Why do People Cheat?

[dizzydoll]

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.--Oscar Wilde

I read on the net, its opportunity and unhappiness that makes people step out of their relationships. This is far too vague a reason. I read more excuses but no real reasons why people cheat. Have any of you cheated before? How did you feel afterwards, any guilt? Did you own up? or were you caught? or is it still a dirty little secret?

I can imagine men might cheat cos they are looking for a challenge, perhaps there is more to it than that? How can men afford to keep a wife [or girlfriend] happy as well as the interloper? And the latest craze is the "downlow", how would that affect their children? Thats another thing, why dont people think of their kids before they drop their pants to another? Women who have affairs with married men are known as predators, sounds appropriate dont you think?

These days women are beginning to have affairs more often, secretly sneaking behind their spouses backs... did they learn this from the men? lol. Women enter into threesomes these days, I doubt any relationship can stand that for too long. I once worked for 3 couples who were in partnership and they were into wife swapping and made no secret about it, and they all went to church each Sunday. None of their relationships lasted.

But there has to be more to this cheating, its been around since the beginning of time I'm sure. Are some people more likely to cheat than others? Isn't being in a relationship or marriage is hard enough? so why then would anyone want to look the other way to include a third party? Do some people only cheat once and never again, just to see what it was like? They say a leopard never changes its spots, does this hold true for cheaters?

So its a puzzle, why do you think people cheat?

[OrphanPip]

I've never cheated on anyone, and I think it's impossible to pinpoint a single reason why people cheat. They may cheat because they have no respect for their partner or maybe because they're unhappy in their relationship, I don't know.

Edit: Although, I'd say the inclination to have multiple sexual partners is probably ingrained in us evolutionarily.

[The Comedian]

I can tell ya why people cheat: they're weak, stupid, selfish, and thoughtless. I have very little sympathy, empathy, or any other 'pathy for people who cheat on their promises to commit to another.

[Annamariah]

I can tell ya why people cheat: they're weak, stupid, selfish, and thoughtless. I have very little sympathy, empathy, or any other 'pathy for people who cheat on their promises to commit to another.

Except for "antipathy", it seems :D

I don't understand why people cheat on each other, it's awful. I abhor all kinds of deceit.

[The Comedian]

Except for "antipathy", it seems :D.

True that. :lol:

[applepie]

Except for "antipathy", it seems :D

I don't understand why people cheat on each other, it's awful. I abhor all kinds of deceit.

Thank you:lol: I was looking for another "pathy" word before I got there. Sorry Comedian, but I know there had to be one that didn't fit :D

As for why people cheat, I think I mostly agree with Comedian. Weakness is the first thing that comes to mind. All to often it seems that those who I've known that cheated did so because they were too weak to end things with their current partner or spouse when they had long since moved on. In some cases it is a lack of respect, but mostly I think cheaters are mostly weak minded, willed, etc...

I've never understood cheating. Far too many people are hurt by it, and it seems like the cheater never realizes that they'll hurt so many. There is certainly an inability to learn from other people's examples, and there are certainly more than enough. All you have to do is watch the media to see the damage it does to entire families, but it always seems to be a surprise :frown2:

[JuniperWoolf]

Edit: Although, I'd say the inclination to have multiple sexual partners is probably ingrained in us evolutionarily.

Yeah, if anyone has some free time you should read this wiki article on the Coolidge effect (it's pretty interesting stuff):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect

[The Comedian]

Yeah, if anyone has some free time you should read this wiki article on the Coolidge effect (it's pretty interesting stuff)

It was pretty funny -- the Coolidge stuff. But I do not buy evolutionary justification of a lot of stuff. Sure men (and women) might get their evolutionary glands turned on by a new hot-young-thing. Pfft! There's all sorts of things evolution urges us to do: punch some deserving dufus in the nose, eat a boat-load of high-calorie crap, sleep in too much, run when danger threatens. But evolution's greatest gift to us is our will to overcome these things for more intangible virtues: faith to one's partner, restraint, courage, honor of principle.

[papayahed]

It was pretty funny -- the Coolidge stuff. But I do not buy evolutionary justification of a lot of stuff. Sure men (and women) might get their evolutionary glands turned on by a new hot-young-thing. Pfft! There's all sorts of things evolution urges us to do: punch some deserving dufus in the nose, eat a boat-load of high-calorie crap, sleep in too much, run when danger threatens. But evolution's greatest gift to us is our will to overcome these things for more intangible virtues: faith to one's partner, restraint, courage, honor of principle.

There's a great quote by Alice Cooper about being faithful. I can't find the exact quote but it was something to the effect of whenever there were temptations he would remind himself of what was waiting for him at home and he realized that while the next hour -two hours would probably be amazing it didn't hold a candle to a lifetime of happiness with his family.

[MarkBastable]

There's a great quote by Alice Cooper about being faithful. I can't find the exact quote but it was something to the effect of whenever there were temptations he would remind himself of what was waiting for him at home and he realized that while the next hour -two hours would probably be amazing it didn't hold a candle to a lifetime of happiness with his family.

Yeah - much as I still love his music from the seventies, Alice did turn out to be something of a disappointment.

[sixsmith]

My pseudo-scientific understanding is that monogamy is an unnatural state. So, if that be the case, from the outset you have biology working against you. That's a tough spot. Personally, and with that in mind, I'm not convinced that it's psychologically healthy for people to have one sexual partner for long periods of time. Indeed, I think the fixation on monogamy is probably both anachronistic and unhealthy. That's just me. I understand that people have strong feelings to the contrary.

In any case, I think that saying people cheat because they are weak is too simplistic. Certainly, a cheater could just be a weak and selfish p*#@k. There's plenty of them. But a person might cheat as a result of being neglected in their relationship. It doesn't excuse the act, but there is often a pretty complex context behind people being unfaithful. That said, if you love someone and you are experiencing an urge to sleep with somebody else which you think you might act on, the only ethical option is to tell them. Long term affairs are simply sustained deception.

[The Comedian]

In any case, I think that saying people cheat because they are weak is too simplistic. Certainly, a cheater could just be a weak and selfish p*#@k. There's plenty of them. But a person might cheat as a result of being neglected in their relationship. It doesn't excuse the act, but there is often a pretty complex context behind people being unfaithful. That said, if you love someone and you are experiencing an urge to sleep with somebody else which you think you might act on, the only ethical option is to tell them. Long term affairs are simply sustained deception.

Are you saying that cheating isn't weak, it's just an inexcusable action done to the contrary of what one knows is right? I'm cool with that.

EDIT: I'm not really arguing with/against sixsmith here; he just brings up a point that I also don't really like (I'm cantankerous today). It's that's "monogamy is unnatural". Hell, there's tons of stuff that's unnatural: driving a car, drinkin' a fine whiskey, reading a book, typing on a computer. . . .but we do that stuff all the time. We're not a bunch of primitive rabbits here; well, some of us arn't. Sometimes monogamy is a challenge, yes. But so is finishing a novel, typing a paper, completing college, raising a child, . . . .but the the challenge, as papaya said, is in the moments and hours, while the rewards for all of these things that I just listed can be linger for a lifetime.

[sixsmith]

Are you saying that cheating isn't weak, it's just an inexcusable action done to the contrary of what one knows is right? I'm cool with that.

I'm saying that simply labeling everyone who cheats as 'weak' without more, fails to deal with the reality which informs the cheating.

[MarkBastable]

Sometimes monogamy is a challenge, yes. But so is finishing a novel, typing a paper, completing college, raising a child, . . . .but the the challenge, as papaya said, is in the moments and hours, while the rewards for all of these things that I just listed can be linger for a lifetime.


Yeah, but no one gets dismissively righteous on your as s if you don't finish a novel.

[The Comedian]

Yeah, but no one gets dismissively righteous on your as s if you don't finish a novel.

"Dismissively righteous"? We're talking about cheating here, right? So tell me, when is good and right time to cheat on a test? cheat on your taxes? cheat a restaurant out of bill? cheat on your mate?

[sixsmith]

EDIT: I'm not really arguing with/against sixsmith here; he just brings up a point that I also don't really like (I'm cantankerous today). It's that's "monogamy is unnatural". Hell, there's tons of stuff that's unnatural: driving a car, drinkin' a fine whiskey, reading a book, typing on a computer. . . .but we do that stuff all the time. We're not a bunch of primitive rabbits here; well, some of us arn't. Sometimes monogamy is a challenge, yes. But so is finishing a novel, typing a paper, completing college, raising a child, . . . .but the the challenge, as papaya said, is in the moments and hours, while the rewards for all of these things that I just listed can be linger for a lifetime.

Sure. But I don't think the acts you list are analogous to the challenge of monogamy. That is, we don't possess a biological predisposition not to drink whiskey or read a book etc. I'm not advocating some sort of Warren Beatty-esque existence here. I'm simply saying that clinging blindly to a moral code without recognizing and dealing with a possible biological countervailing force is a recipe for pain.

[soundofmusic]

After many years of marriage, I think I'll have a go at this question:
1. When people are dating they show the very best of themselves; the facade does not always come off until after a year of marriage.
2. We often marry for love; but remain married for convenience. The economy is bad everywhere and it does not give a person the freedom to walk out of a loveless marriage.
3. We constantly grow and change during the course of a relationship. Often, what we found endearing at 20 is annoying at 30.
4. Over the course of time, couples often lose mental and physical intimacy; but are connected to each other by family ties, social ties and children.
I don't think cheating is the first choice for most people, it is a fall back when their life becomes too miserable to endure another day of loneliness.

[MarkBastable]

"Dismissively righteous"? We're talking about cheating here, right? So tell me, when is good and right time to cheat on a test? cheat on your taxes? cheat a restaurant out of bill? cheat on your mate?

I'm totally against it, and more than one of my friends has told me that I'm irritatingly honest. I have spent half an hour driving back to a store when I discovered they had failed to charge me for a small packet of rice. On top of which, I'm married and I'm faithful, and I think that's fundamental to the conduct of the relationship. I have been cheated on in the past, and it screwed me up, emotionally and attitudinally, for about five years. It was sickening.

However, the spectacle of people lining up to make condemnatory generalisations ('inexcusable', 'weak', 'stupid', 'thoughtless') is also sickening. My immediate reaction is, "Well, I don't want to be on that team, so I guess I'll have to go out and rob a bank, and spend the proceeds on cocaine and hookers."

[JuniperWoolf]

My pseudo-scientific understanding is that monogamy is an unnatural state.

Nah, it's not unnatural at all. There are a lot of instances of animals that mate for life... wolves, beavers, pigeons, and the list goes on. It is important to note however that these animals also sometimes "cheat." If you test the genetics of the offspring of these animals, there's a chance that you might see that Mrs. Pigeon has been sleeping around. If you test the genetics of all of the pigeons in the area, you'll maybe see that Mr. Pigeon stepped out too. So I guess what we have now is more-or-less natural: monogamy for most of us, and pseudo-monogamy for the rest.

That's just a species trend, though. It doesn't mean that all humans (or pigeons) feel the need to cheat, or that our rational brains can't control the inclination of our genes. Again, that's deterministic fallacy... the notion that genes = all that we are. It takes decision making out of the equation.

We can choose not to cheat, but sometimes we don't. Why? I don't know. I guess sex with random partners is fun, and at the time we decide that the benefits of this fun outweigh the consequences. If not weak, than it's certainly cruel (to our mate, and to our children if we have any). But whatever, everyone does bad stuff. I'm friends with a couple of multiple offence cheaters, and they're okay all-in-all... just a bit selfish. It all comes crashing down on them eventually, so passing judgement on them doesn't really matter. They make their own choices, and they live with it.


. I have spent half an hour driving back to a store when I discovered they had failed to charge me for a small packet of rice.

Man, what a square.

[Madhuri]

A person whose partner has died get attracted to another person. In this case there was love and the marriage was a good one. This person feels guilty about allowing a new person in life. They feel as if they are betraying the one dead. Is that cheating too?

I think it is your own conscience that one has to deal with....

I can't say why people cheat...but, I know a friend who a few months ago married an already married guy with a family and kids. She has told her family all about it, but the guy's family has no idea that he is married for the second time. I don't understand this that the first wife has no hint of her husband having had an affair.

I think both the guy and the girl have done wrong. I don't know what will happen when the first wife gets to know. I am sure it will lead to a lot of mess. How this guy manages to lead a dual life, is beyond me. Each day of his life is full of lies and excuses.

He says that he doesn't love his first wife and cannot leave her and the kids because of his mother. I think it is more honourable to bring out things in open and find a solution than going behind the back and cheating.

[Lote-Tree]

Why people cheat?

To get what we want.

Simple.

[TheFifthElement]

However, the spectacle of people lining up to make condemnatory generalisations ('inexcusable', 'weak', 'stupid', 'thoughtless') is also sickening. My immediate reaction is, "Well, I don't want to be on that team, so I guess I'll have to go out and rob a bank, and spend the proceeds on cocaine and hookers."
Nicely said Mark. I agree. Now, where's the coke :D

[The Comedian]

However, the spectacle of people lining up to make condemnatory generalisations ('inexcusable', 'weak', 'stupid', 'thoughtless') is also sickening. My immediate reaction is, "Well, I don't want to be on that team, so I guess I'll have to go out and rob a bank, and spend the proceeds on cocaine and hookers."

Okay. So would it be better if I said sometimes they're weak, sometimes they're stupid, sometimes they're thoughtless, sometimes their stupid? I'm really wondering here. I mean why do people cheat? Here are some answers:

"I was drunk and wasn't thinking" (stupid).

"I knew I shouldn't have done it; our relationship was falling apart, but I didn't have the strength to talk with you about it first" (weak).

"I was just selfish; I wasn't thinking of you then" (thoughtless).

"I knew it was wrong, but at the moment I just didn't care. I was so caught up in the passion of the moment" (inexcusable).

[Scheherazade]

So its a puzzle, why do you think people cheat?I think people cheat mostly because they can.

[soundofmusic]

I think the answer to why people cheat is plainly written in the experiences on the divorce thread.
It hurts terribly to be cheated on. I experienced it and the time it took to get "my act together" far exceeded the length of the relationship. Over time, I realized that I and this man got together out of mutual attraction, we grew to have a type of love. Unfortunately, I cannot tolerate alot of his life choices; we constantly argued over his drinking, friends, staying out at night, he wanted a family..I didn't....
He eventually found a woman amongst his friends who also drinks, stays out all night, and loves having people laying about her house; she also has young children. He left me for her; and is happier with her, yet he continued to call because he missed what we had.
Of course, I didn't cheat with him; but it was more out of fear of being hurt than morality.
People cheat because life is imperfect: it gives us the cake; but not the icing. It gives us money; but no where to spend it. It gives us a job; but no time to appreciate the benefits of workng.
Most of us want everything in one package: the soul mate whom we can tell our deepest secrets to, the passion in and out of the bedroom, constancy and financial security. It is seldom that we find all of these in one person.


A person whose partner has died get attracted to another person. In this case there was love and the marriage was a good one. This person feels guilty about allowing a new person in life. They feel as if they are betraying the one dead. Is that cheating too?


I think the old ideas of a widow taking a year or more to mourn were practical. For the one left behind, the marriage doesn't end when the mate dies; particularly if the preceding months or years have been very traumatic.
When my husband passed, the shock of everything that had occured during his illness caught up with me. I spent 6 months looking through medical records for someone to blame. I spent a year blaming myself for not realizing he was so ill and for being preoccupied, for not loving him the way I did when we were young, for every mean thing I said and did...I cried every day.
During the second year, I began by being angry at him for making our time together as unhappy as it was. I passed the blame to him and delivered myself from guilt.
Afterwards, I remembered him as the perfect man I had perceived him to be when I first met him. I laughed and cried and relived all of our good times...
It was that man that I felt that I was cheating on when I decided to date two and a half years later.

[applepie]

Okay. So would it be better if I said sometimes they're weak, sometimes they're stupid, sometimes they're thoughtless, sometimes their stupid?

I think this sums it up. They're one of the above some of the time, and sometimes they are all of the above.

As for the biological reasons of monogamy... Homo sapiens have been primarily monogamous since the beginning of societies (By monogamy I'm meaning one partner at a time, but not necessarily the same individual for their entire life). That isn't to say that there are not some who cheat, but it certainly isn't the norm, and I think it is a failing in the character of the individual when they do. It really isn't hard to keep faithful to one person and break it off when you're finished. We're not the hippo to have a harem of 50+ females. That isn't normal for our species.

[BienvenuJDC]

Why people cheat?

To get what we want.

Simple.

This describes selfishness. To satisfy one's self at the expense of others. Although The Comedian might seem to be insensitive, he is completely right in what he is saying. You cannot justify cheating. You might be able to explain it, but it still doesn't justify it. The question was asked directly, and many have come up with variable answers, but if you boil down any of those answers, it comes ultimately to The Comedian's answer. But that is the answer that we don't want to accept because it jeopardizes our own consciences, or our own conveniences. But no matter how we twist it, we cheat because we want to serve self at the expense of holding to what we promised to do.

[dizzydoll]

A person whose partner has died get attracted to another person. In this case there was love and the marriage was a good one. This person feels guilty about allowing a new person in life. They feel as if they are betraying the one dead. Is that cheating too?

No way that is not cheating, not at all, and absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. It matters not that we have more than one lover in a lifetime, just not at the same time imo.



I can't say why people cheat...but, I know a friend who a few months ago married an already married guy with a family and kids. She has told her family all about it, but the guy's family has no idea that he is married for the second time. I don't understand this that the first wife has no hint of her husband having had an affair.

Yes bigamy, I have no clue how these men can finance multiple families at the same time. Gosh I dont even know how anyone can maintain more than one marriage, one after the other and perhaps another, in the face of divorce.

I have to agree with Comedian here, mainly due to the selfishness and pain one leaves behind after the affair is exposed. Very few relationships will hold up after the trust is compromised... but I think we have to be careful to not hold onto blame as it stunts our personal growth -- or guilt, that we are to blame for those who decided to have the affair, which is clearly their fault entirely.

Whether the cheat was weak, drunk or insecure to begin with -- we must remember that THEY will be much harder on themselves than we are on them. And unless we forgive them and let their indiscretions go we only do damage to ourselves. It is not our fault if a partner cheats on us or another who we love dearly.

I would add, what goes round comes round -- we should think twice before cheating cos we will pay one way or the other. The cheater might not be repaid with a cheating partner in return, they might lose something else which they perceive as more valuable.

I do believe that we, as humans, are not expected to have only one partner throughout our lives, but my opinion of this comes more from a spiritual growth perspective than from practical reasoning... cos as I said before, who has the 'practical cash' to deal with getting married too often.

Anyway its good to see the different points of view. :biggrin5:

[Dodo25]

If anyone is interested, I've read quite a few books on sociobiology, so I'll try to give some biological insight here.

First I want to say though, as others have already pointed out, that biology is no excuse for breaking promises. Humans are unique in that we have the ability to rebel against the 'urges' of our genes. Saying 'what is natural is ethical' has been labelled as 'naturalistic fallacy'. Another thing, genes don't absolutely determine traits, they only (strongly) statistically influence it, together with other factors such as environment or upbringing.

Now if we look at our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, we find that bonobos are about the 'worst' you can get, they have sex with anything that moves (male or female doesn't matter, even gay sex) all the time. Chimps are a little bit more civilized, but also they don't really form monogamous couples. In fact, chimp testicles are huge compared to their penis size, which is because the sperms of different males often compete within the female for fertilization (meaning they have group sex).

Then gorillas, the third closest living relatives of humans, have harems. So it indeed doesn't look very good for monogamy in humans.

Orang-Utans might be sort of monogamous, I'm not sure, at least gibbons are, which are our fifth closest living relatives (yay, so there is some hope after all)..

Yet then also the fact that in many cultures, monogamy is not the norm shows that our biology is against it. Marriage is a cultural construct, at first sight a pretty successful one, until you start looking at divorce and cheating rates..

Anther indicator is the height difference between men and women. Men are generally taller, which is an indicator for tendencies towards polygamy. The exact reasons are complicated, but it has got to do with resources, males compete for the females, and the losers don't get anything while the winners get multiple women..

In these paragraphs I'm using words like 'men' and 'women', but be aware that I'm talking about our ancestors long ago and when these kinds of urges evolved. Again nobody nowadays really cares about passing on lots of genes, and neither is it a justification for any sort of behavior.

Another interesting fact is that even women have a biological predisposition to cheating. One would think only males would genetically benefit from cheating, but women do to. The 'nice guys' who actually stay monogamous are (sadly) often less 'strong and attractive' (also for biological reasons, they machos can 'afford' to be jerks, they get girls anyway). So a women benefits from cheating on the nice guy (with a strong macho) without the nice guy knowing, then she gets a baby with 'good genes' and the gullible father cares for the child and feeds it, even though actually it isn't even his own.

So far it all sounds pretty pessimistic, but there's one (big) thing left unsaid:

Love. Love is basically a mechanism for keeping parents together to rear children together, and thereby providing them with advantages. Human children need a remarkably long time until they can care for themselves, the brain development takes that long, on the other hand, once the brain is developed, we're pretty damn smart animals :) This means, there is actually one factor that drove human evolution towards stronger sexual bonds.

So anyways, love is able to create monogamy between humans (yet the things I stated above still apply and 'corrupt' the picture). Hormons, mainly oxytocin, create a strong sensation of connectedness and affection. There is actually a gene for faithfullness. People without that gene have less of the hormone and are much more likely to cheat.

It's an interesting subject, and I'm afraid also a very controversial one, and people's emotions sometimes get pretty heated.. I just stated facts and well-supported hypotheses, the interpretation for today's society I leave to others.

[OrphanPip]

Who your spouse is also matters, a few papers have found that couples with similar MHC genes are more likely to cheat on each other than those who are more genetically different. The selective advantage of this is that it inhibits inbreeding and promotes biodiversity.

[Dodo25]

Very interesting, the inbreeding makes sense, there are lots of lethal or disadvantageous genes which are recessive.
Biodiversity per se isn't a selective advantage though, for evolution only cares about the individual (or even gene), not the species or life in general.

[The Comedian]

While I appreciate the biological/socio-biological points raised here, I still believe that when we are talking about cheating, we are not really talking about biology, but morals.

I'm sure it's true that some people have this gene or that gene, that thousands of years ago we liked to spread our seed. . . . . and so on. But today. Right now. Cheating on one's mate is a betrayal of trust. It's a broken promise. It has little to do with the loins and much to do with the mind, spirit, and will. (Obviously, if one never makes such a promise if fidelity or each member of the relationship agree to an openness or sorts, then all of my points do not apply).

If I were to sleep with some lovely woman other than my even lovelier wife (and thereby breaking my promise of restraint), would I be justified in saying to her, "Don't blame me honey. Blame biology! It's the orangutans, spreading one's seed, and all that. You see I'm a male and there was this girl and, even though I promised to look and not touch, well, biology. . . it's all biology. And me being a product of biology, well, I really had to do it. I was impelled, you see. Great unseen forces at work. I tried my hardest to resist those mighty forces, but I am only a man, and what can a man do against the colossal weight of biology? Honey? Um, honey?. . . .why are you looking at me like that?"

Or would she be justified in giving me one hellova black-eye to remember?

[Dodo25]

Good points, and to answer them, we could skip to the 'free will' thread.. Seeing how long and messy that one is just proves how difficult the subject is. I agree with you to a great extent, but biology should really not be ignored, it is a mixture of factors after all.

[Babbalanja]

Very interesting, the inbreeding makes sense, there are lots of lethal or disadvantageous genes which are recessive.
Biodiversity per se isn't a selective advantage though, for evolution only cares about the individual (or even gene), not the species or life in general.I think OrphanPip meant that the selective advantage is the decreased risk of a recessive gene expressing itself. This risk decreases because of biodiversity.

Regards,

Istvan

[dizzydoll]

It's an interesting subject, and I'm afraid also a very controversial one, and people's emotions sometimes get pretty heated.. I just stated facts and well-supported hypotheses, the interpretation for today's society I leave to others.

Finally you got down to using the word "emotions", I feel your post is very clinical.

I thought just popped into my mind, when a baby is born they sense things emotionally first. Must be. They feel touch, it creates an emotional connection. They hear, the stimulus has to be emotion. Later, as baby gets older it starts to associate what it learns emotionally to its five senses. Emotion is always the undercurrent.

My point is that emotions are more important in human beings than you allow credit for. In life, if we step all over everyones emotions we will die lonely... so I would say ones emotional development is equally important if not more important than many other things we place before it.

Cheating happens more due to emotional factors as far as I am concerned. And emotions are connected to every part of us even if we are not aware of this, it subconscious.

btw baby also listens to music when its in the womb, the emotional connection to the right kind of music will often produce an excellent musician later in life. This shows that babies emotions are developing in the womb before its born.

I believe cheating has got emotional roots to its problem. We are far better at controlling urges than we are at controlling our emotions. Even our dreams affect us emotionally. These are just my feelings.

[Dodo25]

Finally you got down to using the word "emotions", I feel your post is very clinical.


Haha I often get 'accused' (for lack of a better word (reminds me of a Green Day song (I'm digressing))) of being 'clinical'. My mother wanted to test me for autism, but I found out I lack a lot of the symptoms..

I did mention love though in my bigger post, wasn't that good? Okay I described it with chemicals, maybe not too romantic..

Anyway, of course emotions are important, but I go beyond that and try to explain why we even have emotions, what evolutionary purpose they served. Emotions are often irrational (especially love is, and I actually think that's a cool thing).

I think the biggest problem in relationships (not that I have much experience being only 18) is that women think 'too emotionally' and men absolutely don't get that, which results in bad communication and misunderstandings.

And as I said there are more things to it than biology, I can well imagine that cheating can be some sort of self-validation if one feels neglected by the partner etc.

[applepie]

While I appreciate the biological/socio-biological points raised here, I still believe that when we are talking about cheating, we are not really talking about biology, but morals.

I'm sure it's true that some people have this gene or that gene, that thousands of years ago we liked to spread our seed. . . . . and so on. But today. Right now. Cheating on one's mate is a betrayal of trust. It's a broken promise. It has little to do with the loins and much to do with the mind, spirit, and will. (Obviously, if one never makes such a promise if fidelity or each member of the relationship agree to an openness or sorts, then all of my points do not apply).

If I were to sleep with some lovely woman other than my even lovelier wife (and thereby breaking my promise of restraint), would I be justified in saying to her, "Don't blame me honey. Blame biology! It's the orangutans, spreading one's seed, and all that. You see I'm a male and there was this girl and, even though I promised to look and not touch, well, biology. . . it's all biology. And me being a product of biology, well, I really had to do it. I was impelled, you see. Great unseen forces at work. I tried my hardest to resist those mighty forces, but I am only a man, and what can a man do against the colossal weight of biology? Honey? Um, honey?. . . .why are you looking at me like that?"

Or would she be justified in giving me one hellova black-eye to remember?

I would give you the black eye :D My husband also would get one in the same scenario :lol:

I agree that biology just really isn't an excuse. When you make a promise to be faithful, then that is what you've promised. Any excuse for not following through is just one bit cop out. That's unacceptable to me for any reason. People can argue the biological merits of having more than one partner, but if that is what you wish to have you don't promise to remain faithful and say biology drove you to cheat.

[dizzydoll]

I think the biggest problem in relationships (not that I have much experience being only 18) is that women think 'too emotionally' and men absolutely don't get that, which results in bad communication and misunderstandings.


And thats another reasons why affairs often take place.



And as I said there are more things to it than biology, I can well imagine that cheating can be some sort of self-validation if one feels neglected by the partner etc.

I think one mustnt become bogged down with too many details. It important to get in touch with your feelings... like start to identify with how things FEEL to you occasionally rather than rationalizing everything out in your MIND. This will ensure a balanced life.

You express yourself very well for an 18 year old. Bravo. Your mum must be proud of you.

btw. I had a little giggle at this statement of yours:


Chimps are a little bit more civilized

if thats at all possible. lol. dont get on the wrong side of a chimp, he is stronger than you think and can become quite uncivilized. lol.

[Dodo25]

I think one mustnt become bogged down with too many details. It important to get in touch with your feelings... like start to identify with how things FEEL to you occasionally rather than rationalizing everything out in your MIND. This will ensure a balanced life.


Thanks for the advice:) I'm trying.

Yeah chimps are pretty cool animals, and I wouldn't want to make them mad. And they're very smart, chimps and bonobos..

As a side note, I think it's awesome that I can write down an evolutionary account of something without being attacked by dozens of creationists. Shows the high level of this forum!

[OrphanPip]

I think OrphanPip meant that the selective advantage is the decreased risk of a recessive gene expressing itself. This risk decreases because of biodiversity.

Regards,

Istvan

Essentially, although there is also selective benefit to diversity of the MHC because individuals with a MHC common to a lot of individuals in the population are highly susceptible to death in epidemics. Thus, individuals with mechanisms that promote MHC diversity would produce offspring more likely to survive epidemics on average.

Although, I meant to say genetic diversity not biodiversity. It's the downside of having a degree in biology that isn't evolutionary biology, I'm more like a dumbed down chemist than a bones and fossils style biologist lol.

[Annamariah]

Anyone who uses biology to justify cheating cannot use birth control, because that would make cheating simply pointless... :D

[JuniperWoolf]

Anther indicator is the height difference between men and women. Men are generally taller, which is an indicator for tendencies towards polygamy. The exact reasons are complicated, but it has got to do with resources, males compete for the females, and the losers don't get anything while the winners get multiple women.

Our size difference isn't that great, though... in some species the male is like, eight times the size of the female. Polygynous (one male, many females) relationships occur more frequently in species where the male is bigger. In our species, there are many females that are taller than many males (check out Sweedish women vs. Asian men for example, and who doesn't know a tall girl or a short guy?). For us, polygynandrous (many males, many females)-style mating is more common whether people are aware of it or not - there are A LOT of things that don't show up in a statistical study of human breeding trends.


While I appreciate the biological/socio-biological points raised here, I still believe that when we are talking about cheating, we are not really talking about biology, but morals.

For a biologist, EVERYTHING is the product of genetics (because the mind is the brain, and the brain is a part of the body, and the body is developed by genetics) including morality. Actually, morality is one of the hottest topics in biology, psychology, socio-biology, sociology, practically every science that deals with human interaction. Socio-biology accounts for the trends of species as a whole, social interaction is a conglomerate of genetics, so in that way even nature vs. nurture is all about genes. But again, our rationality is also the product of genes... and we have the freedom to decide that cheating is wrong because we love our spouse or because it would hurt our children.

An example of instinct vs. logic: if someone cuts me off, my instinctual reaction might be to follow them home and run them over when they get out of their car. Because of logic and social pressure however (laws having arisen because of humanity's need to cooperate, it's not like we can survive on our own what with our complete lack of claws, fangs, fur, etc), I will decide against it. So basically, what I'm saying is that science is no excuse. Everyone operates on an indevidual level, because we are rational beings. It's not an "excuse," but it's an explination of why the trend occurs in our species.

[TheFifthElement]

I agree that biology just really isn't an excuse. When you make a promise to be faithful, then that is what you've promised. Any excuse for not following through is just one bit cop out. That's unacceptable to me for any reason. People can argue the biological merits of having more than one partner, but if that is what you wish to have you don't promise to remain faithful and say biology drove you to cheat.
I think the thread is more about reasons than excuses. There may be a biological imperitive which drives some people to cheat, and if that's the reason it's the reason. It doesn't mean anyone has to like it. And it may be that in some cases the reason is that the cheating partner is selfish, stupid, weak or thoughtless, but you've got to wonder how solid the relationship was for the other partner not to have noticed these traits in their spouse. And this omits those who cheat out of desperation or loneliness or revenge or a self destructive impulse. As others have mentioned, there's no one reason.

And I wonder if generally we're overlooking the fact that it's not that easy to get out of a relationship. For example, there is significant social pressure for people to remain a 'committed' relationship, regardless of how miserable or soul destroying it is. And you don't even have to be married for it to be difficult, anything that ties you to another person makes it difficult to break: a home, a dog, kids, whatever. Then there's the 'punishment' factor. How many people whose partners end their relationship regardless of the existence of a third party, use their children as weapons against them - denying access, or souring the relationship between the 'leaving' parent and the child/children? What about those people who are under threat of abuse if they leave? If people could allow a partner to leave a relationship with grace, and maintained a degree of personal and financial independence, perhaps people wouldn't cheat. But as long as relationships are treated as rights of ownership worthy of punishment if dismissed, people will cheat. Because the risk of getting caught cheating is perceived as lesser risk than the risks involved in extricating themselves from the relationship. Or perhaps, in a twisted way, they want to spare their partner the emotional/financial/social damage of divorce? I've known people who've been terribly unhappy in their marriage but remain married because their partner is financially dependent on them. However callous it is to cheat, it's equally callous to consign someone you've cared for, and may still care for but no longer love, to a council estate.

I've also known people who have been so emotionally damaged by their partner that they don't believe they deserve anything else, they hadn't the will to care enough about themselves to escape. Then someone else came along and reminded them that they were worth something. So cheating gave them an escape route. Yes, you can say it was motivated by weakness but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're automatically worthy of condemnation. Because in these scenarios, it seems, there is a general perception that the partner who has been cheated on is a victim and blameless. But that isn't always necessarily the case. One should always consider the individual circumstances.

Has anyone here ever read The Woman Destroyed by Simone de Beauvoir? The third story in the book gives an interesting perspective on cheating partners. It's emotionally rough reading (it stressed me out for days) but it does make you think about it a bit differently.

I think it'd be interesting to explore why people are faithful.

[applepie]

Fifth, I just started another thread about monogamy. Now that you mention I'm a bit curious myself about why we do it :D

As for biology being a reason, I suppose it might be, but ultimately I do think that cheating just boils down to a lack of strength on the cheaters part. That isn't to say that I think both parties can't be guilty in a relationship where one or the other member is unfaithful. Mostly I think it is failings on both sides that get you to that point, but mostly I blame the one who wanders. They're the ones who were too weak to end things before moving on.

[Virgil]

Cheating comes down to thrill. The biological nonesense is over intellectualized sillyness. :wink5:

[TheFifthElement]

The biological nonesense is over intellectualized sillyness. :wink5:
I'll remind you of that next time you mention your 'Italian temperament' ;)



As for biology being a reason, I suppose it might be, but ultimately I do think that cheating just boils down to a lack of strength on the cheaters part.
Well you could say that about any presumed 'negative' human trait. I do find it curious how people are prepared to accept biology when it's referenced to a morally neutral or positive trait, but instantly dismiss it when it's a perceived morally 'negative' trait. When it's negative suddenly it's always a 'choice'. Why is that?

Because I could equally argue that you 'choose' to see cheating as weak and that you could 'choose' otherwise, and I could easily come up with an argument which showed that your choice to see cheating as weak is, in itself, a sign of weakness - social conditioning, social conformity, fear (self preservation), blah blah blah, it wouldn't be too hard a leap. If you examine anything in enough depth you can get to that point. Human beings are weak. It's what makes us interesting :)

And we talk about 'strength' and 'weakness' as though these are absolute terms which have absolute values which are absolutely the same in all circumstances. But some people find it easy to be faithful and some don't. So if someone has to put considerably more effort into remaining faithful than another person is the person who finds it easy to be faithful 'strong' and the person who does not 'weak'? Because we often forget, or negate, the social pressure on people to conform to the social 'norms' in terms of relationships (no matter how un-norm those things are). Perhaps considerably more effort should be made to stop pressurising people into conforming to a 'normal' life, so that people didn't have to be deceptive in order to be themselves, and you'd see less of this sort of thing going on.

Hmm, I feel another thread coming on :D

[MarkBastable]

Cheating comes down to thrill.

What makes you think that?

[applepie]

Well you could say that about any presumed 'negative' human trait. I do find it curious how people are prepared to accept biology when it's referenced to a morally neutral or positive trait, but instantly dismiss it when it's a perceived morally 'negative' trait. When it's negative suddenly it's always a 'choice'. Why is that?

I can't say that I view things in this way. Biology determines certain temperaments, personality traits, and yes the weaknesses and strengths someone has. I'm inherently temperamental, I'm outgoing, and I have an aversion to conflicts that makes me a horrible negotiator :D These can all be attributed to biological traits, but biology does not account for morality. It is not something that can be inherited or not. The ability to learn morals can be explained by biology (i.e. sociopaths), but the morals themselves are taught. Going against those is a conscious choice on our part, so to me choosing to do some you know is wrong is weak.

I think that having the personality where you choose to go against things you know are the norm is biology, but it is a weakness. Biologically, flaunting the norm is a weakness and in many species it means you are dead. Wolves that are unable or unwilling to live in packs often die. The gazelle that runs towards the predator instead of away is dinner. Just because it is genetically passed does not mean it isn't weak. It just means that it isn't a weakness you choose to have. I didn't choose to have the personality flaws that I do, but I do choose to follow my moral code.

[caddy_caddy]

I don't think if you truthfully love someone you can cheat on him / her .

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't think if you truthfully love someone you can cheat on him / her .

That depends on how you define love. There is a love that I don't think that most people ever achieve. Love can also fluctuate and change. The Greeks had several different words for love: eros, phileo, and agape.

eros - being sexual love
phileo - being affectionate love
agape - being an unconditional love

[*Classic*Charm*]

I can tell ya why people cheat: they're weak, stupid, selfish, and thoughtless. I have very little sympathy, empathy, or any other 'pathy for people who cheat on their promises to commit to another.

Hear Hear!


In any case, I think that saying people cheat because they are weak is too simplistic. Certainly, a cheater could just be a weak and selfish p*#@k. There's plenty of them. But a person might cheat as a result of being neglected in their relationship. It doesn't excuse the act, but there is often a pretty complex context behind people being unfaithful. That said, if you love someone and you are experiencing an urge to sleep with somebody else which you think you might act on, the only ethical option is to tell them. Long term affairs are simply sustained deception.

If a person is feeling neglected in their relationship, there's a better solution than cheating: leave! The option becomes: you suffer by leaving or your partner suffers by being cheated on. I'm not saying that leaving is easy, but if you're unhappy, why would you force the suffering on to your partner? That is weak and selfish. Perhaps the partner is "responsible" for how you're feeling, but you still have the choice in how to deal with it. The partner is not "responsible" for your actions in response to haw he/she makes you feel.


I have to agree with Comedian here, mainly due to the selfishness and pain one leaves behind after the affair is exposed. Very few relationships will hold up after the trust is compromised... but I think we have to be careful to not hold onto blame as it stunts our personal growth -- or guilt, that we are to blame for those who decided to have the affair, which is clearly their fault entirely.

Whether the cheat was weak, drunk or insecure to begin with -- we must remember that THEY will be much harder on themselves than we are on them. And unless we forgive them and let their indiscretions go we only do damage to ourselves. It is not our fault if a partner cheats on us or another who we love dearly.

I can say with confidence that this is not true. And as much as I loathe and despise cheaters, I think the person who allows him or herself to remain with someone who has cheated on them is also weak, though to a point I sympathize with them. Unfortunately, some people are just not capable of forgiving and forgetting certain indiscretions, or they choose not to. I think it's more unhealthy to remain in a relationship you consider truthful and monogamous when you're constantly being cheated on.



For a biologist, EVERYTHING is the product of genetics (because the mind is the brain, and the brain is a part of the body, and the body is developed by genetics) including morality. Actually, morality is one of the hottest topics in biology, psychology, socio-biology, sociology, practically every science that deals with human interaction. Socio-biology accounts for the trends of species as a whole, social interaction is a conglomerate of genetics, so in that way even nature vs. nurture is all about genes. But again, our rationality is also the product of genes... and we have the freedom to decide that cheating is wrong because we love our spouse or because it would hurt our children.

Interesting point, Juniper. I'm a biologist but I still have a sort of belief in substance dualism- that there is some sort of separation between mind and brain. However, I don't think how I see the distinction applies to this situation. In this situation, I agree, our rational abilities are linked to genes.


I don't think if you truthfully love someone you can cheat on him / her .

Unfortunately, I don't think this is true either. One can love another and still lie to that person. People can justify anything to themselves.

[TheFifthElement]

Okay, I’m going to quote you out of order but it’s primarily because I’m trying to make sure I understand what you’re saying. To recap, what I said was:


Well you could say that about any presumed 'negative' human trait. I do find it curious how people are prepared to accept biology when it's referenced to a morally neutral or positive trait, but instantly dismiss it when it's a perceived morally 'negative' trait. When it's negative suddenly it's always a 'choice'. Why is that?

Note, I’m talking about ‘traits’, behaviour, referenced to morality rather than just morality as a thing in itself.
You say:

Biology determines certain temperaments, personality traits, and yes the weaknesses and strengths someone has. I'm inherently temperamental,
and

Going against those is a conscious choice on our part,

So what you’re saying is this: whatever the ‘group mentality’ deems to be morally ‘bad’ is ‘bad’ and people going against that (negative trait/behaviour) is a conscious choice. Now, consider this scenario:
- you are predisposed to be temperamental.
- being temperamantal, or let's say losing your temper, is deemed 'immoral'.
- you know that losing your temper is immoral.
- you lose your temper.

According to your logic, this is a conscious choice and, by definition, immoral. Is this correct?

And if you control your temper 99.9% of the time, and to control your temper, despite your natural disposition to do otherwise, takes considerable effort of will on your part, does that mean that you’re strong or weak? Is it ‘strong’ to do something which you find easy or something which you find hard?

You see, I think people assume that because they personally are not tempted to cheat that everyone should not be tempted to cheat. Because I’m not, you shouldn’t be. And I don’t think people are willing to entertain the possibility that there comes a point where a person loses control and is no longer making any conscious choices, albeit that they will accept such a position when you’re talking about something that applies to them, like losing their temper or being pedantic or condescending or forgetful. Because I think, in general, it’s just much easier to believe that all cheaters are bad people. But this works on the assumption that everyone feels emotional and sexual attraction in the same kind of way. So because I am not tempted by every attractive person that passes me in the street, no one else should be. But that’d be the same as thinking that because I have no interest in pretty shoes no one else should like pretty shoes and just because lots of other people don’t like pretty shoes too no one should, and anyone that wears pretty shoes deserves to be condemned because obviously there’s something wrong with them.

And there’s been much said about deception but isn't deception just a part and parcel of human relationships? Perhaps the distinction is that there are some deceptions which people accept and others which they don’t, or that perhaps people just expect everybody else to be more 'honest' than they are. Haven’t you ever put on a nice dress, and sexy heels for a date? Haven’t you ever tried really hard to show off your ‘best side’ to, to use some of your own words, hide your ‘flaws’? Isn’t this a form of deception? Because ultimately your partner will discover your flaws, or see that physical flaw that your really nice dress and sexy heels distracted him from, and maybe you’ll be a long way into the relationship by then, so you’d have been stringing him along on a deception. It isn’t really very much different. And what about the partner who figures out fairly early on that their partner has a wandering eye, or hands, or other things but convinces themself into thinking they can change them, or that they will change, or that duty or guilt or love will force them to change, or buries the knowledge deep and pretends it isn’t there. Isn’t that a form of deception? And what about those times when you hold back from saying what you think, because you don’t want a fight or it’s easier just to say nothing or in the interests of compromise. Isn’t that deception? I’d be interested to know if there was a single human relationship in existence which didn’t have some aspect of deception to it, I doubt that such a thing exists. And it never will because people underestimate how very much deception occurs because people are really trying hard to fit in, or to please, or to be their best. If we want an honest world, we all need to try and judge less and understand more. Because it’s hard to be honest in a world where people judge you weak for being ‘different to the norm’ as you say here:


I think that having the personality where you choose to go against things you know are the norm is biology, but it is a weakness.
(which I think I’ll set up as a separate discussion, if you don’t mind.)

So what you end up with is a situation where people are socially pressured to try and fit into this chocolate box idea of what the perfect life is, even though very few people genuinely meet these ideals, and when they try and fail, despite how much considerable effort they may have put into that, they’re still condemned as weak. A no win situation, I guess. But to argue that people ‘just shouldn’t do it’ is pointless and doesn’t stop it, and dismissing people who do cheat with a one-size fits all soundbite really doesn’t aid understanding as to why it happens. And unless you understand something it is virtually impossible to prevent it or control or ameliorate the risk. So people will go on cheating and people will go on being upset and outraged about it and so the world turns and nothing gets better. Finite.

[applepie]

And if you control your temper 99.9% of the time, and to control your temper, despite your natural disposition to do otherwise, takes considerable effort of will on your part, does that mean that you’re strong or weak? Is it ‘strong’ to do something which you find easy or something which you find hard?
I'm very black and white in things I suppose. Yes, it is a weakness to lose my temper. Even though it only happens occasionally, it is weak. The reasoning for this is that in losing my temper I harm others. Not necessarily physically, but I certainly bruise a number of emotions. I know that hurting others is wrong and therefore immoral. So, it is weak whether not losing my temper goes against my nature or not.

Let me make another example of what I mean. You have an individual who is incapable of learning right from wrong. This person kills a family. I would consider them inherently weak since they have traits which produce an undesirable behavior, but would I consider the individual immoral?? No, because they are unable to know what society deems as right and wrong so they can't be immoral.

[caddy_caddy]

Bienvenu , not every love is a true love . According to me cheating is a test of true love . I do believe if you are with no morality , once you find your soul mate , the true not the fake , you will become faithfull .

[Virgil]

What makes you think that?

I've known men who were happily married who have cheated and men who were unhappily married that cheated. I've known men who happily married that have not cheated and men who were unhappily married who have not cheated.

There are probably several reasons why the men who have not cheated have stayed faithful. Let's leave that at that.

Of those that cheated, the fundemental reason was to take themself to another emotional state, whether for a new experience or to relieve the unhappiness. Either way, it's essentially a striving for a thrill, to seek back to a state of bliss or to seek for another conquest, or a new experience - sexual or emotional. These are thrills, an elevating of the blood pressure, a state of hieghtened emotion.

Now perhaps it might be different for women. Only one woman has ever told me she cheated on her husband. And according to her it was a one time instance. I'll take that to assume it was for a thrill also.

[MarkBastable]

These are thrills, an elevating of the blood pressure, a state of hieghtened emotion.

I think you'd have to prove that this was the purpose of doing it rather than an effect of doing it.

[dizzydoll]

These are thrills, an elevating of the blood pressure, a state of hieghtened emotion.

I think you'd have to prove that this was the purpose of doing it rather than an effect of doing it.

The whole purpose is to get 'an effect' thats what Virgil has so eloquently indicated. Not that I agree with affairs but I think he has hit the nail on the head. :eek:. lol.. wouldnt that be a torturous way of dealing with it if we caught our lover in the act? lol. :coolgleamA:

[Virgil]

These are thrills, an elevating of the blood pressure, a state of hieghtened emotion.

I think you'd have to prove that this was the purpose of doing it rather than an effect of doing it.

Come on. It's quite obvious people are striving for a different emotional state. Cheating doesn't happen by accident. It's a choice.

Thank you Dizzy. :)

[MarkBastable]

Come on. It's quite obvious people are striving for a different emotional state. Cheating doesn't happen by accident. It's a choice.



Fair enough. If 'thrill' in this context means 'a different feeling to the feeling they normally have' then I'd agree with you. But I'm not sure that explains much because it's the reason people do most things - from listening to music to ordering the Beef Wellington. They want to feel something they're not feeling now.

But I thought the question was: why do they want that?

[Virgil]

Fair enough. If 'thrill' in this context means 'a different feeling to the feeling they normally have' then I'd agree with you. But I'm not sure that explains much because it's the reason people do most things - from listening to music to ordering the Beef Wellington. They want to feel something they're not feeling now.

But I thought the question was: why do they want that?

For the different emotional state. I listed a few reasons. Both happily married men and unhappily married men cheat. The common denominator is the thrill.

[MarkBastable]

Hang on.

Is it that:

the different emotional state = thrill

[dizzydoll]

didnt anyone notice what I typed:- am I invisible................... ?

hit the nail on the head.:eek: . lol.. wouldnt that be a torturous way of dealing with it if we caught our lover in the act? .

lol

[Virgil]

Hang on.

Is it that:

the different emotional state = thrill

Oh please. I'm not getting into some tautological dissection of what I wrote. You don't agree. I don't care.

[MarkBastable]

Oh please. I'm not getting into some tautological dissection of what I wrote. You don't agree. I don't care.

I don't know yet whether I agree.

[JuniperWoolf]

Isn't everything that we do an attempt to achieve a "different emotional state?" That's an oversimplification.

In layman's terms: Duh.

[MarkBastable]

Isn't everything that we do an attempt to achieve a "different emotional state?"

I'd say so, yeah.