I recognize that everyone has an opinion on looking outside of one’s relationship for something else. I’d like to not define it as cheating or infidelity, as some people seeking outside of a relationship do so with the permission of their partner. However you define it, I'm interested in finding out what everyone thinks about it. That said, “cheating” will probably be the easiest term to use in this discussion. Whether you denounce it, feel that it's a construct of society due to relationship standards or whatever else; I think we can have an interesting and intelligent dialogue on the subject. Keep in mind, everyone has different values and mud-slinging is lame. If things get nasty in here, so help me, I will turn this car around and we will all go back home.

Is it nature or nurture? Is it hereditary? If we don’t learn from our parents or find it in our genetic makeup, are we more prone to want a partner outside of a relationship if we’ve been cheated on, or witnessed it outside of our families?

Can it be considered a coping mechanism for a bad relationship? Looking at it as a coping mechanism and judging that to be bad or good is debatable; but logically, it seems to be a place some people turn when they don’t know how to deal with problems within the constructs of a relationship.

Is it an addiction? If alcoholism is seen as a disease, why not cheating? Certainly it could fit in the definition of sexual addiction. Though this might not explain emotional affairs necessarily.

Why do people feel it necessary to not be satisfied with their partner? Is it selfishness? Is it lack of empathy or caring? Is it going against one’s own nature to be monogamous? Is it something else? People tend to point the finger at those who “cheat” as being terrible human beings, but people change…relationships change, and some people aren’t able to appropriately deal with such changes. The logical choice would be to discuss the changes with one’s partner, but let’s be honest. If it were so easy to discuss anything, divorce rates would certainly be lower than they are. Conflict will always exist in relationships and we don’t live in a perfect world where everyone can handle them the “right” way.

The last questions deal with continuity. Why do those cheated on stay? Why do those who cheat continue to test the boundaries – even after being discovered?

So many questions. I’m sure you have more. What are they? Are there answers? Let’s talk!

[Travelinglady]

Interesting topic. Over the last number of years, some scientists have claimed that men are just biologically programmed to seek many partners, so they can "spread their seed." To that, I say, "Baloney."

I know even some species of animals are faithful to one mate. And people should have more intelligence than lower animals.

As far as why people go searching outside of a relationship, I think many factors could be involved such as immaturity, social modeling (popular in the family and accepted as okay), overactive sexual needs, and too much exposure to porn.

Because of my own values, I find it unacceptable. Men who cheat on one woman are highly likely to cheat on the next. My particular religion approves divorce for adultery. Of course, I feel the same way about women who cheat.

Of course, I'm probably coming from the most conservative view of this
issue. But if I found out that my hubby had another honey, he'd be out the door. The trust would be broken. He'd have broken the marriage vows.

At least I have started the discussion. Remember this topic was brought up as a discussion, folks, and not for folks to pounce on people's beliefs and ideas.

[brokenandalone1234]

I have very strong thoughts on this subject. I think ones desire to cheat comes from what they see their parents do in life. If one parent cheats and is very open with the affair than cheating to the child becomes a normal part of relationship. If both parents are faithful in their relationship then the child is less likely to view that as normal. Same thing goes with domestic violence or anything else. It is more a case nurture than it is nature. It is not programmed in our DNA to cheat. Most of us want to be with one partner in our life. It is when the house we are raised in becomes messed up that we because messed up. That is just my thoughts on it sorry if it sounded way to textbookie.

Payne, I find it interesting that you bring up that some species are "faithful", yet I consider faithfulness to be a human construct. If another species is faithful, I don't believe it's out of a sense of loyalty or anything to that effect. As for people having more intelligence than lower animals...well, that's certainly debatable.

I have a rather large family, so there are many examples from which I can draw information. One of my aunts was married and in an emotionally abusive relationship. They eventually divorced quite early on, but not until after thay had four children (five if one of the twins hadn't died in childbirth). I'm certain he openly cheated on her, but when he remarried later in life, it seems that he may have settled down. When I look at her children, her eldest son has been sowing his seeds as far as he can. He has several children that we know about, one that we were introduced to (thought not as his child) at our last family reunion, and really, who knows how many others there are. He's been in and out of relationships...but is finally married. I really hope this relationship lasts for him...she's a lovely woman and they have two very young children. Anyway...the other two sons found their partners fairly early on and from what I know, are quite happily married, with children. The daughter recently divorced from a childless marriage (no infidelity from what I understand) and has remarried now. My point is, from one family, there are really three (if not, four) quite different situations that came out of what they arguably all witnessed. Is there a way to explain that? Probably not - we could say that each child saw different things or had different experiences.

I'd love to know if there's a part of the brain that "lights up" differently in a "cheating" brain than in one who doesn't consider going outside of their relationship for anything during certain events.

Also, brokenandalone...textbookie is completely fine. Thanks for continuing the conversation...

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by brokenandalone1234

I have very strong thoughts on this subject. I think ones desire to cheat comes from what they see their parents do in life. If one parent cheats and is very open with the affair than cheating to the child becomes a normal part of relationship. If both parents are faithful in their relationship then the child is less likely to view that as normal. Same thing goes with domestic violence or anything else. It is more a case nurture than it is nature. It is not programmed in our DNA to cheat. Most of us want to be with one partner in our life. It is when the house we are raised in becomes messed up that we because messed up. That is just my thoughts on it sorry if it sounded way to textbookie.

Actually, if you want to go "textbookie" it's not programmed in our DNA to be monogamous. Considering that only 3-5% of mammals and primates are monogamous. Sociologists, anthropologists, evolutionary psychologist and primatologists often agree that monogamy is a social and cultural construct, rather than biological. Also keep in mind that "monogamy" can be defined as "social monogamy" and "sexual monogamy." In either case, it's extremely rare to find species that have a social structure that follows monogamy, or species that are sexually exclusive. This includes primates. Can you really still say that it's not in our DNA to "cheat" then, if you want to define cheating as not following monogamous behaviour? Keep in mind what is considered social and cultural norms are often not biological or "natural" if you will.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by PAYNE1

Interesting topic. Over the last number of years, some scientists have claimed that men are just biologically programmed to seek many partners, so they can "spread their seed." To that, I say, "Baloney."

I know even some species of animals are faithful to one mate. And people should have more intelligence than lower animals.

As far as why people go searching outside of a relationship, I think many factors could be involved such as immaturity, social modeling (popular in the family and accepted as okay), overactive sexual needs, and too much exposure to porn.

Because of my own values, I find it unacceptable. Men who cheat on one woman are highly likely to cheat on the next. My particular religion approves divorce for adultery. Of course, I feel the same way about women who cheat.

Do some research and say baloney, at least on a biological level. Refer to my previous post to some of the facts I'll mention again (I don't want to repeat myself too much).

Yes some animals are faithful to one mate, whether it's social monogamy or sexual monogamy, but it's extremely rare (3-5% of mammals, including primates). Whether humans are above, below, or same as animals and should have another standard is a subjective debate I'm going to stay out of for now.

If we want to look at a cultural and anthropological view of monogamy, especially male monogamy, under 20% of all recorded societies are strictly monogamous cultures.

I just wanted to establish the objective side of it before I get into the subjective debate on the morality of "cheating" as well as the idea of polyamory, polygamy and relationships. Furthermore, I'd like to challenge the idea of monogamy being right due to it being a social construct, and that people do not require more than what their relationship offers.

[Travelinglady]

Good--we're getting the other side of beliefs!

I used the word "faithful." Yes, it is a term made by humans, but it is a "monagamous" relationship. That's what I meant.

Thank goodness I'm not married to a gorilla! At least humans can agree to not follow their "instincts" and abide by that agreement, if they so choose. And my husband has no doubt that his children were fathered by him.

I'll let the other folks bring in their ideas. At least we've got the extremes covered. I don't see this topic as one where discussion will change anybody's thinking, especially since it can get into religious perspectives.

[TheDragon]

Right, and that's on a very subjective level of morality and ethical practices, where it's merely points of views rather than objectively looking at the subject. I'll definitely support the idea that if two people choose to abide by an agreement (ie marriage), they should follow it, until it seriously requires change where it should be openly and honestly addressed.

But to say on a larger scale whether it's right or wrong....well, I just struggle to see how people can really say what's right or wrong in human sexuality outside of their own life, choices, and their relationship.

I'll definitely come back later with the other side of the beliefs and the more subjective ideas.

Originally Posted by PAYNE1

I used the word "faithful." Yes, it is a term made by humans, but it is a "monagamous" relationship. That's what I meant.

But I would suspect that the monogamy in other species is for quite a different reason than the reason humans feel they need to be monogamous (for those that do). Does that make sense?

[Travelinglady]

I would think so. I wonder if anyone has tried to figure out why these few species are monagamous--what purpose it serves. I want to say wolves might be one--but I don't know for sure. I might try to research this topic!

[Travelinglady]

[Travelinglady]

I just read that it's more social monogamy than sexual monogamy in other species. There are different theories as to why a few species are that way. One is the need for two parents to look after the baby, since the babies in that species need more help. (The article did suggest that humans would fit into this category, by the way.)

Ha--interesting finding: There is a correlation between the size of the testes in a species and whether the species is likely to be more active in seeking out different mates. Note I said species! I didn't say in any given male!

[hamster-bamster]

Look...

Not that I am into gadgets, but even with my very cursory and rudimentary knowledge of gadgets I am aware that so far all the efforts that have been put into the design and creation of a universal gadget that is the best have failed.

When I can afford it, I will buy a navigator, because the driving navigation on the Android is not good enough. Nice try, but still it is better to have a cell phone and a navigator separately.

Likewise, to the best of my theoretical knowledge (I cannot shoot a picture but I have long term friends (since adolescence) who are artists in the world of photography), cell phones are not yet the best cameras or video cameras. You still need separate devices. Sure, you can shoot pictures with your cell phone, but if you are really seriously into photography, you will need a separate device that is optimized for delivering best results while not at the same time ringing and texting.

So if it is so damn difficult to come up with a universal device, it should be much MORE difficult to come up with a universal partner who would meet all of our needs across lifetime.

In other words, people might tend to be non-monogamous (however defined does not matter very much) not because they follow rudimentary instincts or lack intelligence, but rather because they are very complex and human relationships are complex.

So while I see that an inquiry into the world of animals might to some degree be helpful or at least curious, but still we are more complex than even primates. We are more complex than both primates and cell phones.

Or, and the tablet/PC/Mac etc. choices. Nobody has yet come up with anything that would work best in serving all of our needs at once.

Still, there are benefits to monogamy (serial or lifetime, as you wish). Say,

I definitely see the benefits of unprotected sex. There is a benefit of simplicity (clarity as to paternity, clarity as to the succession of legal rights and property rights upon death), and many other benefits to monogamy, but non-monogamy has its own benefits, so there is no BEST or RIGHT way to live, just as macs are not necessarily better than PC's unless you believe that they are.

Originally Posted by PAYNE1

I would think so. I wonder if anyone has tried to figure out why these few species are monagamous--what purpose it serves. I want to say wolves might be one--but I don't know for sure. I might try to research this topic!

I'd be interested in hearing if you're able to dig anything up.

I think that humans are wonderfully complex creatures and I think that there are many reasons why people cheat. You've answered most of them towards your original post. Unhappy, missing something, bored, addicted to the thrill, downright greedy coming to my mind.

Nature v nurture. That's very interesting, but I like to believe that we've evolved from the need to spread the seed with as many people as possible. I did say, I like to believe! For me, someone who goes through life with multiple partners says more about their personality, and perhaps why they are never able to settle, than the need to spread seed. Why is it some people can be perfectly happy with one partner, and another never find the one? I think if it was just nature, then everyone would want to stray.

Cheating I think is very destructive. Even with someone saying that they're ok for someone to have other partners tends (not always) to end up with one person hurt, or more. I think because we are more than just bed mates, we have many other emotions that come into play and thats why someone gets hurt.

[Travelinglady]

I do see so many posts here about people who are really hurt over a partner who has sex with someone else. And, of course, I have read about the hurt in many other places, too. Sex is more of an emotional issue for some people than others, I guess. However, traditionally, it is more of an emotional issue for women, I've read somewhere. But I know men can get hurt, too. I'm sad to think of men as just primates spreading their seed and beating their chests.

I will try to do more specific research on the issue of why monagamy in certain animals later. I did mention a bit of what I have found.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by riotgrrrl

Why is it some people can be perfectly happy with one partner, and another never find the one? I think if it was just nature, then everyone would want to stray.

Randomness. Randomness is intrinsic in nature on all levels. Most processes are stochastic.

While it might be possible to explain various things attributing various rational causes etc., we should not forget about pure chance.

Ran into the right person or did not run into the right person. Why? By chance.

[Travelinglady]

Here is an article I just found from Psych Central on female "cheating":

Why Do Married Women Have Affairs? | Healing Together for Couples

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by PAYNE1

Here is an article I just found from Psych Central on female "cheating":

Why Do Married Women Have Affairs? | Healing Together for Couples

I read till "Women, who need the romance to feel the desire, often see sexual relating as one more chore on her list and one more failure on her part." and am not going to read further because I do not read papers that make blanket statements that are ridiculous and have no support from data.

I also prefer that people who attempt to do analysis at least TRY to use terms that have well defined meanings.

What is ROMANCE???

I mean... the author is "SUZANNE PHILLIPS, PSY.D., ABPP" and I thought that in order to obtain the honor of appending your name with various acronyms, you at some point in your life have to think.

[hamster-bamster]

I also want to warn about the exercise of comparing humans with other species.

I have read a lot about nutrition, both feline and human.

It is entirely clear to me what good feline nutrition is.

It is still not clear to me what proper human nutrition is, if it exists at all.

Do we need to eat a low carbohydrate diet? I do not know. Cats DO, but I am unclear about us humans.

[Travelinglady]

I agree with you, H-B, about the dangers of comparing humans with animals. I brought it up originally because it seems to be the common thinking of many folks--even scientists--these days.

[Confusedinomicon]

It doesn't matter what kind of relationship structure you're involved in so long as there is trust and communication.

I have a friend with four partners who is very happy. Their partners have different partners and they are all faithful within the framework of their community. There is nothing abnormal about the interactions and they still encounter problems that a normal 'monogamous' couple would experience. (Including occasionally using a therapist to help relationship problems)

Humans are serial monogamous because social modeling has entrusted most with the idea that its important to be relationships with one individual and no one else. I believed in this construct for a long time until I met individuals who break the mold.

It doesn't excuse the fact that a lot of people just grow up learning mal-adaptive behaviors that are detrimental to a healthy relationship and then they grow older and repeat those behaviors without knowing any better.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by PAYNE1

I agree with you, H-B, about the dangers of comparing humans with animals. I brought it up originally because it seems to be the common thinking of many folks--even scientists--these days.

Even if there is monogamy in the world of animals, its incidence is really low. It is possibly much lower than the incidence of Diabetes Type II in the developed world. So I do not understand why so much attention is given to something with such a low incidence.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by PAYNE1

And my husband has no doubt that his children were fathered by him.

If the goal is to have certainty with respect to paternity, then lifetime monogamy is one possible way to achieve the goal, but clearly no longer the only way to achieve the goal. I do not see how two intelligent people with access to very effective modern birth control would have trouble achieving certainty of paternity of what - 2 children per lifetime? 3 children per lifetime? And that would be difficult?

It is like wi-fi - once wi-fi is available, there is no longer a need for a network cable and you can use the laptop on the bed or wherever you want. You are still free to use a network cable if you cannot manage configuring wi-fi, or you may prefer to use a network cable because hard-wired connections might be faster or more robust, but you do not have to use a network cable once the technology advanced to wi-fi.

Likewise, what used to be the only solution to the problem of certainty with respect to paternity is no longer the only solution thanks to technological progress, so while lifetime monogamy does remain one of the solutions to the issue, just as hard-wired connections do remain one of the ways to connect to the internet, both no longer represent the ONLY way to solve the respective problems.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by PAYNE1

As far as why people go searching outside of a relationship, I think many factors could be involved such as immaturity, social modeling (popular in the family and accepted as okay), overactive sexual needs, and too much exposure to porn.

While pornography is not new and has always played a pivotal and groundbreaking role in the development of advance technologies and means of communication, including that of book printing, the widespread access to pornography is a new thing that coincided with the widespread access to the Internet. If indeed there were some attenuated connection or causality between exposure to porn and searching outside of an existing relationship, we would see the figures of such searching skyrocket. Have you heard of such skyrocketing? I thought that morbid obesity has skyrocketed... so until I see a better argument, I will believe that too much exposure to porn has led to morbid obesity. Not that it is a really well proven connection, but at least it seems somewhat more rational than the connection between porn exposure and seeking outside the primary relationship.