is it in men's nature to cheat?

[singledomisgood]

Hi, i'm usually a lurker on here but the subject of cheating on your partner has cropped up a lot on here. It makes me very angry that anyone can do this to another person for whatever reason/excuse.

The lies, deceit, hurt, disruption etc that's involved could all be prevented if the cheater either tries to face the problems in the relationship or decides to end it in a MATURE manner!

Anyway, I decided to google why do partners cheat and it came up constantly that men (not much there on women) can't help themselves as they are biologically programmed to spread their seed with as many women as possible. Goes back our caveman days etc. Lots of men seem to hark back to this excuse.

well my argument is then surely WOMEN should be cheating just as much as men as we are programmed to find the best male to impregnate us from puberty to menopause. As the best male would be the fittest, youngest bestlooking one then we should be dumping any partner over about the age of 25! In fact, men over that age would be surplus to requirements as their 'seed' would not be of the highest quality! And that includes George Clooney and Brad Pitt!

I don't mean to trivialise affairs but it just makes me so angry that this is so often seen as a reason to cheat as if it's not in their control. Yet other aspects of our biology are not applied eg hunting (Asda should only be frequented by male shoppers doing the weekly hunt!).

I wish this argument could just be dropped and people would be honest about why they cheat ie the flattery, escapism, thrill, selfishness towards partner etc.

What do you think?

What SandyBits said.

I think that a lot of this boils down to different people having different sex drives, different ideas of what constitutes a satisfactory relationship, different expectations of how relationships are and so on.

For two people with fairly low sex drives who get on like a house on fire, the idea of cheating might be absolute anathema.

For people with very high sex drives who love the thrill of a new relationship, then it is a different story.

A lot of people seem to have low expectations, settling down with people who aren't very nice, or who they don't actually like, or who has hypnotised them with a veneer of charm which is dropped when the relationship is settled. In all of those cases unfaithfulness will be likely.

There is a huge variety of human experience, expectation, sex drive, ideals and so on. If only people were honest about where they fitted into things, then maybe people would be happier. Don't know

Frog, great idea re the brothels as long as there are ones for women! but would men accept sitting at home while wifey pops out to local brothel for a quick shag with gorgeous young hunk?

As fab, says there are a lot of double standards and i think thats what makes me so angry. fine if everyone is open about it and knows what is going on, as well as equal childcare/housework while one is out having fun. But rarely is that the case. And if the cheater doesnt want to be in a monogomous relationship, then why not say BEFORE cheating then the spouse has a choice in the matter. Yes, it will cause upset but then cheating causes even more!

Hmm I could totally go with the hotel for hot hunky shagging idea.

IsntItFun You have a good point about people settling. I know of two couples where either the man or the woman has settled because they felt it was the expected thing to do, didn't want to end up alone, wanted kids, something is better than nothing - the usual justifications that people use - and in one case it has ended up in an affair, and in another with an equally hurtful emotional entanglement. In both cases, none of the people involved were serial adulterers or bad people. So it turned out that something wasn't better than nothing and now everyone involved is very hurt, one marriage has ended and the other probably won't persist and there are also kids involved in the whole mess.

I don't know what my point is really, apart form don't settle or look before you leap maybe..

that's the thing isn't it, the damage that cheating causes to others who didn't have a choice in the matter. which is why its surely better to be honest for others sakes eg kids, if relationship not working and at least give the partner a choice in what they want to do - end relationship; have affairs themselves; have an open marriage etc.

Instead of making excuses, work out why you want or need to cheat and give the partner control for what they want.

since i got divorced i am amazed at the amount of men that have offered me a shag (to put it bluntly) but not so keen when i say of as long as their wives tell me theyre happy with that!

with respect (and a modicum of fear!) to SGB & co, we don't actually know whether we are the type of ape which pairs for life, or the shagaround type. We do know that - for at least as long as recorded history - humans have aspired to bond for life, but have been pretty shite at doing it. The evidence might suggest we've inherited both archetypes from our hairy ancestors, and are constantly conflicted by it.

There's the added complication that our lifespan has been 30 years for a hell of a lot longer than it's been 80. If you formed your pair at 12, say, then proceeded to reproduce until you died, the relationship would only have to be monogamous for 18 years - during which time, you'd have been too knackered to piddle around with affairs! Many would have died in that time, too, leaving the survivor in urgent need of another partner.

So, whether our monogamy is born of instinct or need, it couldn't have developed to last longer than 20 years at best.

That 'men & their seed' bollocks was a theory developed by Victorians, to whom that looked perfectly logical because their society made women dependent on men for survival. There's no evidence at all that it reflects any more than a well-intended school of Victorial thought. Taking the theory logically, women should be far more driven to find the best sperm donor as their investment in the outcome is so much greater.

I support the idea that we are impelled to bond for life, as practically every human culture prefers it and every mythology idealises it. You've got to bear in mind, also, that every mythology features infidelity on the part of both male and female - so we've always known we wanted it: at the same time, we've always known it was tough to achieve!

One of the defining characteristics of humanity is endless curiosity: endless questing for improvements on our lives; constant seeking after the new & better experience. Isn't that at the root of infidelity, just as it gives birth to new technologies & philosophies? I suspect human nature IS to be conflicted over it!

Total crap about men being more conflicted than women, though.

Interesting post grace, food for thought.

Well men have to cheat with someone don't they? So they cheat with cheaters. You would think then that in doing so it would make a great partnership, but this usually isn't the case. Why is that? Do the people doing the cheating require absolute monogamy?

I think there are those who are serial monogamists. They hop from one relationship to the next usually whilst the other relationship is in the last throes of dying lust. I think some people just like the thrill of the chase, the headiness of a new relationship and these people are usually highly intelligent and easily bored. I also think they make unsatisfactory parents as well.

I think that humans are in the main monogamous, but remember women are now living longer, having less children and are not likely to die (in the western world at least) in childbirth. They now have the temerity to grow old and for some blokes (and women) this is just downright inconsiderate. Nor do I think youth pills would be the answer as it would make middleaged women feel just as empowered as their male peers and go of in search of younger looking testicles.

i think that a woman's reason for cheating is non existant if she has already found a male to have children with. All she needs to do is keep him, so they can both provide for their offspring, giving their children the best possible start in life. It doesn't make sense for her at that point to cheat anymore as she'd be risking the provision of her offspring.

However her partner cheating will impact her negatively because he could leave and set up a nest with another female. Also: any further children he fathers are eating out of the same pot as hers.

What I wrote makes sense also when you think that women are competing with others for the best 'male' to provide for her.

There's no sisterhood in general and the bitchiest years are the ones where we're most fertile.

A nicely Victorian approach, Cloudy

Even IF women needed men to provide for their children (which they don't; there are several alternative options) - your argument would also suggest that women should be permanently on the lookout for a better provider, wouldn't it? Even on a reductive, Victorian level ... the woman's need for top-quality provision would keep her unfaithful while she tried to improve on the current sperm-donor/provider.

but surely then on a biological level only the hot young men would be spreading their seed? most women would get a chance as long as they are fertile although i would probably be at the back of zak ephron's queue for the last dregs of his seeds!

And then as most women would be pregnant by a few choice alpha men, then the other beta/zeta men would be redundant.

and the following year another alpha male would take zaks place as he would be younger and therefore provide better seed!

So i dont think cheating is just about sex, there are many reasons for cheating but are any acceptable?

Look the monogamist obsession started when people worked out the link between fucking and breeding, and human beings started forming settled communities. Men in general wanted to make sure that any children they were helping to raise were biologically theirs so they started putting into place all these rules and sanctions and giving themselves the 'right' to kill women (oh and any children whos paternity was suspect) over breaches of monogamy. But to an extent it wasn't just monogamy all round men wanted, it was to enforce monogamy on women (who are no more inherently monogamous than men are) while reserving the right to do what they wanted.
If monogamy was 'natural' or even a majority tendency, there wouldn't need to be so much propaganda and so much brutal enforcement of it (yes, brutal. If you want to get away with murdering someone or at least get the most sympathetic treatment possible in law, just claim that they were either unfaithful to you or had sex with your property).
Because the world still runs on women's unpaid domestic labour, women still have to be forcefed the idea that monogamy is compulsory, that they need to 'keep' their men by means of cooking, cleaning and cocksucking and that the worst thing a man can do is have sex with other women because then he might LEAVE YOU, you might have to be SINGLE, so try harder and haredr to please him.
THis is why so many people and organisations still hate and fear female autonomy, becuase if enough women can't be persuaded that true fulfilment does only lie in scrubbing floors and self-sacrifice then MEN MIGHT HAVE TO DO SOME OF THE SHITWORK.
Keep women in a state of frothing sexual jealous, instill fear and hatred of other women who might THREATEN MONOGAMY and they will never get round to questioning why they should actually want to be owned in this way anyway.

Lol, single, you just gave me a vision of a kind of travelling sperm-farm in which Jonny Depp, Zak & co are kept at it all day, every day while women have to fill in application forms for service!

Thanks for that

I agree that contemporary societies place a high value on female fidelity for purely malicious, patriarchal reasons, SGB. It's a fallacy to assume it's always been like that, though.

Well I agree with all of that SGB.

But I still think that for the people who are steady types who want to be monogamous beacuse that is genuinely what makes them happy, well good luck to them.

the difficulty in our society is for people to actually find out what makes them happy, as moving away from the norm in terms of sexual behaviour is heavily sanctioned (as you have also pointed out).

I still think that even in a totally free society you would find some people who paired for life.

You're going to say I;m a romance-fantasist or something now aren;t you

The fact is though that some people just aren't that interested in sex. And have met someone who they get on really well with. For them, monogamy is natural.

grace what soceities were there where things were different (when they knew that sex = babies?)

I think everyone fantasises about getting with other people. I do and my husband does and neither of us mind. I cant say I have ever been jealous of any other women but thats personally cause I know I am hot lol. I dont see what the big deal is as long as no one goes behind anyone elses back. If they do then you arent compatible.

Yeah, but Sunny, you're virtual swingers aren't you? That would be way past my acceptable limit.

Fun - been a while since I looked this up so will have to be woolly. My favourite Historical Period For Women is ancient Rome, at its height - while wives & daughters were held in Taliban-esque purdah, there was another class of extremely powerful women: the courtesans. These women made their own fortunes, were high-profile landowners and carried a huge amount of political clout. They were promiscuous. Our history books bypass them as prostitutes or mistresses, but the truth is way more interesting than that. They were truly free & independent women of substance.

Ancient Greece was a matriarchy. High priestesses were independently wealthy & promiscuous, in much the same way as the Roman courtesans (and with the gods on their side, as a bonus!)

Very many powerful 'nations', in what is now Europe, were not only matriarchal but renowned for their warrior-like women. Some even practised male oppression.

Within recognisable history: 12th - 15th century, broadly speaking; queens and other female dignitaries wielded immense power. There are quite a few who skitted from one husband to another, depending on which male was most able to help HER increase her dominion. Nothing to do with 'borrowed' power; the borrowers were the men. My favourite: Elinor of Aquitane.

I has been noted here - mainly by SGB and me! - that women have historically enjoyed their own power while there was an alternative supply of cheap labour.

Don't let anyone try & tell you there hasn't been a measured campaign to coerce women into the role of slave. There has - and I can demonstrate it, next time I've got a few hours to spare!

Like all of the plants species, Human males are programmed to seek sexual variation, but its our western cultured values that have evolved the social pressure for males to conform to monogamy. Females desire monogamy to ensure 'protection' and 'provision' for offspring. Males instinct is not to accept another males offspring but to kill and destroy them and replace with his own.
When you understand the basic instincts, you then can understand why males find it difficult to remain faithful to one woman. It shoulnt be difficult for an intelligent, socially sensitive male to conform to the monogamous values....but some men just revert to the cave man instinct and ruin it all- woman are far superior in every way!!!

Oh, fiddlesticks. If you look at the Candomble/Macumba (voodoo) mythology, the gods & spirits have all the same qualities & do all the same things as the Greco-Roman ones and various Old Testament characters. Which isn't surprising, as they're all commentaries on human nature. So absolutely zilch to do with "western cultured values" - we've just covered all of Africa and wider Europe. I don't know anything about Asian mythologies, but my money's on the same characters doing similar things, under different names.

Rather a shame that you find superiority in being better able to suppress your true nature, Northernchick (if I read you right?)

I think that men do need to spread their seed as they can and do run off and leave for the next woman much more readily than a woman can. Most women (not all I know) would have a hrader time leaving their kids than women do.
I agree with SGB but at the same time I do get jealous when in relationships.

The whole spread your seed and run off and leave the woman and children thing doesn't compute for me actually.

If a woman does need a man for material resources when she has had his (?) children - then it is in his interests to stay and provide those resources otherwise his children will be in danger of not surviving/not having teh optimum chance of survival. On teh presumption that this "sperm spreading" is to have children, then the fact that the children need to survive to further those genes is pretty fundamental.

If it is the case that a woman does not need a man for material resources then the arguments for her being faithful are out of the window.

I think all of this seed spreading/wifey at home scratching for pennies thing is simplistic, outdated, and understimates both men and women.

Things are different now to say for example the 40's where there was a shortage of men due to war etc.

Relationships lasted as there were no mobile's, Facebook, nightclubs and other cheat encorageing things. Peoples values were different and family was everything. The way sexuality was kept low key.

Modern life doesn't help, temptation and sex is everywhere and I do beleive that men find it hard to resist due to it being made possible by modern means, especially when things get tough at home and they get low and think sod it!

Girls and women now look so sexual compared to when I was young, I go out to a nightclub and feel like a louse compared to the busty short skirted highly made up model like youngsters of today.

Poor guys don't stand a chance really. Like a kid in a sweetyshop.

However, there is the regular arse, who is just programmed to do it and will no matter what the cost and I think he has been around for generations.

I blame modern society though for providing the means.

I try to always look the best I can and try and make my DH as happy as humanly possible and he tries the same. He is ex army and they are renouned for being a fickle bunch, but I truly beleive he has been faithful as he professes to be. I hope anyway

a couple of the comments on here are a bit strange to me

first was "There are many men who don't act upon their instincts to copulate with any suitable female.". I know it wasn't meant but it sounds a bit like its talking about rape. Where is the woman in all of this? What if she doesn't want to copulate with the man?

And then teh next part "Girls and women now look so sexual compared to when I was young, I go out to a nightclub and feel like a louse compared to the busty short skirted highly made up model like youngsters of today.

Poor guys don't stand a chance really. Like a kid in a sweetyshop."

Again, where is the female's part in all of this? It seems to assume that all of the girls and women are "up for it" with any passing man who is attracted to them. Which seems like a strange assumption to me.

Women and girls and boys and men have always tried to look attractive to each other - are people really more unfaithful now or do the mobile phones and facebook and things simply mean that people get found out more?