Guilty

Post Reply New Topic

I don't understand your logic here. You're saying that if a woman likes you but currently has a boyfriend, then that must mean that your chances of success are "increased". But if a woman has a boyfriend and doesn't like you, she can still be comparing her boyfriend to you. Wouldn't that mean that your chances are "decreased"? I don't really see how something like comparing a person with a current significant other would be anything other than neutral.

amazon, I don't think there's much of a moral issue in coming between a gf and bf. I do think it's incredibly more moral (and the right thing to do) to exit a relationship prior to starting a new one (even if that exit consists of, "I'm sorry - I don't think we should see each other any longer."). Let's face it, keeping the old "do unto others" axiom in mind is probably not such a bad way to live.....given the choice, I'd rather be straight-up dumped than cheated on.

However, I was speaking about infidelity as it relates to marriage, not bf/gf relationships. Marriage is a whole different concept, where (legal and binding) vows have been made, and fidelity pledged. Again, if any individual can't live up to the life-long commitment to monogamy that traditional marriage requires, he or she shouldn't get married.

Oh, and I agree - the media didn't focus on Tiger Woods to further intellectual discourse in this country - they're covering this story to make money - no doubt about that. I do think that an interesting outgrowth of that coverage is that people are discussing the topic.

I know you were, and I know marriage is logistically different. But it goes back to what I was saying before; if humans were truly a monogamous species, it wouldn't be. The need to interject semantics and legal mandates to differentiate the two is proof, at least to me, of how much of a grey area the concept of human monogamy truly is.

For me, being "monogamous" with a person doesn't require any of that. To me personally, the difference between marriage and any other relationship is just words and ceremonies and licenses and s**t. None of that would make ME any more or less likely to engage in scandalous behavior. Honestly I'd prefer to spend the rest of my life with someone and never actually marry them, because to me marriage is less natural, and if anything, it's a step back from the pure human emotions I alluded to in my last post. But I've never been married, so admittedly I don't have the full scope of perspective, just intuition.



@stinkypuppy:

I admit my logic is not ironclad

It's not really meant to be "logical" in the fundamental sense though, it's just an interpretation of my life experience. I have had MUCH better luck throughout life with women who are already "taken", so to speak, than with those who are not, and this was my rough rationalization of why that is. It could be entirely wrong. As I see it there is no "decrease" possible in the equation because if a woman doesn't "like me" in that sense, I have nowhere to go but up in her book.

But all things considered, your point is very much a valid one.

Hope, I wasn't trying to say that humans are incapable of monogamy, I'm aware of a few couples that do it very well. What gets me isn't that people aren't monogamous, it's the self-righteous indignation of people to those that break monogamy. Biologically and evolutionarily, humans aren't monogamous. It's possible, yes. But the majority of humans will have sex with more or far more than 1 partner in their life. And when people act indignant about hearing others do it, when it's so very common it annoys me. Even if you disregard the sex scandals that the media announces for any random famous or semi-famous celebrity or politician or what have you, it still happens daily. It's like being surprised when you hear someone died in a car accident.

You have had much better luck with women who were already "taken".
One interpretation, the one you mentioned earlier, was that women, once taken, increasingly look to other men, at the very least to compare with their current boyfriends. This kind of implies that women are pretty much the same in this particular aspect.

Another interpretation I could offer is that there is a subpopulation of women who is attracted to you, and this subpopulation tends already to be in relationships...


That's fair enough, but I think the issue lies in the historical vs. modern function of a bona-fide marriage. Historically, marriage was a social practice designed to give permission for a man and woman to have sex and procreate. You really weren't supposed to do that outside of marriage. These days, it's much less common for people to still "wait until marriage", but extramarital affairs, while common, are still more-or-less taboo. It's this conflict between "what marriage used to mean and be" and "what marriage means and is now" that causes communication problems and differences in expectations of the parties involved.

To me, whether Tiger was married or not really doesn't matter. What I'd care more about (if at all) is whether Tiger and Elin were on the same page as far as sleeping around is concerned, and whether one person intentionally misled the other about sleeping around, or the potential for it.

That's true, humans aren't biologically or evolutionarily monogamous. But marriage doesn't have a natural basis; it's cultural, one aspect of the continual struggle of man vs. wild. And as a cultural institution, marriage was designed to limit extramarital relationships. Your insistence that people are naturally promiscuous is irrelevant as an excuse to condemn the "self-righteous indignation of people that break monogamy". It is marriage's purpose to trump nature, and all HG is doing is emphasizing that. What you're saying is that nature trumps culture. You are both correct. The trick is to figure out how to balance the two sides.

By the numbers thus far, that is not an interpretation; it is a fact

Do you mean a subpopulation of women who are more inclined to seek out dudes for relationships rather than just for random sex? If that's the case, then yea, generally that's true too. Correlations can be eyeballed easily in a number of ways, but yea I'm aware that causation itself is impossible to even speculate on.


And I agree 100% with the second part of your post. The significance of "marriage" in the modern age is far more complicated than simply the contradictions between the current taboos and humans' biological caveman dispositions; I do acknowledge that, even if my mind does not naturally perceive it that way.

Well since you ask... we could speculate on causative factors for why women in relationships are more likely than women not in relationships to be attracted to you... but some possible speculations would imply what some people would consider highly objectionable or base standards on the women's and/or your part. Because of that possibility, I declined to elaborate further.

Vyn, I agree with you - hypocrisy stinks. I think when you hear righteous indignation, you should probably keep in mind that some of what you're hearing really is indignation, because there are people out there who are committed to monogamy - as difficult and unnatural as it is. Since they're doing the work and staying monogamous, they deserve to get a little pissed at people who don't.

However, and I think this point really needs to be emphasized as part of this discussion, marriage is actually intended to provide a stable foundation in which to raise children. And the commitment of marriage is about so much more than sexual exclusivity. It's about two people making a decision that - no matter what - they are not going to leave. (And when I say "no matter what," I generally concede that abuse, addicition, or adultery are the exceptions to the "no matter what" rule.) That stability, and the trust that it breeds, can give new depths of intimacy to a relationship - both sexually and emotionally. But it actually is an important factor in creating the most stability we can for our children - divorce is difficult, and painful, and damaging to the children involved, so they should be spared that trauma, if possible.

Please, don't interpret that I mean that all married couples should stay married. Clearly, both partners have to be committed to being the best person they can be in the relationship - it doesn't work if only one person is committed. They have to be committed to compromise, and the idea of making a happy marriage with each other. And yes, that's a lot of hard work. But there are people that are doing it, and I think they deserve the right to be a little pissed that el tigre (who has been so admired by so many), somehow couldn't be satisfied with the admiration of the public, an astronomical paycheck, and a beautiful wife. Oh, and he plays golf for a living. Seriously, isn't the issue more about the insatiable nature of the ego, and not monogamy?

P.S. amazon....do not get me started on how marriage is so not just "a piece of paper." Again - commitment, commitment, commitment - with substantial penalties for breaking that commitment. For real - people who say it's just a "piece of paper" are always the ones who never want to marry....I wonder why that is?

100%.

So much of what goes on in terms of the broader framework has secondary and tertiary reprocussions that many people these days overlook. Yes, if someone's incorrigibly crapped up and the other partner can't do a thing to bail and mend the sinking boat - good time to split. At the same time though, I think Alison Armstrong was dead aim in saying that most relationships split up in the end over reasons that were there at the beginning and which both sides somehow glossed over or deluded themselves against (ie. I can fix/put up with that about him/her - small concessions are fine but core values really can't be crossed, it will stack up and get ugly otherwise).

The other fun part about this - women generally seem to know how to be women more instinctively than men know how to be men - doesn't happen quite as naturally for guys and usually it takes having a solid father figure around as a positive roll model - otherwise there's really no guiding light in that sense.

True that, techstep, true that! I absolutely agree that most marriages end because of problems that should have prevented the marriage in the first place: incompatibility, immaturity, lack of commitment, wishful thinking....choosing a partner for all the wrong reasons (heat, desperation, rehabilitation)....the list is endless.

I think women are more naturally nurturers....so it may seem like care-taking and repairing and offering affection are "easier" behaviors to live into. But I also think those qualities often result in women believing they can "fix" their partner. And while women do tend to "civilize" men a bit over the course of marriage, e.g., putting clothes in the hamper and dishes in the sink, character-level change just isn't possible.

So I think it can be difficult for men to understand how to be good men....but that's where our old friend communication comes in (ummm, and pre-marital counseling doesn't hurt, either). As long as a couple can talk to each other, and express their needs, set goals together, and remember not to make relationship-level decisions unilaterally, all kinds of obstacles can be overcome. But when you don't have a partnership, you really don't have a marriage.

Believe me, I don't want to unnerve you or disrupt your core values or anything, but I must take issue with what you are saying here. To me, committing due to "substantial penalties" is, by definition, committing for reasons other than purely for the sake of committing. This is precisely the "unnatural" aspect of it that I was alluding to.

I don't get your implication about people who never want to marry, or whether I am neatly pigeonholed into that category in your eyes. The only generalizable "implication" I can see in this line of thinking is that these people simply differ in opinion from you, and you are unwilling to understand it. I think my reasons were laid out clearly enough to where you wouldn't "wonder why that is" unless you were implying that I was outright lying (either outwardly, or to myself) about my motives, and actually don't want to marry just want to leave the cheating option on the table for myself or something.

It's not "offensive" per se to me because, obviously, you do not know me, nor do you know 99.9% of people who share this opinion, but if your implication is as it seems to be, that is pretty ignorant.

Come on, amazon - because people have a differing opinion, I'm unwilling to understand it? No, I disagree with it. Humans weren't born to fly, but we do. We weren't meant to go to the moon, or harness the power of the atom, or any of the things that our superiority to nature has allowed us to accomplish - but we do. Do you really think you can blame infidelity on human nature? That's a tad simplistic, don't you think?

Believe me, you're not going to disrupt my core values - that's why they're core values - it's what I believe in. And to be frank, I've managed to make my point without calling you ignorant. So shame on you for assuming that because I'm not persuaded by your reasoning, that somehow means I lack the intellect to grasp it, understand it, and dismiss it. Your belief system doesn't work for me - that doesn't mean I believe you should adopt my belief system. Did I make myself clear?

If you think I'm ignorant you have my full support in calling me out and/or trying to convince me of that, both now and in the future. I think I've been VERY clear and careful throughout this entire discussion, with all parties involved, to consider all vantage points and not proselytize like my way is the one and only correct one.

The only things that I have not left open-ended are those that I do not understand, such as your logical contradiction that I addressed in the last post (which, again, you can of course believe whatever you like, it just simply does not make sense to me); and the implication you were trying to make by saying "I wonder why that is". You did not even attempt to clarify either. And that is probably partially my fault for not elaborating on my desire for clarification sufficiently. I was careful to qualify my statements that pertained to the ones of yours that I did not fully comprehend, such as (caps added for emphasis) "but IF your implication is as it seems to be, that is pretty ignorant"... However when I see something like:


I naturally perceive that as a "you're wrong and I'm right" kind of statement. It does not suggest any acknowledgement of outside vantage points such as my own, although I fully realize that your true perspective could be (and seemingly is) lost in translation somewhere in there.

But yea, as far as the big picture points are concerned, you have made yourself clear.

To play devil's advocate: yes we fly, yes we have gone to the moon, yes we split atoms, but the question isn't so much "can we?" as it is "should we?"

And I would also be extremely careful about noting humankind's "superiority to nature" because in many ways, humankind will never be superior to nature. Once we believe that humankind has utterly and completely trumped nature, we will have enslaved ourselves and found ourselves also trumped by nature.

I somehow missed that part you quoted. Can you blame infidelity on "human nature"? I believe yes, you can. But it's not that simple. That is the old school, ingrained biological part of human nature. However you can also credit the ability to steer clear of infidelity to a part of the human state-of-being that has adapted throughout the development of modern civilization. It's two sides of the same coin.