SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Just thinking about some stuff recently ... cheating can cause a lot of pain, disrupt a family, even cost the WS financially (especially in the case of a divorce), but these are all family-related or personal consequences. There are very few if any social consequences - they don't lose their job. They don't lose family or friends (most of the time). There are no legal ramifications at all.

What put this in my mind was reading about someone in the news who recently died. He was born out of an affair, and he fathered a child from an affair of his own, and yet he is lauded for all his great accomplishments (some of which admittedly did a lot of good for a great many people). Cheaters become politicians (even President!), CEOs, religious leaders. Many have lead movements for social change and done good philanthropy. They win awards, accrue wealth and fame. The pain they caused their families is ignored in the face of these other accomplishments.

This makes me wonder if we're all overreacting to what is essentially human nature. There are entire cultures built around having sex or even a relationship outside the marriage, not to mention those that are polygamous or polyandrous. Are we all suffering betrayal trauma because we've been inculcated with an unrealistic expectation of monogamy? Would it be emotionally healthier to build a society without this expectation?

[This message edited by NoThanksForTheMemories at 11:39 PM, Thursday, February 19th]

NoThanksForTheMemories, I think that's a perspective and a very biased one from the people who instead of facing their broken identity or moral compass, promote their flaw as to restore their broken ego, low self worth and get validation for their behavior.

First of all society.

- Society like this is an abstraction. What truly makes "society"? People.
- What are people? Humans, social animals
- What do social animals do? They form groups, it's for survival, stability

So what is the building block of this? It is the smallest possible unit that is the foundation of it all.

The Family.

A Man, a Woman (but this is exactly valid also for non heterosexual couples, is a human need) and their offspring.
Give it a couple of iterations and you have a generational families, from the grandparents to grandkids.

Put many families together and you have a tribe, a community.
Many communities form then cities, nations, states and federations.

That's how society is built. It starts from the family.
The foundation is the feeling of trust and loyalty between 2 people, the rest follows.

That's also why in totalitarian dictatorship that very bond is often under attack, breaking the family breaks the foundation of human connection and leaves people isolated and vulnerable, controllable.

Is only partially a deviation, because is part of the reason why monogamy and honest loving unions are presented as obsolete or stupid, almost shameful.

- Because those who promote this view are douchebags
- Because breaking honest emotional unions grants power to the very same douchebags
- People broken by betrayal (WS and BS) are a source for profit, manipulation, acting as a free radical in spreading the chaos

What you see rewarded is often a self referential circle, to make the narrative acceptable from top down.

Think about who many of those "successful cheaters" were? Usually not the cool kids. Not the guys who "got laid" or were popular. Many were having serious issues with low self worth, even those who had the edge of wealth often were outclassed by other more confident, with less issues.

They might had FOO who pressured them to "become someone". They had to people please expectations. They tried to fit the bill of external validation. Including forming families, marrying up etc.

And at some point they got ahead. Now they have options and they can use them. So the low self worth can now be soothed by external validation. They cheat. And they are now in an environment that celebrates their social success not their moral breakage (because many from those are exactly the same).

Others "get there" by breaking their moral compass beforehand. They lie, steal, drop any kind of honesty to get ahead. ANd they succeed. What did they learn? Cheating in life pays off. So of course cheating in relationship is acceptable to their broken morals.

DOes that make it good or encourageable? No, it does not.

I am no cheater and I am a CEO. Know what I think of people who betrayed their partners? I can use them for what they can be squeezed of, that is practicality. But I have no trust in them, zero. If they betrayed their partner or children, what ever would stop these people to do the same to my or my company?

Nothing, they might not lose the job or position outright (however a replacement is on top of my list if lines up), but they sure lost credibility and trust.

You may not see the consequences but there are for sure.
And I know many executive and business people, who are loyal to their spouses, utterly. They do not trust traitors. In this world trust is a very valuable currency.

Politics... well is the business of liars. How many politicians do you truly trust? The honest ones I know of are not at the top, you need to have skeletons in the wardrobe if you want to get up, or else nobody knows your "price".

I have few "friends" in those areas, but I would not trust them with my wallet. And yes cheating is very common there, surprise surprise.

You know what is human nature? The one we see everyday and all our instincts are wired to.
Finding and protecting the people you love, like they are an extension of you.

You friends, your family your partners.
That is stability.

I am not aware of how many cultures built around polygamy ever survived long enough to be recorded in history. Diseases, the devastating effects that infidelity and betrayal carry inside, made sure if there were some, they got wiped out of existence.

Polygamy was always the "privilege" of tyrants, leaders, people who never considered loving relationships as part of their lives (or very rarely), but as a transactional or often political or power display tool.

Some religions allow it, but infidelity is still a taboo. It is so strongly ingrained in humanity that adultery and infidelity were historically mostly punished by death.

Is not about morality only, also about disease prevention and survival of the species.

I think what you see on the media circus is more of a projection, a self referential circle jerk of douchebags trying to soothe their own issues by making it the standard. Way easier than to resolve their broken egos as they have the tools to indulge into hedonism and get away with it.

I do think there is a social disincentive to cheat…and I also do think (not to excuse or normalize) it is fairly common albeit incredible painful behavior.

I know that there are many people who know of my husbands A who think differently of him now. And me, for staying.

I wish the A had never had happened, but it is what fwh have chosen to do to heal from it that has made a better marriage for us.

I have some thoughts, I’ll start with 3 points:

1) There’s an old saying, "a good man can’t be elected president."

2) If you peruse online forums, you’ll often see in response to threads about billionaires, people saying things like, "If I had that kind of money I’d…" then it’s usually followed by something altruistic and philanthropic.

3) There is a reason some of the biggest philanthropists in the world, are women who divorced billionaire husbands. Melinda Gates & MacKenzie Scott come to mind.

The opportunity we have in life, has its strongest predictors in when we are born, where we are born, and who our parents are. Certainly one of the strongest predictors of what we will do in our lives, is tied to our personality. Most notably, our empathy and selflessness. The world is, always has been, and always will be, filled with self-serving sociopaths. They will "achieve" (though I hate to use that word in this context) the most in life. The reason is simple, they lack compunction. To use people for their own personal, political or financial gain is as natural to them as breathing.

The same reason people with empathy will never become billionaires, or have a much harder time being elected president - or even into politics in the first place, is the same reason people with those qualities will always be taken advantage of by those who lack those qualities. It’s a decision we all have to make. Do I value power, money and influence more than I value the inherent rights of other people… for me, it’s a resounding "No!" I will always choose less advantage if the cost of that advantage is the subjugation of my fellow human beings.

There are always exceptions to the rule. But this is the heart and soul of it. Humans by and large celebrate achievement, and often their character gets put on the back burner. However, when you look at a persons life I think it’s important to look at all of it, and their capacity to learn and grow. This is why I have, generally, respect for the waywards on this board - they recognize harm, and are seeking (through much pain) to learn and change. That’s admirable.

Let’s detour and look at some notable examples, you already mentioned Jesse Jackson:

- Martin Luther King: one of the greatest leaders of human beings to ever live. A beautiful message of character, inclusion and justice. But what justice did his wife feel I wonder? He was a notorious philanderer and a serial cheater.

- ***edited: One of the youngest presidents in US history. Books have been written about the questionable "good" his administration has done, and the many mistakes made. Largely he was revered, but again, a serial cheater.

- Charles Dickens: one of the world’s great authors. He had a long-term affair with an actress

- Winston Churchill: numerous affairs

- Frank Sinatra: innumerable affairs to each of his wives

- Mahatma Ghandi: numerous affairs including perhaps younger family members.

So, people are complex. But the ability to use others for your own personal gain has always been a power tool for those willing to do so. If you want to rise in politics or notoriety, being the kind of person who is willing to use others is a definite advantage.

Human nature? I don’t know what that is. We each are given the ability to choose. Will we choose less ambition, less outward accomplishment if it means treating others with respect? Or will we stand on the head of a drowning man to keep our own heads above water? There is no inherent nature that I can see - only decisions we each make for ourselves.

1) They say a good man can’t be elected president because the willingness to use others and dodge accountability are not traits found in good people.

2) The reason those people will never be billionaire philanthropists is because they’ll never be billionaires. Not because they lack intelligence and hard work ethic, but because they will not use people the way that’s required to make that kind of money.

3) The biggest philanthropists are those who either inherit substantial wealth, or are good people who divorce wealthy people and get large settlements. Bezos’s ex-wife is giving away vast sums of money. He continues to pay his employees peanuts while treating them like garbage. There’s a reason he made the billions, and she did not.

People are largely relieved when they see their own behavior mirrored in that of celebrities, politicians or others of public note. However, that does not equate to justification for such behavior. The only question that matters, is what kind of life do you want to live, and what are you willing to do to get it? For me, I will take humility, respect and integrity over everything else. I will never hurt others to achieve my goals, if that means I "achieve" less in life, so be it. I suffered betrayal trauma because it struck to the core of the values which constitute my soul. Not because I’m swimming against the current of human nature.

[This message edited by justsendit at 2:26 AM, Friday, February 20th]

NTFTM,

From time immemorial, powerful people, mostly men, have been getting away with infidelity without paying much of a social cost. You could also say that there is less of a social cost paid by powerful adulterers today than before, but there still exists a social disincentive to infidelity for most of us. Think back to the Coldplay concert debacle.

You ask some fascinating questions that I will think about more.

I can only say that over the last many years I have had to decide a lot about my values concerning monogamy.

I don’t want to get religious here, but the foundation of what I have come to believe is intertwined in all of this. I believe the Ten Commandments are not about heaven or hell but the top things that can steal gigantic parts of your life, rob you of your ability to feel a higher range of emotions. In this sense it makes life heaven or hell, because in al honesty the less chaos you have in your life the more you can devote to more spiritually enriching things.

I think in terms of social reward or consequence, it has a limited shelf life. Meaning, I don’t think that there is much you can do outside of true criminal activity that you should have to live a life sentence over. NO POLITICS definitely had his fall from grace when that came out publicly. It’s just back in those times we didn’t have 24 hour a dday news and social media. NO POLITICS was more in a period where we were transitioning more towards those things and while he still can boast some good things surrounding his presidency, let’s face it the name NO POLITICS follows him even today. And it used to be a scandal like that would kick you out of the presidency race (remember Gary Hart?) but now a days our president can have allegations of paying porn stars off to not talk about an affair and it doesn’t seem to rock the world the same as it used to. I am not trying to be political or invoke a political discussion, I am really just trying to throw examples out of how society has overall just gotten very jaded when we are constantly inundated with all this news and social media.

So back to what I personally have learned about monogamy over the years before my affair and after.

I have been in a non monogamous relationship. In fact it was with my husband while we were dating. We went the whole route of challenging the concept and over a period of time I found it really detrimental to my mental health, sense of self worth, and I asked we close the relationship.

And of course I have had an affair as well a couple decades later. Both things make me feel shame, regret, I don’t have positive feelings about either time. I think as humans we are as monogamous by nature as much as we are complicated individuals. I can say that having a monogamous relationship provides not only stability and pair bonding, but it takes out a lot of chaos and drama and even vanity out of sex and the relationship as a whole.

Most of us need to feel like the primary love interest to your mate and be protected from diseases, outside emotional entanglements, and know that we are enough for someone. I believe part of our purpose is to learn to love and to remove our own obstacles from giving and receiving it. Infidelity (or non-monogamy) to me is a lesson that comes with natural consequences even if it isn’t forbidden within a relationship.

In nature there are many animals that are monogamous because that how they are built. A swan who loses its mate will fly very high and dive to its death. Osprey build their nest together and share all domestic work. We are designed for monogamy and while not everyone has to practice it, I think at some point not practicing comes consequences. I have known many people in "the lifestyle" and some of them are still happily married twenty five years later. A lot of them left it at some point, and for the majority it destroyed their relationship.

I do think the sting of monogamy is less about affair but more about not knowing one’s reality. The betrayal. The lies. The inconsideration. But one can have a non monogamous have sex with another person without that being the result. But it increases the risks of something going wrong and can still be detrimental to the soul nonetheless.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 10:52 AM, Friday, February 20th]

I think you’re on to something. I don’t think the human condition, similar to other mammals, is conducive to longterm monogamy. I believe it takes work to ignore natural instincts. Monogamy and marriage itself is a social construct mostly stemming from a man wanting to have some sort of assurance that offspring are indeed his and for the woman to make sure he supports said offspring. It was mostly a business arrangement more than love in the beginning. For me, a lot of it still is although love can and is also present in my marriage. All that being said, I don’t believe it’s a license to cheat. If you participate in the social norm of marriage you’re promising fidelity even when it’s hard or your instincts tempt you. And before anyone comes at me with "I never wanted or have cheated" I get that. My opinion is based on statistics and observing all mammals. It doesn’t mean I think all people will or want to cheat. Some people have stronger morals and character to stick it out even when it’s hard.

Please keep in mind the very first guideline for this site:

NO POLITICS: We have zero tolerance of discussing politics. There is to be NO mention of political names, and absolutely no political topic content in any context. Violation of this guideline results in losing your posting privileges.

Especially "There is to be NO mention of political names"

There are several violations of this guideline already in this thread and Moderators have been noted.
It would make our job easier if those that have posted NAMES that have a political relevance (including past presidents, dead or alive) would edit their posts, but otherwise expect Mods to do so and possibly send guideline-breach warnings to the relevant posters.

I don’t believe humans are "naturally" monogamous.

Just doesn’t comport with natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Multiple partners increase the chance of reproduction, and the resulting genetic diversity increases the chances of some offspring surviving.

So why are some animals monogamous? Well, they’re not, actually. DNA testing of cygnets in the nest, for example, reveals multiple fathers.

So why have humans tended toward monogamy?

Humans have some unique problems to solve. Our children need care for a long time. Women, especially pregnant women, need protection and care. Men don’t want to raise other men’s children.

So our big brains came up with monogamy, and marriage, and ceremonies, etc. as a way to solve these problems. Lots of compromises.

And it’s not just individuals. Societies, too, have an interest. We don’t want to pay for, or be responsible for, other people’s children, more likely to happen as a result of infidelity.

In old testament days, adulterers were stoned to death. Adultery was considered an offense against the community, and the community participated in the punishment.

So, why does there seem to be a trend away from monogamy now? Maybe, as suggested, offenders are anxious to normalize their behavior. Maybe we are tending toward our natural state of promiscuity. Especially as modern, liberal societies take on more and more responsibilities previously fulfilled by intact families.

Is the pain of infidelity driven by our dna, and thus hard to change, or societal training, and thus easier to change?

Hard to say, but we’re going to find out soon. Young people today, it seems to me, already have very different expectations of relationships (situationships?) than my generation did.

Thank you for all the interesting perspectives so far. I look forward to more! These are tough philosophical questions that have been on my mind recently.

A quick note to the mods that I removed the one name from my post.

Also I edited a bit to add that many famous people who cheat have also done good things for society. It's easy to vilify people with power or success as having all the negative traits of a cheater, but there are many who have made a positive difference in people's lives, too (as justsendit pointed out in more detail, though I don't know if the examples will be allowed to stay).

People are indeed complicated. Life-saving doctors, genius-level scientists and artists, essential workers - these are all valuable people who contribute positively to society. Many of them also cheat on their spouses. I don't think stoning them to death or throwing them in jail is a net benefit! Maybe monogamy isn't the root of the issue so much as the expectation of life-long fidelity?

There are entire cultures built around having sex or even a relationship outside the marriage, not to mention those that are polygamous or polyandrous. Are we all suffering betrayal trauma because we've been inculcated with an unrealistic expectation of monogamy? Would it be emotionally healthier to build a society without this expectation?

Great Discussion, my take is anything done within the M, or a culture, that is agreed upon is not a betrayal or cheating. The problem is the lying, hiding, and sneaking around. People walk out of banks with money all the time, but if someone walks out with money after committing fraud, That's the problem the fraud.

It's well known here in Dallas the owner of the Cowboys ran around with a lot of women. Was he cheating? Did his W look the other way? Not sure of their agreement, but he didn't work very hard hiding it.

If they betrayed their partner or children, what ever would stop these people to do the same to my or my company?

This ^^^^^
I said this exact same thing to several people who took EXWH’s side and shamed me for doing whatever it was they thought I did to make exwh lie, cheat, and steal.

However many people delude themselves into thinking that it was the betrayeds’ fault that it happened to them. I suppose it makes those people sleep better at night thinking it won’t happen to them. I say "until it happens to you".

I personally do not choose to associate with unrepentant cheaters. I prefer to be around people who honor their agreements.

Well, my first problem with your ideas is that infidelity, cheating, adultery, is based on lies. It's an abuse of trust, it's deceitful, it destroys people's faith. Even people in so called ethical monogamy....still cheat. People in polygamous or open marriages....still cheat. Why? Because they want it all. They don't want to exercise self control. They don't have moral restraints or boundaries. They don't care about their spouses- any or all of them....they care about themselves. Infidelity comes down to I WANT and I'LL LIE. Not matter what the relationship system is, people still do this because they don't want to abide by whatever boundaries people set up for their own mutual safety and security. If you're going to have a successful life with someone, you have to have a foundation, you have to know what is happening, what you can believe, what you can trust, and what you can build on. Infidelity cuts at the heart of that and destroys it. Why? So the cheating partner can have something more that is not in whatever boundaries have been set up....so they have to lie to hide it. Some people ENJOY lying, it makes them feel superior to their victim. It gives them a thrill, makes them feel powerful, and they use it to gaslight.

Our society supports dishonesty in all areas of life - we reward it. And not just in a sexual sense but in a financial sense as well. Look at the Epstein files. Much of that appears to be sexual crimes, but a LOT of it that is not paid attention to....are financial crimes. The two often go together because people who don't respect boundaries in one part of life, often don't in others as well. But yet many of our societal leaders are obviously among the worst people we have. They've gotten to where they are often through lying, cheating, manipulation, deceit, fraud....I've seen it in business plenty of times. Sometime it DOES combined with sexual chicanery too. I think there are also forces in our society that want to undermine and destroy the traditional family for their own benefit, to further the type of governance they want. Totalitarian states often hate the family - we saw the kind of thinking in the novel 1984 and I think it's a reality.

As for systems like polygamy or polyandry, I think the Bible presents the best examples of how that works out. It doesn't. Usually this is multiple women sharing one man and they see each other as rivals and they use their children to fight their battles for them. We see Sarah making Abraham drive Hagar and her child from their camp into the desert. We see Hannah mocked by her "sister" wife for not having a child. We see that these relationships almost always degenerate into rivalry and the children are often badly affected. It's a toxic system. I assume it would be the same with men except they would probably physically fight. The only way polygamy has lasted so long is because of men's superior strength in being able to force this kind of inferior status on women who are little better than slaves in their societies. Who REALLY wants to share someone worthy of being called a "beloved"? There was only Romeo and Juliet....not Romeo Juliet and Steve. Or Romeo Juliet and Barbara. Nobody ever wrote love songs or romance stories about that stuff because....most people want to be special and have a special love and we don't really want to live like that even if we try to lie to ourselves because it hurts to be set up by infidelity....so we try to create a system where it no longer exists, but that's not possible, because people do bad things. Because they're selfish and weak and they want to do it and they enjoy it but they want both so they have to lie.

Another example would be in the Turkish Ottoman empire where there were many wives and concubines and at the Sultan's death, one son would be picked as heir.....and all of his brothers from different mothers would be killed so there would be no rivals for the throne.

People do not know history so they always think they are discovering something new, but these things are always based in selfishness, that usually leads to deceit, and unstable families. The best system by far we have come up as a species is monogamy, based on mutual fidelity and honesty. It's something we should aspire to even if we fall from the ideal at times. Get back up and try again!

Great Discussion, my take is anything done within the M, or a culture, that is agreed upon is not a betrayal or cheating. The problem is the lying, hiding, and sneaking around. People walk out of banks with money all the time, but if someone walks out with money after committing fraud, That's the problem the fraud.

It's well known here in Dallas the owner of the Cowboys ran around with a lot of women. Was he cheating? Did his W look the other way? Not sure of their agreement, but he didn't work very hard hiding it.

To my knowledge there is no surviving culture that allows betrayal or cheating. If they ever existed they have been wiped out.

Some religion or culture for various reason (often related to population growth and status) have some strictly coded, status related polygamy, often only allowed for men. Cheating and adultery is still punishable (likely by death) in those cultures.

In human history adultery was universally despised, again punishments were harsh, often with brutal death sentences.

The bank example does not hold water, is a fallacy. Banks are public, not a mutual committed relationship based solely on trust. A way more fitting example you could have made is withdrawing on trust all the money from your friend's account to pay for his mortgage, but instead of doing so you go spending it in drugs, booze and prostitutes for how long it does last, leaving him to have to face the bill one day, but discovering suddenly that you left him broke, for your own hedonistic fun.

You are talking of a public figure that is likely in the circle of those morally bankrupt people, who might have been into relationships to tick boxes but they were never for love, or carry around issues that were always hidden if not made worse during their rise to prominence. So yeah, low self worth, people pleasing profiles with a lot of option cheat. Almost every single time.

And in some environment money lets you get away with it. Is his wife like him and happy in this arrangement (only transactional M for the money but no real love bond)?

Could be, or could be putting up with the charade for keeping her lifestyle. One thing is certain, very unlikely these people are happy with their arrangement, or they would not need dopamine fixes that come from excess.

The mediatic circus of demoralization is self referential, no matter what, if you are junkie you will be a junkie no matter how hard you try to pitch yourself differently. Preys on those in the public with their own issues (that maybe did not follow that path yet, but have the personality traits that could lead there, here is self soothing and an excuse to pursue it, join us) to make acceptable what is instinctively repulsive.

I think you’re on to something. I don’t think the human condition, similar to other mammals, is conducive to longterm monogamy. I believe it takes work to ignore natural instincts. Monogamy and marriage itself is a social construct mostly stemming from a man wanting to have some sort of assurance that offspring are indeed his and for the woman to make sure he supports said offspring.

Not at all, it is ingrained into human nature.

Natural instinct is pair bonding, you look for the best possible match in your environment. It takes effort, energy and competition to get there. It is a significant investment biologically speaking (one of the highest investment possible for a living being actually).

Nature does not reward energy waste, it punishes it by rooting you out, part of natural selection.

It is so anthropologically ingrained that universally across all cultures it was sanctioned in the marriage, whatever form it did take. A construct is often a projection, this is recognition of a biological reality, strong enough to demand being sanctioned by a social (religious or cultural) ritual.

No it's reductive to paint it as a man advantage, marriage does not protect against cheating and betrayal of blood and offspring. It's a statement that the union is protected, it protects both partners in their commitment to each others, if one should lie and cheat or an external person tries to intrude, everyone knows immediately who was the offender and who was the victim.

It protects commitment not gender.

And this is coming from a guy who does not give, nor ever gave 2 fracks about marriage. For me it was always a skippable formality, something to do for my chosen woman if she truly cared, I never cared. But I do respect it, because others do treasure it.

Utterly.

I don’t believe humans are "naturally" monogamous.

Just doesn’t comport with natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Multiple partners increase the chance of reproduction, and the resulting genetic diversity increases the chances of some offspring surviving.

So why are some animals monogamous? Well, they’re not, actually. DNA testing of cygnets in the nest, for example, reveals multiple fathers.

So why have humans tended toward monogamy?

Humans have some unique problems to solve. Our children need care for a long time. Women, especially pregnant women, need protection and care. Men don’t want to raise other men’s children.

So our big brains came up with monogamy, and marriage, and ceremonies, etc. as a way to solve these problems. Lots of compromises.

We indeed are. As a preferential choice, we are not solidified into neither polygamy or monogamy, we tend towards one depending on your state in life.

Some of our relatives, primates, are polygamous, think of the bonobo, they have a completely different wiring even if they are evolutionary close to us, that is their successful survival of the species strategy.

The Human animal is different, we form bonds to defend against both external aggressor and external or internal competitors.

That's the winning ticket for human natural selection. It has always been this way.

We aim to pair bonding as a need, need for stability, need for trust, need for raising the offspring. It just maximizes the survival chances of your heir and of the partners above anything else we came up with.

Less risk of diseases, less risk of abandonment for the female at her weakest, think pregnancy and all around it (commitment is natural, part of that what we call love), highest chance for the male to pass on his genes, higher survival of the offspring, intergenerational bond that helps elders survive and thrive longer to help the adult raise the children, stronger unity against threats, a group of families protecting each other and forming larger communities, that later spawned civilizations.

I can go on, but the simple rule of biology: survival is -> get the most with the least energy investment.

And reproduction and mating are the most energy costly endeavors we could ever have. Is literally do or die (personally and genetically), or at least it was until very recent modern age.

Those are the benefits of monogamy, that's why those emotions associated with it are so strong and universal.

Polygamy, is the fallback option. Not the winning strategy, is the plan B. Or C. Or as insult and despise. There are many "functions" to it.

For Males, failing to secure a matching partner means not passing over their genes. So the next best thing is to find as many partners not worth committing to to "diversify" their investment without the need to commit to a costly life long relationship.

When everything else failed, go for throwing mud to the wall, someone will have to stick. You will have kids, some will survive, maybe not ideal but better than nothing.

The plan B is the "loser strategy", we even have physiological male traits reflecting this "status", still present today, but let's not deviate too much.

It was used as "spite and conquer" tool too. Raiding other tribes, rooting out male competitors by taking their women, both in war and in deception.

For Females, the investment of pregnancy is way higher life risk than for males, birth mortality was a real issue, and offspring raising was also more taxing. So the females needed to be way more selective to maximize their odds of survival. Meaning they aimed to the better males available. However, the number of "better partners" was obviously limited and in addition to it, even if they secured one, his long term survival was not guaranteed. So the Plan B was having a backup. Cultivating "lesser males" attraction to keep them as fallback just in case their partner died or they failed to secure one, so they will still have at least transactional support for their survival. A variation of it, was failing to secure the desired partner for life, settle with a lower value man, then trying to secure reproduction with a more desirable "gene provider".

You can see here there are survival functions to cheating and infidelity for both parties, but none of those was ever desirable, it was always a loser strategy associated with many risks. Besides death by the hands of the betrayed or the community, you have to consider that sexual transmissible diseases were always a thing, promiscuity just help them to spread to the community and without modern cures, they can be deadly or invalidating to a tribe.

That's why adultery was often punished by death.

In more modern times, with protection and cures we had a way to have a safer "sexual liberation" so promiscuity (as in having experiences with many partners) in the early stage of our lives developed the function of "auditing" for the right partner, for both males and females. Even then, the instinctively desirable outcome is to find the person that clicks with you, not to keep it going forever, because is emotionally and energy expensive, that is our biological programming, you can't fool around forever without crashing some day.

And Polygamy still looks bad, because still carries along all those ancestral problems that we had since the dawn of times.

You would not like to live in the mud, even if as a teenage experience might be fun to get dirty a few times, is not a sustainable long term plan. But if you fail to secure a different lifestyle, and your personality traits makes you feel too insecure to keep striving for betterment, the mud party can still be more appealing than the nothing at all.

In many cheaters cases, they did secure a better lifestyle, but their internal issues blind them to the reality, so they roll back into the mud as the comfort zones. The cheater is often a person who succeeded and throws that to the gutter because they don't believe in themselves they had or deserve it. In the mud you will always find some serious loser (OM/OW) who will be more than happy to "better" their condition by taking the cheater down with them and rolling together in the mud. That's why you find the AP is often a way lower value person than the cheater was, at least before the Affair.

It's still natural selection at play there in the background.

Most of us need to feel like the primary love interest to your mate and be protected from diseases, outside emotional entanglements, and know that we are enough for someone. I believe part of our purpose is to learn to love and to remove our own obstacles from giving and receiving it. Infidelity (or non-monogamy) to me is a lesson that comes with natural consequences even if it isn’t forbidden within a relationship.

Exactly well said.

Dopamine is no happiness, is a replacement for a lack of happiness.

You can have it WITH true happiness, or you can be drawn to the high of a false temporary soothing that will leave you emotionally worse off than where you started.

The need to accept and give love is not as shallow as a brain chemistry hijack.

[This message edited by BackfromtheStorm at 8:49 AM, Friday, February 20th]

It occurs to me to mention that the couple - therapists I believe - who wrote the book "Open Marriage" which formally introduced the idea into society - back in the 70s, IIRC, .....gave up on it. They realized it didn't work so I believe they closed their own marriage (this would the O'Neils, I think) and stopped promoting it.

Because the concept does not work over a long term relationship for the vast majority of people. We need to have strong family structures we can be secure in and those come from strong relationships with 2 people trust and support each other. If your interests are split among various people....you weaken the very foundation of your family life. And a series of sexual or romantic affairs might be appealing to some (whom I would say are not marriage material, they're not cut out for it), but it's not going to work for the majority of us. So what we have to do in the end, is establish our morals and boundaries and live by them, and try to be better people than strive harder to accept sin, failure and weakness. Doing that degrades our own character, our relationships, and ultimately, our society.

It occurs to me to mention that the couple - therapists I believe - who wrote the book "Open Marriage" which formally introduced the idea into society - back in the 70s, IIRC, .....gave up on it. They realized it didn't work so I believe they closed their own marriage (this would the O'Neils, I think) and stopped promoting it.

Because the concept does not work over a long term relationship for the vast majority of people. We need to have strong family structures we can be secure in and those come from strong relationships with 2 people trust and support each other. If your interests are split among various people....you weaken the very foundation of your family life. And a series of sexual or romantic affairs might be appealing to some (whom I would say are not marriage material, they're not cut out for it), but it's not going to work for the majority of us. So what we have to do in the end, is establish our morals and boundaries and live by them, and try to be better people than strive harder to accept sin, failure and weakness. Doing that degrades our own character, our relationships, and ultimately, our society.

As I said resuming all in short:

Nature does not rewards waste of energy. Mating and sex are among the highest energy investment for humans, biologically speaking.
You only have so much energy to spend. If you spread it around it's a waste, and natural selection method to deal with waste of energy is to root you out the gene pool.

Is not sustainable, dopamine fades.

It's so unsustainable that even the dopamine circuit itself, evolutionary existing to help us invest energy into pair bonding, breaks if polygamy is prolonged, making it harder and harder to "fall in love" and stabilize a fruitful union.

First of all, as STAFF:

I really appreciate the self-moderation done by those that edited their posts.
This discussion hasn’t been political per se but the site has a very strict rule on politics that includes a ban on using political names. Honestly I’m not too clear on how far back that goes: Ghandi and Churchill are political figures but in the distant past, and I have seen them slide by in previous posts so I’m not editing that out.
I can share that way back in 2010 I mentioned a former president and got a PM from mods with a reprimand and notification it had been edited. That too was in a non-political context, but like I said: Strict rule on NO POLITICS.

As a member partaking in an interesting topic:

I don’t buy the "monogamy is not natural" logic.
First off – monogamy is known in a lot of species, so to some (at least) it is "natural" to them. Not to mention we have plenty of examples of animals behaving in ways that benefit the group rather than the individual. Like a lioness will bring it’s catch to the pride rather than gorge herself first. We see individual antelopes acting as lookouts while the herd grazes, and they will give a warning signal before starting to run from threats. If this was purely individual survival their chances would increase if they gave the warning while running, leaving the slowest to react behind. Even in nature it’s sometimes best for the individual animal to act to the advantage of the group/society.

Second – We have grown far from being controlled by nature and natural impulses.
Like... on the 4th July parade down Main Street – we aren’t too shocked if a horse takes a dump. In fact, we plan for it and have someone that drew the short straw follow the horsemen with a shovel and bucket. We realize the horse is controlled by nature, by impulses. Yet we wouldn’t expect the bassoonist in the marching band to drop his trousers and have a dump, nor is there anyone following the band to collect their natural, impulsive and inevitable waste. Difference being that we – as humanity – have control over a lot of "natural" or "impulsive" behaviors.

Third – You need to base behavior on the expectation of the time and society they occur in.
The society as a whole can have general rules that vary. Like polygamy is known and accepted in various societies and seems to work there. We have matrimonial societies, patriarchal, marriage-for-life, marriage-of-convenience, arranged marriages... All sorts of rules and patterns and seeing as how these societies might have been that way for long periods of time then they seem to work.

Then the time-factor: In the not too distant past it was near-impossible for a wife to file for divorce based on infidelity. In English law until about mid 1800 the AP had to be married and/or seen as a threat to the establishment of marriage. Your husband slept with hookers or kept a mistress wasn’t really infidelity to the law. In fact, it was to be expected. This is also why husbands kept a blind eye to their wife’s getting visits from "inferior" men. Really only becoming an issue if they got pregnant. Marriage was more viewed as a business act rather than some deep romantic union based on love.

Infidelity is by definition (IMHO) the act of behaving outside the expected behaviors, limitation, boundaries and expectations of a relationship. Although those boundaries might be predetermined or outlined by a society or community, then a consenting couple can determine their own rules. Polyamory, open-marriages and whatever they are called are NOT infidelity if all participants are aware and accept the rules.
We have seen that often here on SI where a couple in an open marriage go through infidelity, and that tends to be when the rules are broken in how the extra relationship was established or maintained.

Would I judge a person that cheats? Like if my options were to vote between 2 candidates, and one was on record for having cheated – would I vote for him?
Well... Depends on the reaction. Depends on what said candidate has done to atone for his actions. It definitely wouldn’t increase the odds of me voting for him, but if the affair was in the past, the candidate had made amends to those impacted and could convince me he was a person of moral character then yes – if his agenda was in line with mine he would get my vote.

I think there is a difference between lifelong till death to us part monogamy and serial monogamy. I think humans absolutely are wired for serial monogamy, but not lifelong monogamy. Pointing to history can show evidence to this, but writing of all the nuances of the evidence would take more time than I have especially given that in history women were often the only adulterers while men had multiple wives . In today’s times I would point to the divorce rate alone as evidence that lifelong monogamy is not natural. I think we are confusing betrayal with non monogamy and although they usually coexist they aren’t the same thing. My opinion is the cheater’s betrayal exists because the cheater is of weak character and emotional immaturity. Instead of fighting off his/her seven year itch to run or find other mates they simply lie and cheat, because if they get away with it and they all think they will, then their life and reputation are left unharmed. I fail to understand how divorce rates with or without the infidelity factor can be so high if life long monogamy was so easy and natural. Let’s consider the spouse who meets another that interests him/her, but does not act on that interest, but it pushes them to divorce realizing they wanted something else. This spouse did not betray and cheat, but they sure weren’t a lifelong monogamous person either, but as a society we accept this scenario. Stay faithful or divorce first, right? I truly believe fhe "7 year itch" exists. Marriage is not for the faint of heart, but society pushes it as the expected norm. Only those of strong moral character and strength are marriage material.

Amazingly, it's possible to make one's points without mentioning politicians. Who'da thunk it? Come to think of it, it's possible to make one's points without violating any of SI's guidelines.

IIRC, The ban on political names came about in 2012 or 2013 after a scurrilous cartoon was posted. Until then, it was OK to mention politicians' names in connection with their infidelities.

As a mod, I've been pretty strict. You can figure out who was president when I was born. My father was known to many pols in my state, so I was aware of politics in the '50s from an early age, and I became active long before most people did. I was sentient during the Cold War, the McCarthy years, the civil rights battle, the cultural revolution that came with the boomers rebellion, and the war in SE Asia. Those '50s and '60s pols are alive in my memory. So if you name any pol who was active after 1950, I'll probably ding it. And I'll ding non-US pols, too.

It's not a pol's name that's the problem - it's the associations that go with the name. Abraham Lincoln is still loved in some quarters and, probably, hated in others, not for who he was but for what was done in his name. Whatever one says about Lincoln says more about themself than about honest Abe - who represented railroads in bankruptcy, IIRC, and in the mid-19th century, railroads epitomized corruption.

I fail to understand how divorce rates with or without the infidelity factor can be so high if life long monogamy was so easy and natural.

You can easily check the data about that.

It's mostly a recent phenomenon, for the western world mostly started in the US and then later got popular in the old continent too.

US has almost twice as much as Europe (per 1000, % rates are higher in EU because we marry less), and the "crazy high divorce rate" of US sits at about 2.5 per 1000 for about 5-6.0 per 1000 marriage.

So it is about 40%. Is that crazy high because polygamy or it looks high because people marry way less (about half) than before and a lot of encouragement to "self-fulfillment"(hedonism) with incentive to divorce is pushed top down?

There is many many couples who do never marry and they stay together for life.

I personally know several couples this way. I happen to know personally only 1 divorced person (there are some but not as many as you think with a crazy high divorce rate).

People marry less.

The main drivers for divorce are:

1 - Abuse

2 - Financial problems

3 - Infidelity

Divorce is a risk, financially and for life stability, is normalized and even often sponsored (along with infidelity) as "freedom".

No surprise many choose not to risk that and they stay unmarried.

Also often people marry right on the dopamine high (< 2 years of relationship) and when that fades they find out they are not that compatible after all.

Just not too long ago, the rates were half or less because people married way more.

Now is almost a liability.

Besides abuse, financial troubles are a real risk and so it is infidelity.

The data is more complex than it looks, consider people who divorce remarry, may divorce again. We tend to marry much later in life today because we need to secure financially our lives first, often people wait to be ready and then they find out the passed their prime to find a suitable partner (so they stay single or panic marry, often bad unions = likely divorce).

The biggest problem at the root is how shallow we became in human relationships, we are used to see most things as transactional (at least my generation, millenials is that's why we are so fucked up) that goes into relationships too.

We lost a lot of value and cross reference this data with the rate for depression and unhappiness. Would you be surprised to find out the highest rate of divorce and infidelity shows much higher depression and unhappiness overall compared to those regions that have very low divorce rates?

Because believe it or not, humans need another human on their side to live a fulfilling life, not just a placeholder.

When we will learn again to both give and receive love you will see the change (because everything has a cycle, our today's transaction and hedonistic western culture is unsustainable on the long term).

A final consideration: monogamous committed relationship has lower mortality rates and higher quality of life happiness than divorced or never married (works for non married committed relationships too, almost identical to marriage, biology cares not for institutions), lower risk for mental issues, illness etc.

That reflects to the entire family and especially the offspring, kids of stable relationship have a much higher predictor of success in life, mental health and longevity.

Life itself rewards if we follow our biological behaviors rather than overriding it with social hedonism.

It might look cool for some, but is self sabotage. And even if you escape judgement or stigma, mother nature will catch up eventually.

[This message edited by BackfromtheStorm at 6:09 PM, Friday, February 20th]