Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry to jump in, but I think it definitely depends on a person. When my mother passed away, after 25 years of marriage, my father couldn't handle being alone. He found someone within 3 months after her death. I couldn't judge him. He lived with a woman all his life, he couldn't handle being alone.
I think those people who finally at the age of 40 broke free from an unsuccessful marriage are the ones to appreciate their freedom and being on their own the most.
Men do that a lot. Wife passes away and they'll take the first one who shows up with a hot casserole.
I know a few married men of my age range who have cheated. These guys use the other "boys" to cover their tracks, yet any one of these men is a proud "machista" who would go ballistic if their wife did the same to them.
What happened to being proud of one's wife? To loving her deeply, to sacrificial love, to cherising one's wife? And it goes both ways.
You know what I find interesting? The fact how many women are having emotional affairs! Those type of affairs are way more damaging then just having a physical affair. One reason is that those women don't acknowledge that they are having an affair, in their minds if they are not crossing that physical line, then they are not cheating!!! Cheating starts with A THOUGHT, ladies and gentlemen!! Another thing is those type of affairs can go on and on for years, because there is less chance of getting caught...So in the long run it's worse then what men are doing (which is mostly just getting a booty).
Oh, baloney. By your theory, a teenage girl who is fantasizing about one of the Three Musketeers is cheating on her boyfriend with someone who doesn't exist. Talk about ridiculous. Feeling emotionally dissatisfied with your partner isn't "cheating".
You are also wrong about "physical affairs" supposedly not involving an emotional betrayal and therefore being less morally reprehensible than becoming emotionally attached to someone else. With every affair that's "just physical", there is a risk of discovery, and the consequent risk that the deceived spouse will be utterly devastated by the news. So when a person cheats -- even if the goal is "just sex" -- it shows that his wife's feelings are simply not important to him, and he is willing to destroy her psychologically for the sake of his own physical gratification. Such an attitude is hardly compatible with love or loyalty. By contrast, a married person who only feels emotionally attached to someone else in secret but does not consummate, does not create the risk of psychological devastation to his or her spouse -- and is thus acting more responsibly, contrary to your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJagMan9955498
Statistically speaking, men cheat for a single primary reason: sex. [etc.]
This is called "evo psych", and it's also baloney. The idea that men are more "sexual" than women, and that, therefore, male infidelity is less morally reprehensible than female infidelity (as max's mama seems to be suggesting) is a cultural construct that did not always exist and that isn't rooted in reality. As a former student of medieval and Renaissance literature, I always chuckle when I see this view expressed, because I've read so many texts from ages past that convey a completely opposite view. You see, hundreds of years ago, people believed (in Europe, SD, in Europe) that it was the women who were the "sexual" sex, that because of their extremely powerful sex drive, women were incapable of love, that men had a weaker sex drive than women, and that it was men who were interested more in the non-sexual aspects of relationships and life in general. And so it's funny when today's traditionalists and evo psych charlatans preach it as gospel that "real" men don't love, that emotion is for gays and emasculated sissies, and that "normal" men are only interested in a relationship -- whether legitimate or illicit -- to the extent that it involves rubbing genitals.
I know from my own experiences (from the serial monogamy days of my wild and fun-filled youth), and I can see even from the postings on this forum, that even for "real" men (who ostensibly don't love and who think feelings are "gay"), sex is inextricably bound up with emotion; and those men who claim that they cheat just for sex, or even primarily for sex are lying, often even to themselves. The emotions that underlie sex aren't necessarily in the nature of a desire to go shop for curtains together at Bed Bath & Beyond, but they are there, and they tend to run quite strong even in the most fleeting and casual of relationships. So contrary to patriarchal fashion, even for men, sex is never "just sex".
With that in mind, claiming that women shouldn't mind their husbands' or boyfriends' infidelities is deceptive and unrealistic, made even more so by shaming women for their "emotional affairs" which do not involve actual sexual activity. Anyone who becomes involved in a sexual affair has also committed "emtional infidelity", and women whose SO's cheat on them ostensibly "just for sex" have every moral right to feel betrayed.
As to the claim that men cannot control their desire to have sex with multiple partners -- baloney as well, and everyone knows it.
You're confusing concept with approach. Everyone may share the same concept of marriage, but not every couple approaches it in the same way. The flaw in your argument is that you assume everyone who fails at something (marriage, running a business or losing weight) all employ the same plan. But they don't.
Unlike you, I don't allow failure rates to scare me off. 95% of Americans who try to lose weight fail. Does that mean if I'm someone who needs to lose weight that I shouldn't even bother trying? Of course not. What it means is that I should look to the 5% who succeeded and learn from them. By the same token, if 50% of marriages fail, then instead of simply writing off marriage as a failed concept, maybe it makes more sense for me to look at the 50% who've managed to make it work. What did they do differently than the people who failed? Is there something about their character or personalities that enabled them to succeed where others failed? I don't judge the institution of marriage because so many have failed to make it work. I just the people in those marriages.
Nope. There are MANY concepts and types of marriage. I'm calling the American prototype flawed, and it has been for some time. The only reason that the failure rate wasn't much higher several decades ago is because people endured and divorce was stigmatized. It didn't necessarily mean that the marriages were any better.
All of these bad experiences scar people and make it more unlikely that one will find a partner who has lived in view and appreciation of a very successful marriage. One can't very well emulate what one has never seen. Moreover, with the wide acceptance of couples living together and the relaxed standards for what constitutes a "common law" marriage, it almost makes the point moot.
This is called "evo psych", and it's also baloney. The idea that men are more "sexual" than women, and that, therefore, male infidelity is less morally reprehensible than female infidelity (as max's mama seems to be suggesting) is a cultural construct that did not always exist and that isn't rooted in reality. As a former student of medieval and Renaissance literature, I always chuckle when I see this view expressed, because I've read so many texts from ages past that convey a completely opposite view. You see, hundreds of years ago, people believed (in Europe, SD, in Europe) that it was the women who were the "sexual" sex, that because of their extremely powerful sex drive, women were incapable of love, that men had a weaker sex drive than women, and that it was men who were interested more in the non-sexual aspects of relationships and life in general. And so it's funny when today's traditionalists and evo psych charlatans preach it as gospel that "real" men don't love, that emotion is for gays and emasculated sissies, and that "normal" men are only interested in a relationship -- whether legitimate or illicit -- to the extent that it involves rubbing genitals.
The only point you really make is that things constantly change and will continue to change in the future...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
I know from my own experiences (from the serial monogamy days of my wild and fun-filled youth), and I can see even from the postings on this forum, that even for "real" men (who ostensibly don't love and who think feelings are "gay"), sex is inextricably bound up with emotion; and those men who claim that they cheat just for sex, or even primarily for sex are lying, often even to themselves. The emotions that underlie sex aren't necessarily in the nature of a desire to go shop for curtains together at Bed Bath & Beyond, but they are there, and they tend to run quite strong even in the most fleeting and casual of relationships. So contrary to patriarchal fashion, even for men, sex is never "just sex".
Never once did the article say men cheating is 100% solely sex. It states which I feel is true, that is it the main reason...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
With that in mind, claiming that women shouldn't mind their husbands' or boyfriends' infidelities is deceptive and unrealistic, made even more so by shaming women for their "emotional affairs" which do not involve actual sexual activity. Anyone who becomes involved in a sexual affair has also committed "emtional infidelity", and women whose SO's cheat on them ostensibly "just for sex" have every moral right to feel betrayed.
I agree with you and think it's wrong...I think many people get married as the lesser of two evils.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
As to the claim that men cannot control their desire to have sex with multiple partners -- baloney as well, and everyone knows it.
Sure, some men are able to control their urges...I'll spin it this way, is there an opportunity that would make a guy lose control? If a guy goes on a business trip, goes to the hotel bar...There a bartender that wants to sleep with him. Is there a high enough level of attraction, appearance and/or mentally that would make him lose control? I think everyone has a price...
With that in mind, claiming that women shouldn't mind their husbands' or boyfriends' infidelities is deceptive and unrealistic, made even more so by shaming women for their "emotional affairs" which do not involve actual sexual activity. Anyone who becomes involved in a sexual affair has also committed "emtional infidelity", and women whose SO's cheat on them ostensibly "just for sex" have every moral right to feel betrayed.
I happen to disagree. I strongly believe that there many times when a man or even a woman cheats, it's just for sex.
You have your own observations (from your monogamous life to your wild youth life ) and I have my own and I believe that it is VERY possible to cheat without ANY emotional strings attached.
However, I DO agree with you that women have just as much right to feel betrayed by their husbands infidelities EVEN if it's just for sex...
Last edited by max's mama; 07-31-2009 at 11:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and I have my own and I believe that it is VERY possible to cheat without ANY emotional strings attached.
