A
female
age
36-40,
anonymous
writes:Hey, I don’t post much but I visit the site daily to see the new questions.I think this post is a rant versus a question, but it’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about recently. It’s really been on my mind.I really just don’t know what the point of getting involved with someone, unless you plan to marry and have children.Why date? Why invest time? Why invest emotions? In something, that’s bound to fail within time.I know when in a relationship, it feels great. Life DOES seem just better. It’s having that connection with someone else that seems to make it better. I’m NOT saying, you can’t be happy when not with someone (I spend more time single than in a relationship), just saying life seems a bit more fulfilled (career, activities, hobbies, interests, and the bonus is that connection with someone else).I’m noticing the same patterns: 1. On men, the marriage can be great, emotional and sexually fulfilling yet cheat for the simple fact of new p*ssy – all about variety BUT want to keep their “main” relationship.It can be maybe a fling once in a blue moon, the escort, etc. These men claim variety, but often times it can be the same “other woman,” so it appears as long as it’s not just the same p*ssy over and over again it’s enough variety. It’s that whole, “a man can love one woman, but can have sex with any woman.” These are the men that if they can get away with it, they’re going to do it – “opportunist cheater.”Please no posts on the “biological” differences of men and women – I know that already.2. The other thing I’m seeing frequently is both genders, their marriages are going good, no problems yet they let themselves become interested in someone at work, or someone they come in contact with frequently. These are the posts, often by people that have been married from a handful of years to 20+ years and want to leave their current relationship for the new one.Are they not aware that there’s always that chance of having a connection with someone else? It’s just like when I’m in a relationship, someone at work, even though he may be cute, funny, would ask me out, I decline (even if it’s for a lunch), etc. Why get involved in something that may lead to more, why set yourself up for it – when you know you’re in a relationship. And yeah, things may currently be in a rut or not as exciting as it used to be, but unless you’re planning to leave your current relationship, I don’t see a point in creating a situation where I’d get involved with someone. AND I hate the lines when they use…”It’s something I never felt before, the connection is really there like no other.” Don’t they realize in the BEGINNING of the old relationship it was the same way?And the marriages/relationships I’m talking about, it’s the ones where on-lookers, would think they have it pretty good, but it’s like the people themselves don’t realize how much of a good thing they have going on (both may have good careers, both look fit, etc).On cheating/marriage, I understand in most cases the men have more to lose in divorce. So the men that marry that know they have a problem with being monogamous (say during the relationship-engagement slipping up with infidelities) why go into marriages with women who want monogamy, when you know you have the inability to stay committed?There are women who’d actually go into an open marriage/relationship, that still want the same things they do: the perks of a marriage with the addition of multiple partners without the guilt/double life.“Male infidelity accounted for over 75 percent of marriage breakdowns, while women were unfaithful only 22 percent of the time.” - http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Rates_of_Divorce_for_Adultery_and_InfidelitySo basically, if you know you’re cheater, you know eventually you will get caught, if it’s 1,5,10, years down the road why risk building what you have and loosing it versus just getting with someone who has the same views as you do (want their cake and to eat it too)?Please no posts on monogamy being outdated – trust me, I know it’s rare to find these days, but there are people (yes, actually men too) who want monogamy.I’d like to think most people have long term relationships before marriage. Some even have kids before marriage. So it’s a lot like marriage minus the paper. So they should know if monogamy is something they can do.I read an article about a man visiting escorts, before marriage, and during and it seemed like he was upset and couldn’t understand why his wife left him when she found out? What did he expect? I feel when I go on dates, all men do is lie, lol, I know it sounds like I’ve been so jaded, but I haven’t. I’ve had two relationships, which both ended mutually. It’s just I think reading this site daily, the media, the horror stories of my friend’s experiences, my own mother’s experiences, other family member experiences – they all seem to have been bad. I’m 22, I’m still in college. I’m finishing up my bachelors. I have plans for grad school, etc. I’m currently busy, but had plans for the upcoming year to make time for new dates.Truthfully, I’d like to see myself married before 30, probably mid 20’s. But I’m really debating if it’s even worth it, really. It seems: 1. All men want new p*ssy, and I will get cheated on, but as long as he comes home to me, it’s supposed to be ok. Even though, I control my urges, I shouldn’t expect him to, because after all he’s a man (rolls eyes).2. I’ll only be able to keep a man interested for a limited a time, no matter what happens, what we do, how much I keep in shape, etc – no matter what new things I try, he will get bored and want new p*ssy (even if the new p*ssy, doesn’t look as good, feel as good, etc – it’s just new, so it’s better). 3. It seems almost every man in his marriage, stays there just for the kids. Or they have some kind of denial that their wife can’t live without them, so for her sake, they waste their years, staying with her – which I’d rather die than have done to me.So unless I: 1. Believe in poly relationships (1 man/2+ women living together) so he has new p*ssy he’ll never be happy in the long run.2. Have an open relationship, since he’d be doing it behind my back.I’m probably going to die alone or divorced since I won’t do either of those two. Has any single woman or man, just feel like what’s the point of this at all?Even at the biology aspect, I feel God has played some cruel joke. I’m not religious, but I definitely feel something could have been changed to help lower the infidelity rate. I mean, damn, it seems it’s hard enough to find someone that you have chemistry with, that you think is attractive, etc – getting them, keeping them interested, and apparently it’s all for nothing anyway, because in time you’ll just become old p*ssy (not so much with age, but just familiarity). I don’t understand how any woman can compete with that. I feel I only have a certain amount of time in a marriage, before I’m considered like an undesirable or last resort (no matter how good looking I try to stay, or no matter how interesting). Which is the opposite, I feel when in relationships. I actually am the kind of person that isn’t really comfortable around strangers, etc. I feel more myself with people I know well. I like when I reach that comfort zone in a relationship where I feel a bit less self-conscious about everything. I feel as time goes, the bond feels stronger – which is apparently the opposite of how men think.“A woman wants ONE man to cater to her every need, and a man wants EVERY woman to cater to his ONE need.” I’m at a point in life where I’m trying to figure out what I plan to do when it concerns relationships/marriage possibilities in the future. I stopped accepting dates at all when I’m approached these days. Furthermore, I’m not American, and I live here in the U.S. The people here are more liberal when concerning relationships, marriage and sex.The men that ask me out, I feel they go with me because “society” expects them to settle down with someone like me. I am more traditional, conservative. I do have qualities that are marriage material.I have a high standard on commitment and marriage, marriage-wise, I’d never be someone that says, I’m bored, so let us get a divorce, etc. Due to my culture, I feel the men here, see me as a sure shot for a traditional marriage (not so much career-wise, I’d would work even if it’s part time) but the values in a marriage and family. I’d marry someone who earns less money than me, I don’t need Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, he can be average – is asking for commitment just too much these days? Is it possible to find? Are men having the same problem? Is it useless to look for a monogamous partner? Any thoughts appreciated, I just had to get this off my chest.
View related questions:
at work, divorce, escort, infidelity, money Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (9 November 2009): Sorry.. I took a couple of days to check back here. Thanks for those very informative articles you have posted. I have a problem with the line of reasoning found in those researches. I don't understand how bonding implies exclusivity. Like the article says.. "the most intense bonding in a person's life" the bonding with one's child.. that is not exclusive. If that is exclusive to one child, having another child would be "cheating on" the first child. Bonding doesn't need to imply exclusivity. Thats what I think. Bonobos are highly promiscuous. Thats what I have heard.Keeping sex as a secret from kids? I can talk a lot about that one. It is a highly sensitive issue and it needs its own debate. But I will take a similar thing as example. We think our genitals should be covered. Does that make our genitals special and different from animals' genitals? Nope.. there are human tribes who don't wear any clothes at all. Their societies function properly as well. My point is.. you just cant say "This is the only right way of living" in these matters.
A
reader, anonymous, writes (6 November 2009): This is verified as being by the original poster of the question***Female Anonymous---
Anyone that I've met who agrees with open relationships, always bring up the fact that, "humans are animals, animals aren't monogamous," (along those lines of comments).
--"But they are doing it not because they are monogamous by nature."
--"But humans are not wired for monogamy."
After reading an article, "A Portrait of an Open Marriage," I was browsing the comments.
I found one in particular that was interesting and which I agree with. I could rephrase it myself, etc - but I don't see the point in recreating the wheel.
Mainly the science/psychology portion of the article:
----Contrary to popular belief about humans being sexual creatures just as animals are sexual creatures, humans have much more complex hormones and emotions than any other creature. Human sexuality is beautiful, but it is also meant to be expressed within a certain context.
If sexual activity of animals is not something private or hidden from offspring, then it does not have the same meaning as it does with humans. If we protect our children from seeing sexual activity because it is something private which is meant to be between only two people, though it is not wrong, we wish for them to understand... what? That
it is intimate and special, not something which is meant to be shared with just anyone.
Your own pleasure is up to you, to some degree, but if it is all about your pleasure, then how is it special? Eating is pleasurable, sleeping is pleasurable, orgasm is pleasurable, but if you do it too much it is unhealthy and loses at least part of its joy.
If it feels good, do it! Surely you will find happiness when you feel good. The problem is, when we practice getting intimate with many people, we prepare for divorce, or disconnected relationships [the original comment poster's opinion], when we see so many gory bloody movies, we are desensitized to danger, when we have sex at a young age, it becomes less special, and less exciting as time goes on [I think she made a good example of how we get "desensitized."]
The human body was actually made to be in a long-lasting monogamous relationship.
The hormone oxytocin (which many may recognize as
pitocin... the drug form administered during labor) is released during orgasm, the same hormone released during labor and delivery which causes the uterus to contract and causes the most intense bonding of a person's life... for a mother to bond with her child. This hormone release during orgasm, then, also causes a woman to form an intense
bond. But as we practice orgasms over time and with several people, we are conditioned to allow less attachment during the release of this hormone and it becomes less meaningful.
It is also very hurtful for you, as a female (sorry guys... you just don't have estrogen, progesterone, and oxytocin in concentrations even close to females) [men do produce Vasopressin during orgasm which promotes bonding, read later] to unconsciously form these bonds and break them over and over again. It becomes emotionally draining and confusing to be in a constant battle with what your body naturally tries to do [again the comment writer's personal opinion, unless she's stating within the time you have few sexual partners].
________________________________________________
I wanted verify a couple of things about the chemicals released during a female orgasm:
Oxytocin: "Bonding. In the Prairie Vole, oxytocin released into the brain of the female during sexual activity is important for forming a monogamous pair bond with her sexual partner. Vasopressin appears to have a similar effect in males.[11] Oxytocin has a role in social behaviors in many species, and so it seems likely that it has similar roles in humans." - WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
More on Oxytocin: "All of this has a good deal to do with oxytocin, the "hormone of love" as it has been called. Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter synthesised by the hypothalamus at the base of the brain and stored in the posterior pituitary, from where it pulses out when required, which is during sexual activity and in childbirth, after which it prompts the desire to nuzzle and protect infants."
"Oxytocin induces feelings of love and altruism, warmth, calm, bonding, tenderness and togetherness, of satisfaction during bodily contact, sexual arousal and sexual fulfilment. It is during orgasm in both men and women that oxytocin floods through our bloodstream."
"Oxytocin is nature's sugar-coating to disguise the bitter pill of reproduction, the chemical basis for our capacity and longing for romantic attachment. It is the molecule that for 100,000 years or more has made us want to have sex face-to-face, adoring one another, and to live in permanent, monogamous couples - the latter otherwise done only by one species of ape, the bonobo, an endangered chimpanzee existing in small numbers in the Congo and believed to be the closest primate to humankind." - O: The Intimate History of the Orgasm by Jonathan Margolis, http://www.sensualism.com/sex/orgasmic.html
From Oxytocin.org: Animal studies, from Witt’s lab and others, have shown that oxytocin can have dramatic effects on behavior. When the natural release of oxytocin is blocked, for instance, mothers - from sheep to rats - reject their own young.
Meanwhile, virgin female rats injected with oxytocin fawn over another female’s young, nuzzling the pups and protecting them as if they were their own.
[proves the point about child birth bonding]
In addition, studies show that oxytocin in females, as well as the closely related vasopressin in males, is key to pair bonding.
"You first meet him and he’s passable," Witt said of the phenomena. "The second time you go out with him, he’s OK. The third time you go out with him, you have sex. And from that point on you can’t imagine what life would be like without him."
"What’s behind it?" she added. "It could be oxytocin."
______________________________________________
These are layman term articles, a search with oxytocin can pull up academic level resources as well.
On men and bonding, articles do pull up that Vasopressin does help form bonds, is it possibly a weaker bond than what the female feels (most likely).
WIKI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_sexual_monogamy: Studies of pair bonding in animals have allowed scientists to identify several chemicals in the brain related to social monogamy. Three chemicals which have received a lot of attention are oxytocin, VASOPRESSIN, and dopamine. These chemicals have been strongly linked to socially monogamous pair bonding in prairie voles.
Some species of prairie voles form socially monogamous pair bonds following sexual behavior. The pair bonds can be interrupted by injecting chemicals that interfere with oxytocin and vasopressin. The chemicals interefere with the normal activity of oxytocin and vasopressin and thereby prevent the formation of pair bonds.
Conversely, injecting chemicals that increase the activity of oxytocin and vasopressin causes monogamous pair bonds to form more easily. Studies have also compared species of prairie voles that form socially monogamous pair bonds versus species of prairie voles that do not form socially monogamous pair bonds. The brains of species that form socially monogamous pair bonds contain more neurons that are more sensitive to oxytocin and vasopressin. (This is because the neurons contain more receptors, or chemical "docking ports," for oxytocin and vasopressin.) The findings of many studies have consistently shown that oxytocin and vasopressin play a critical role in socially monogamous pair bonding in prairie voles.
______________________________________________
So, I think it's quite the opposite. We're actually doing the opposite of what we were "meant" to do. So, I think the whole, "we weren't made for monogamy," cliche has been ruled out.
I think it's more a personal choice and a lifestyle choice. I think as our society become more liberal, we're actually defying what "nature intended," at least those that choose to have many sexual partners.
I basically only came up with one conclusion, the more sexual partners a person has had the least likely they'll be content with monogamy.
On why non-monogamous people feel the have to conform: "I think many people don't realize that they are not monogamous. Since monogamy is taught as the right way of living, they are trying all the time to be like that."
---I believe that's true. It's like society today, people having sex as early as early teens, go through junior high, high school, college (all those NSA encounters), and THEN mid-late 20's, some 30's, try to settle for ONE partner for marriage (seems like it would be A LOT harder then).
On spouses having other sexual partners, "In that documentary you mentioned about that woman with the BDSM fetish, it looks like the husband didnt enter the relationship knowing such a situation would arise. I guess he understood the situation and let his wife get what she needs becoz he loves her and wants to her to be happy."
---No, this was something later in the relationship. Obviously, values/morals were not matched here in the relationship. He chose to stay only monogamous with her. I also felt she put him in a position that, it appeared he had the choice of being aware of WHO/WHEN she was sleeping with somebody (guaranteed in a safe environment) or the high possibility she would have had someone on the side regardless (sneaking around, etc).
You might say, they had trust so she may not of done that, etc. However, I think when a partner specifically says basically, "I want to sleep with other people," and you have YEARS involved, kids, he may have felt it wasn't worth disrupting their life and maybe he felt if she was going to do it anyway he would of preferred to know about it.
I don't want to make him out the victim, obviously he had the choice to leave her too.
I think ultimately it depends just how liberal both parties view sex. Even though he may have been monogamous, he may have had a more liberal view towards sex so he was not as offended/hurt, etc.
If sex had a more deeper/emotional meaning to him,----this is hard describe, obviously I discussed the chemical/psychology aspect of what happens during sex, but depending on the culture, values, sex is really not taken as lightly as changing a pair of shoes. This is where they would have had a problem IF he felt this way.
"You don't have the idea of fidelity when it comes to food, clothes and other things.. right? It is Ok for you or your husband to receive a nice gift from another person.. right? So why cant you extend that idea to sex as well?"
--This was covered earlier in the "desensitizing" comment.
I guess it all points out to really trying to understand your partner before committing, and their views and values. Their stances on important issues, and getting to know them really well before committing for the long haul.
And by looking at the psychological/chemical aspect of sex, I think I ruled out why perhaps the open-marriage couples should not disclose it to their kids. It DID seem like a good idea until reading more into it.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (5 November 2009): I understand what you mean. I am not saying there are no truly monogamous persons. But I believe they will be a minority. Outside this minority there will be many who are faithful. But they are doing it not because they are monogamous by nature. It is because they believe monogamy is the right way of living. Such people struggle a good deal with their nature to stay faithful. Many others lose the battle but keep it as a secret. Like u said, these people will raise their kids to believe the same unrealistic ideas. If we are straight forward and teach our kids what is truly human nature and what one should expect in a relationship they will be ready to face things.
Regarding your question, "Why people commit to monogamous relationships when they know they are not monogamous?" I think many people don't realize that they are not monogamous. Since monogamy is taught as the right way of living, they are trying all the time to be like that. They will think there is something wrong with them which they should try and correct. But the truth is, they cant. It is in their nature. So if we teach the facts properly, we can avoid a lot of confusions and heartbreaks.
If you can find a truly monogamous partner, consider yourself lucky. If you cant, it doesnt mean you have to die alone. It depends on how much you know your partner and how much you love each other. In that documentary you mentioned about that woman with the BDSM fetish, it looks like the husband didnt enter the relationship knowing such a situation would arise. I guess he understood the situation and let his wife get what she needs becoz he loves her and wants to her to be happy.
I don't think my ideas make marriage outdated. It is still marriage with slightly different rules. It just wont require sexual exclusiveness. You can still share sex and love with your husband/wife. You have kids together. You are there for each other during hard times. You take care of each other. My idea of marriage is exactly present day marriage minus the idea of fidelity. You don't have the idea of fidelity when it comes to food, clothes and other things.. right? It is Ok for you or your husband to receive a nice gift from another person.. right? So why cant you extend that idea to sex as well?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (4 November 2009): This is verified as being by the original poster of the question***Female anonymous---
That's the thing, you KNOW your stance, you know you don't want to be in a committed relationship sexually. You would not get into a relationship with someone who'd want to be monogamous.
You'd get into a relationship, but you'd be upfront about it being an open one.
I don't have a problem with that. "I think in today's world, people see marriage in one view, when in reality maybe one mold doesn't fit everybody."
My post is about, people who KNOW they have a problem staying committed yet jump into relationships where the other partner is monogamous.
I do see your examples, but I don't think it's primitive. Some people can be happy long-term with the same partner.
I do think things are taken into consideration, obviously someone who has had many partners, I can understand how they'd get bored. If they've already had no strings attached sex, or sex without a relationship than their view of sex is leaning on physical and I'm sure when they're in a relationship it has it's emotional aspects to, but on the larger scale I'd presume physical.
People with less partners, see sex in a different light. It's more about the intimacy, emotion, connection between the two people, etc. It's not just sex, it's not just physical. To those people, it's what makes marriage different from any relationship they'll have is the intimacy. Sharing something with somebody that they're not sharing with the rest of the population, lol. In marriages, spouses don't own each other's bodies - they just share their bodies with that person.
I can see open marriages eventually becoming more openly accepted (I think it is now). I mean, I'm pretty conservative, but I don't look at it to bash it, I look at it as like sexual orientations, whatever lifestyles people choose let them live it.
I mean, you have the Mormons for instance (some practice polygamy), yeah, it's constricted to a few different women/wives, but none the less, I definitely feel it's one of the more accepted forms of an open relationship. Most have large families, and they have routines just like any other couple. I watched a documentary about a Mormon family, the man had married two sisters, and they all lived in one house with all the kids, and those kids will probably grow up understanding you can still sleep with different people but love equally. I know, in just open relationships, it's just about physical and the one main relationship, but the point about it is, those kids will have a more liberal that sharing your body with another person doesn't mean there's any less love, etc.
I seen another documentary, where the woman was married, but due to an extreme BDSM fetishes (her husband was unable to cause her pain), she'd have a man that she'd stay the weekend with. He'd go to her house, and pick her up, and actually spend a few minutes with the family, etc. Her husband was aware of it, her kids knew they this is the man, mom goes with just for sex, apparently. She was open about it with her friends, etc.
Her kids were older teens, the daughter struggled with it, the son didn't really comment.
I think it all boils down to how you were raised. I was raised with a certain set of values so I've adapted a certain outlook of what I believe a relationship should consist of.
Of course, people can be taught a certain set of values but then as they get older, they can realize maybe it's not for them or "primitive."
Maybe, the people that have open relationships, they should teach their children at a younger age, the different options regarding relationships and marriages, and the different levels of commitment.
This would make people more open to it. Just like homosexuality, in the 50's was basically hidden, and until more people came out about it, it wasn't really looked at as a lifestyle choice as it as today.
On the children being exposed to the options on the levels of monogamy, I mean for instance you say it's primitive, you say it's outdated, "We know such ideas are primitive. But we still have this concept of staying true to one partner. That is still another form of treating someone as your property. Why is that required? As long as your husband/wife is doing their duties as husband/wife properly and is providing you all you need, why should you care what they do with others?"
You should explain this to your family/children, and as more people are exposed to it, society changes and adapts to it being a choice, thus the social stigma of one man, one woman for life, becomes more flexible.
Yet beyond the extreme examples I explained (mormons/bdsm woman) I don't know many couples who preach what they practice to their kids. They still expect them to get married, and live happily ever after with one man/one woman.
If you have kids, next time they're watching a romantic movie or a Disney flick, or reading a love story, etc. You should let them know that those two people may love each other but they may choose to have sex with many/multiple people later on in life.
Explain how sex isn't really something between two committed people that are in love, but it's a free for all, and you should share your body with as many people as you feel, since it's your body. As long as you go back home to your husband/wife, they shouldn't care.
You should teach them, "I think the concept of "being faithful to" or "cheating on" a partner is meaningless. It is just a form of self-importance."
Thus, more people would be exposed to your views and who knows, in time the whole marriage thing would be abolished. What's the point, right?
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (4 November 2009): I think the concept of "being faithful to" or "cheating on" a partner is meaningless. It is just a form of self-importance. Nowadays we talk about how a wife is not a husband's property. We know such ideas are primitive. But we still have this concept of staying true to one partner. That is still another form of treating someone as your property. Why is that required? As long as your husband/wife is doing their duties as husband/wife properly and is providing you all you need, why should you care what they do with others? I think it comes out of one of two things. One thing is we feel jealous/possessive. That is pure selfishness. Another thing is, we feel insecure. We feel like our partner will leave us. That too is not necessary if you have a good understanding with your partner. I do think the idea of monogamy is primitive and unnecessary. Not everyone can do this. It takes a lot of maturity to be in an open relationship. But humans are not wired for monogamy. That is why we can never solve this problem.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (3 November 2009): This is verified as being by the original poster of the question***Male Anonymous----"Most of the non-cheaters that I know have been cheated on very few times or none at all. Most of the cheaters that I know have also been the victims of cheating a whole lot too. It's a lot more common that I meet people that have mostly lived one extreme or the other than in the middle."
See odd, I thought it would be the opposite.
I figured if someone is in a relationship and they got cheated on, next time around when they have somebody that's really committed, etc - they'd know they have a good thing and wouldn't want to mess it up.
Considering how hard it is to find someone that has high values on commitment (if that's what they are looking for - long term).
And they'd have a better idea, of how quickly that destroys relationships, and the hurt they had to go through, so makes me feel they wouldn't want to repeat it.
Usually, with guys, if they've been cheated on, this is where I notice they become a bit over-protective in relationships, you notice more jealousy, they become really uneasy with male friends if their GF has them, they tend to be a bit more clingy, etc.
As for people not being cheated on, I wouldn't necessarily say that it would promote them to cheat.
"I am on the more chaste side of average for sure, but I still do not think I am very abnormal. I know numerous other guys who just don't cheat and never have."
Yeah, definitely helps when you keep good company.
And on me being cheated on, no, I've never been cheated on.
That's the issue or theme on this post, that I haven't really been cheated on, been I usually feel like not pursuing relationships, no matter how good the guy might be, because I feel no matter what, down the road, he'll cheat.
But I'm working on being more optimistic about that before accepting dates again.
***SatinDesire-Thanks for the message.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (2 November 2009): I am the same male anon as the big answer before. To answer, I have always been monogamous. I don't cheat. I don't have casual sex unless I at least think there might be a relationship possibility at the time. If I can't picture marrying the woman someday then I probably never would sleep with her. I come from a family of monogamous couples. They have not always stayed together for life but cheating has never been a big part of it. I am on the more chaste side of average for sure, but I still do not think I am very abnormal. I know numerous other guys who just don't cheat and never have. For some reason most people fall into one of two groups as far as I can see. Those who have a ton of cheating in their lives, and those who have very little or none at all. Most of the non-cheaters that I know have been cheated on very few times or none at all. Most of the cheaters that I know have also been the victims of cheating a whole lot too. It's a lot more common that I meet people that have mostly lived one extreme or the other than in the middle. I'm sorry if this viewpoint is offensive to you because you have obviously dealt with lots of cheating. But this is just what I have seen and experienced. I don't think that everyone who has been chronically cheated upon must therefore be a cheater themselves, although I believe it is more likely than when the person is in the other group. If I had been cheated on repeatedly then maybe I would eventually start cheating too. I can't say for sure what I might be like if I had experienced a much different life. But I don't cheat and I have only been cheated upon one or two times. Neither of them was a very serious relationship.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (2 November 2009): This is verified as being by the original poster of the question***SatinDesire-Thanks for replying.
"There is no such thing as a good relationship that gets ruined by adultery. When a third party becomes involved, it's because there was SOME ISSUE unresolved in the relationship."
I agree with you, that is definitely a reoccurring theme that's discussed.
"Patience is critical...as is getting over your pessimism. Optimism, confidence and the ability to trust are attractive qualities and will attract mates."
I'm trying to feel a bit more optimistic about it. I won't lie, I'm a bit of a pessimist when it concerns relationships. I need to work on feeling more confident when it concerns relationships. The only time, I ever sense so much insecurity and "what if's" is when I'm in a relationship. Not that the guy I'm with does it, it can be the greatest guys, it's just something with me - that creates the insecurities.
Thanks for the good advice.
***Gina---Thanks for all the positive encouragement. You're right, the things you said, deep down, I KNOW they're true. But just seems useless sometimes, but you're right, character is the most important thing you marry for. The view on WHY people cheat was spot on too.
The thing I liked most about your post was even though your partner had an affair, you said, "But to this day i never ever tar every one with the same brush, we are all capable of doing the wrong thing, we live and learn!"
Even though it happened to you, you give men a fair shot.
I know you went through a lot of pain, I'm sorry you had to go through that and I appreciate the post.
***Male Anonymous---"I will try not to make this a gender battle although that sure seems to be what you're poking at here."
Yeah, I won't lie. I think there are more bad men, than bad women - my whole post though is more about, sometimes it's the wolf in sheep's clothing. I think in today's world, people see marriage in one view, when in reality maybe one mold doesn't fit everybody - like my comments on men finding partners who were into open marriages if they know they have a problem with being committed.
I mean, I have yet to meet a man that when you ask the reason for past break-ups, they honestly, just say, I cheated, so she left. I know better now, etc. Normally, it's we started seeing other people, drifted apart, etc.
I've met guys who used those lines, when WAY later on, maybe after meeting an ex, the truth comes out - he was a cheater.
"My point is that men can actually be more understanding when a woman cheats for reasons that they relate to better. It's not because they don't mind her cheating, it's because they might find a brief physical fling (just slightly) more forgivable for both genders. Men aren't just using that logic to defend their own cheating, they employ that into forgiving her cheating too."
Ok, that makes sense - this was in regards to why more women push for divorce when they're cheated on vs men.
On porn, that's something new. I never thought a guy would get jealous by porn. But something I've noticed on the site with porn Q's, porn can make a partner feel inadequate or not enough, or not sexy enough, etc. I think it's important when in a relationship to just be considerate of the other person's feelings. Add for some spice, not the whole meal.
On men getting jealous by porn (which I still think is a bit rare..), it's the same reason then why women get pissed when men with porn and strip clubs.
How old are you? Married or in a relationship? And is monogamy working for you?
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (2 November 2009): Men "cause more divorces with cheating" because women are the ones who instigate more of the divorces by a wide margin. Financial reasons are not a small factor in that.
I will try not to make this a gender battle although that sure seems to be what you're poking at here. A lot of studies find that cheating numbers are pretty equal among relationships as a whole and that's what I believe.
But have you ever looked into the true paternity statistics for kids? The picture ain't pretty. Sometimes they find that as much as 20% of kids are not sired by their supposed fathers. And that wouldn't be evidence that there is a 20% cheating rate among married women, it only demonstrates that 20% of the cheating has been allowed to produce kids. It argues for a MUCH higher total cheating figure, particularly since most children are concieved in the first 5-10 years of a relationship and the cheating seems to come more frequently later on.
As for men and cheating reasons, I think it's also a piece of gender bias that men are so vilified for cheating when its "only physical." This is a gender difference in how we percieve sex and relationships. Here is something that gets overlooked: I find a lot of men to be more understanding (not approving, just able to relate) when their woman says she cheated out of purely physical weakness at that moment. I think it's the pre-arranged ongoing that affairs that men often have the hardest time dealing with.
My point is that men can actually be more understanding when a woman cheats for reasons that they relate to better. It's not because they don't mind her cheating, it's because they might find a brief physical fling (just slightly) more forgivable for both genders. Men aren't just using that logic to defend their own cheating, they employ that into forgiving her cheating too.
And then there's porn watching. I think sometimes women overestimate how much men are bothered by them watching porn. Not that men are all so eager & thrilled for all women to take after it like they do, but I am saying there may be moderate differences from common perception.
Now, of course I'm not saying men would love their wife to be lusting after her male co-worker's cute butt . . . BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! The co-worker is a living, breathing, local threat to the husband. The hot guy in the porn is not.
...............................
|
