communities and are less inhibited by religious prohibitions than those in the 19th or first half of the 20th century. With greater opportunity/exposure, comes increased opportunity to connect with potential lovers during relatively long lifetimes. There is an increased supply of potential lovers.Sometimes, these new "opportunity" connections result in non-spousal lust, attraction and attachment. People have sexual feelings for folks other than their spouses, and, in this Age of Lust, fewer inhibitions about acting on them.

 

On the demand side, secularization, an "if it itches scratch it" late Capitalist commodity culture and an ideology of stimulative consumption all combine to reduce inhibitions against non-spousal pairings. We are the sum of our appetites.

 

I wager that LMM was more prevalent in the past for lack of opportunity and the risk of religious/community censure. Sexually moral behavior often results more from a lack of opportunity than the Super-Ego.

[moimeme]

"For a change, I agree with Blockhead. People are so wrapped up in themselves they just don't want to have to deal with other humans. Heck, Tony, people don't even want to think for themselves and thinking doesn't even require effort!"

 

If you read my post...and what you quoted me as saying...you will see I asked a question. When did you start disagreeing with questions???

 

Huh?

 

Wasn't disagreeing with the question. You restated the positon of some of the posters here, and it was that position with which I disagreed.

 

However, if you read my post, you could, quite correctly, have pointed out that the latter half contradicted the first half. I, like Thinkalot, tend to want desperately to live in a glowy little world. As Thinkalot said;

 

I'm afraid I am unable to accept complete loss of faith in marriage. For some reason I cling to these ideals I have, even in the face of the ugly realities I often see around me. I guess I really am a romantic and an idealist, with some realist thrown in to ensure I actually can strive towards maintaining those ideals

 

My earnest desire is to believe that life and people aren't as unpleasant as they sometimes seem to be. Most of the time, I succeed in persuading myself that that's the case. However, in the cold light of day, I hate to admit that you're right. In today's day and age, as you say, relatively few people are capable of sustaining almost anything over a number of years. I said pretty much the same thing.

 

Zara says:

 

Do biology and culture conspire against LMMs?

I suspect that is true.

 

I don't agree that it's biology, but I do think it's culture.

 

As for a great answer to this, I refer you to Bluechocolate:

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=223567#post223567

 

So here's what we do: there must be some psychosometric instrument that can show whether someone is capable of the sorts of long-term devotion, loyalty, and willingness to give that are necessary for a happy marriage. At the point of high school graduation, test everyone for these traits. Only those who pass get a license to marry. Only they can actually then go on to marry. Everybody else can shack up but that's it. We can set up 'shack up' inspectors to enforce regular partner changes, since studies show the four-year mark is about how long people can make it.

 

How many times do I have to tell you I don't have a clue...I have no answers...before it gets into your head???

 

Not exactly sure how you gathered that I thought you did, but consider my head successfully bitten off. And have a great day.

[BlockHead]

Maybe modern medicine has something to do with it. In the past, promiscuous behavior led to STDs, and when they get infected, they either get sick or die. The STD transmission rate is lower with monogamous people so they live longer and multiply. Now that there is treatment for STDs, the promiscuous people can live longer and they have more opportunities to multiply. Chances are, they will outbreed the monogamous people. This will continue until an incurable and untreatable STD appears.

 

This is oversimplified, but worth mentioning.

Note: Some people are completely incapable of rational thought so this model could work.

[zarathustra]

The wages of sin is death, as they say.

[meanon]

There is a problem with people expecting romantic love to last a lifetime, the so called 7 year itch! Love does undergo many transformations in a long marriage.

 

A personality test? A genetic marker for promiscuity? If it was that simple we'd know all the answers. Some people have difficulty with commitment, I know. They do not stay happily married for decades. This idea of loss of love as moral or genetic failure is not supported by the evidence of failure of LMM as a sociological phenomenon. As Zara noted, the sheer range and variety of incidence does not support this view. Worse, it stigmatises people needlessly. It's culture and biology in their widest senses (the meaning most of us seek in life, the fundamentals of human personality) that are causal factors in my view. Things that shape what we are but that are largely outside of our control.

 

So what's the answer:

Originally posted by Thinkalot:

Nurture love, nurture passion, stay committed...these seem to be the underlying themes. And if that doesn't work in the end, it's noone's fault.

Absolutely . We give of our best when we love, it enriches our lives. The creation of families is a bonus. LMM may be in crisis but some will stay the distance, we have to give them every chance. If they don't last, I can't think of a better way to have lived, a more worthwhile or enjoyable endeavor.

[EnigmaXOXO]

Zara writes: The wages of sin is death, as they say.

So true! My mother once told me that the concept of “sin” derived from an antedated knowledge that certain human behaviors ultimately led to certain negative consequences. The ‘fear of God’ was instilled in us to keep us from doing those very things that would result in our own unhappiness and self-destruction. I suppose the smarter we humans get, the less we rely on those antiquated ideals of morality and faith. Perhaps this also explains why there seems to be a direct correlation between those who lack the above and are miserable, and those who retain those fundamental values and seem quite happy with life and love in general.

 

Blockhead writes: The STD transmission rate is lower with monogamous people so they live longer and multiply. Now that there is treatment for STDs, the promiscuous people can live longer and they have more opportunities to multiply. Chances are, they will outbreed the monogamous people. This will continue until an incurable and untreatable STD appears.

 

LOL…or until our overactive libidos produce so many offspring that we loose track of our family lineage and who’s-related-to-who. Inbreeding in the past (although once practiced by the closed societies within royal families) has had deleterious results, leading to severe birth deformities, infertility and ultimately the inability to ‘reproduce’ altogether. I suppose these are only some of the reasons why promiscuity and free-for-all-sex has been discouraged in most societies and monogamy promoted as a means to insure the continuation of our species.

 

I also think our new ideals concerning marriage/monogamy has a lot to do with the fact that women (at least in contemporary western civilization) are no longer treated as ‘property.’ Promiscuity (and/or infidelity), particularly among males, has always existed. There are still some cultures and religions today where a man is permitted to have as many women (wives) as he can support…and some cultures where men are expected to entertain concubines/mistresses/harems on the side. But even in these societies, the marriage ceremony still exists if only to establish a man’s ownership over his wife/wives, to elevate the status of his primary wife, and also to serve as a social formality that establishes an alliance between two groups (or families) who might otherwise display animosity towards one another. Thus the tradition of exchanging goods (or gifts) between both families forming the alliance.

 

Even as recent as the 1950’s (my mother’s generation) women were expected to look the other way when their husbands strayed. They were taught that their place was in the home, and their husbands their masters. Without many financial or social opportunities of their own, women were destined to a life of servitude and the ‘marriage ceremony’ only served to sell the illusion…or delusion. A ‘divorced’ woman was made to feel ashamed, and the only thing a female was taught to be proud of was how dutiful a wife and mother she could be. The fancy wedding with all its pomp and circumstance was the only thing in her life she had to look forward to. Apparently, some of those old antiquated notions from the past still exist today and explains why so many females spend their lives dreaming of diamonds, white dresses and fantasy weddings…still buying into the illusion.

 

I hate to even venture a guess as to the kind of world our children will be inheriting or how we should prepare them for relationships in the future. I wouldn’t want to see us go back to the time when women were treated as second class citizens, but I’m not so sure I like the direction we’re heading in, either. With so many factors working against us (addictions, abuse, increased stress, mental illness, and easy access to extramarital alternatives) the institute of marriage, and the well being of our very families, stand little chance of surviving the tides of change unless we make a genuine effort to remain monogamous and committed to the life partners we have chosen. But how do we do that without sacrificing our own happiness, sanity… and in cases of abuse…without risking the physical and mental well-being of ourselves and our children?

 

…I’m still waiting for the answers, myself! So, where’s God when you need him??

[kissme46]

[font=arial][/font][color=green][/color]

I'm inclined to agree with you. I've found that for the most part, people become dissatisfied with their partner over a period of time.

 

In the beginning of a relationship, you're on your best behavior, you want this person to like/love you. I've come to realize its best to be yourself at all times and enjoy the relationship as long as you can. When its over, its over.

 

It does seem to be human nature to get restless and want to stray. I do think men are more prone to stray, but now, even women don't give it a second thought.