- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Does mongamy have a stranglehold on our beliefs? Read More
Liberated women promote polygamy
Those 78% of undergrads "cheating" on gfs only constitute the ~10% of men who women find attractive enough to want to have anything to do with in the first place. Because today's gal only deserves the very best, which happens to be the same guy as what lots of other gals want, too. How can it be cheating when the women involved are willing participants looking for someone to treat them "terribly"?
I'm sure you could go to the library or engineering building and find scads of undergrad men with no gfs who thus aren't cheating on anyone. Women are perfectly free to choose from among these guys, but they don't. Being creatures of the herd, women tend to base what they want on what other women want. If they want cheaters, jerks, assholes, and all the rest, how ya gonna stop 'em?
You'll never cure newly liberated women of their masochistic and polygamous tendencies by urging monogamy on the few men who benefit. It is poor men the world over who are the dedicated monogamists, not the ones who are giving women what they want.
IOW, make sure you know which men you're talking about. There will be as much "cheating" as women want, but it's not the fault of "men" in general.
Very few men are naturally
Very few men are naturally inclined towards monogamy. Men can be henpecked/socialized to be monogamous through socialization, pollyanna romantic idealization, and religion. However, resistance or reprogramming of such beliefs leads to the organic state of being.
I recommend this for you to read.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/11/anaemia.html
Thanks for your comments, Martian.
We discussed that notion of hypergamy in a prior blog:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/repairing-relationships/201110/are-w...
Unnatural
Monogamy is unnatural. It's time for society to take the red pill and acknowledge it. No matter how much people try to deny mother nature, she always wins in the end. No amount of social and behavorial engineering can prevent it on a wide scale, which has been proven by society. Time to toss out the antiquated sentiments and get back to nature.
Who are these men cheating with?!
If men cheat like crazy then women should be too, right? Unless it is that many men cheat and a few women cheat a lot! The 78% sounds extream...and happens to the 22% that do not, are they treated better by women or are they more satisfied in their life?
The numbers vary by study
A study conducted in 2002 by the Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy revealed that that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship. Other studies have projected numbers ranging between those figures and the 78% figure Dr. Anderson published. We'd like to think that those who aren't cheating are more satisfied, but it is also possible they are numbing themselves with various addictions and compulsive behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse or sports, television, internet or religious addiction, so they may or may not be enjoying a healthy relationship.
Not that off
Based on the those numbers, women cheat almost just as men...so why is the focus largely on men cheating and are typically the ones portraid that way by society?
Good question, A.
This is a reiteration of our response to another blog topic, but applies here too:
Just for purposes of this discussion, think of a man and a woman dancing. In couples dancing there is the notion of the leader. When one leads one has extra responsibility. It doesn't mean you are better or worse, just that your role is different. After all Ginger Rogers had to react and instantly follow everything Fred Astaire did and she had to do it backwards! Separately they had nothing. Together their dancing was a joy to behold.
Traditionally in America, like it or not, men are expected to lead in at least the beginning of the relationship- initiating interest, asking the person out, determining where to go, what to do, whether to ask the person out again etc. What we are saying is that since men have that leader role they need to take the initiative and set the relationship on a firm foundation of honesty and emphasize good character and common interests.
In the last century our culture has celebrated the deceitful man who creates instant relationships regardless of long-term compatibility as hero in thousands of movies, plays and television shows like "Two and Half Men." A pattern of behavior has emerged over the decades which has resulted in both men and women ending up completely miserable. Men don't want to be committed to women who do not understand them, belittle them, nag, manipulate and don't respect them. Women don't want to be in a union with men who tune them out and refuse to shoulder their fair share of the household chores once the thrill of the honeymoon fades away. Yet both men and women don't seem to understand how they both ended up in such unhealthy relationships.
We discovered through our research that this is not a hopeless situation of men and women at each others throats. The estrangement of men and women can be reversed through enlightening the new generation coming of age that they can do better than their elders. We can become a culture that celebrates healthy enlightened companionate relationships instead of deceit, infidelity and the resulting brokeness.
Question?
Could you explain how the figures you and Anderson choose to cite were derived, and why they're vastly larger than those found by the University of Chicago's General Social Survey, which indicates infidelity occures about a third as often as the numbers you cite?
And why do you believe a one-time study like the ones you cited have more validity (assuming you do, since those are the figures you chose and I know you wouldn't just be doing it for shock value) than those found over four decades of research through the social survey?
Thanks
If you honestly want to find out Dr Anderson's methodology
for his study, go buy his book:
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Sexuality/?v...
If you want to talk about the decline in heterosexual relationships over the last century then read our blog and book. We are more concerned with the problem than nitpicking the studies or denying there is a crisis threatening the very building block of society. As the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia put it, "If marriage becomes unachievable for all but the highly educated, then the American experiment itself will be at risk. The disappearance of marriage in Middle America would endanger the American Dream, the emotional and social welfare of children, and the stability of the social fabric in thousands of communities across the country. We know, for instance, that children who grow up in intact, married families are significantly more likely to graduate from high school, finish college, become gainfully employed, and enjoy a stable family life themselves, compared to their peers who grow up in nonintact families."
You can deny the numbers if you choose, but the problem is real and getting worse. The problem is the way men and women are trying to find a life together. It isn't working any more.
Question?
It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 50 that people lie on written surveys, even to the esteemed University of Chicago General Social Survey, and the incidence of people commiting adultery is higher that they will publicly admit. Nobody wants to admit to another person that they are a cheater. So what's your hidden agenda?
Many have a need to diminish the problem
Unfortunately wishing won't stop the decline of marriage in America.
Neither will fear mongering,
Neither will fear mongering, but I guess you'll give it a go regardless.
Regarding the previous commenters remark about the U of C's study, why does he/she find it more likely people would lie to those researchers but not those who produce higher figures (and just happen to want to sell you a book)? Did the latter researchers find a magical means to make people more truthful about their infidelities?
Fact is, even if you double the U of C figures to account of lying, they're still significantly smaller than those cited by Anderson (Did I mention he's trying to sell you a book?).
Again, Dr., instead of offering condescension, please explain why Anderson's research of a handful of (presumably unmarried) college students is more valid when discussing marital infidelity than a 40-year study involving actual married people conducted by one of the world's leading universities.
My agenda? Meh .... guess I'm not a fan of people who try to profit by using questionable research to spread fear.
Please explain this:
"Infidelity appears to be on the rise, particularly among older men and young couples. Notably, women appear to be closing the adultery gap: younger women appear to be cheating on their spouses nearly as often as men.
“If you just ask whether infidelity is going up, you don’t see really impressive changes,” said David C. Atkins, research associate professor at the University of Washington Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors. “But if you magnify the picture and you start looking at specific gender and age cohorts, we do start to see some pretty significant changes.”
The most consistent data on infidelity come from the General Social Survey, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of Chicago, which has used a national representative sample to track the opinions and social behaviors of Americans since 1972. The survey data show that in any given year, about 10 percent of married people — 12 percent of men and 7 percent of women — say they have had sex outside their marriage.
But detailed analysis of the data from 1991 to 2006, to be presented next month by Dr. Atkins at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies conference in Orlando, show some surprising shifts. University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.
The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/health/28well.html
Fact is, we mentioned that the figures vary from study to study. Yet if we use the lower estimates you would support from the University of Washington and University of Chicago studies, conducted by two of the world's leading universities, with no apparent profit motive, both show a dramatic increase in infidelity over the last 2 decades. Your acclaimed University of Chicago study found that in any ONE YEAR 12% of men and 7% of women are unfaithful. How does that project out over 40 years? Or are you suggesting the same people are unfaithful to the same spouse every year?
If you are sincerely interested in a discussion of the difficulty in getting a fixed number on the incidence of infidelity in America, we recommend you read this study by Christopher Chuick from the University of Iowa:
http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1465&context=etd&sei-red...
With all due respect, you're evading
All these red herrings about the decline of marriage, etc., are well and good - and for all I know you're right - but you're still avoiding the question: Why do you believe Anderson's study of 120 college kids is valid and relevant when discussing infidelity among married adults? And especially in light of far more thorough academic research of tens of thousands of actual married people that shows significantly lower rates of infidelity?
We don't have to ask what those one-year numbers mean when extended over 40 years. The NORC tells us. Since I assume you were able to Google one NY Times story on the subject, I'm surprised you didn't find this more recent one that answers your question:
In 2010, NORC, a research center at the University of Chicago, found that, among those who had ever been married, 14 percent of women and 20 percent of men admitted to affairs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-toget...
And from the same story:
In 2001, The Journal of Family Psychology summarized earlier research, finding that “infidelity occurs in a reliable minority of American marriages.” Estimates that “between 20 and 25 percent of all Americans will have sex with someone other than their spouse while they are married” are conservative, the authors wrote
And so, even if you take the extreme step of doubling the figures to account for lying research subjects - something which would be statistically inappropriate - they're still a far, far, far cry from the numbers you choose to cite. Could it perhaps be that extrapolating the findings from a handful of (presumably single) college kids onto the population of married adults isn't very valid? Could it be that single guys in their late teens and early 20s don't exactly have the same lifestyle and views on monogamy as 40-year-old men with kids and a committed relationship? Really, why are you tying yourself to Anderson's figures when the actual research of married couples paints a drastically different picture?
If you choose not to answer my question, that's fine. Thanks for the discussion.
We didn't
tie ourselves to Anderson's figures. We presented Anderson's book as a point of discussion in the public arena of the larger topic of infidelity. Our interest is in why it occurs, not which study is more accurate. That's obviously your area of interest. We would argue that twenty-somethings head over heels in love during the emotional and physical peak of a marriage might be more committed to their marriage than forty-something men in a relationship that has long since seen the days of the Honeymoon and now is in the resigned compliance stage. But thanks for your contribution to the blog.
A couple quick points and
A couple quick points and I'll let it go:
1. All the participants in Anderson's study were unmarried men. So your argument about "twenty-somethings head over heels in love during the emotional and physical peak of a marriage" is moot. These guys aren't in the emotional and physical peak of marriage. They're not married. I continue to question how one can reasonably take the results of a study involving only single college guys and find it relevant to all married people. You, of course, are free to disagree.
2. I completely understand your desire and interest in finding out why cheating happens. Good luck with that. But, isn;t it worthwhile to first have a solid grasp on how often it happens, by whom and under what circumstances? In fact, I don't think you can truly understand the why without first having a solid understanding of the who, what, when, where and how.
Thanks for you time.
Thanks for your comments A
1.As we said in the blog article, the study by Professor Anderson was on young men and their partners.
2.We were responding to what you said: "Could it be that single guys in their late teens and early 20s don't exactly have the same lifestyle and views on monogamy as 40-year-old men with kids and a committed relationship." Those younger men might tend to be more idealistic and optimistic about monogamy than the jaded long term married man mired in the Resigned Compliance stage of Mirage Man Syndrome. It might make a interesting study about why young men suddenly commit to one person after a pattern of promiscuity. Did their view of monogamy change suddenly?
College students and movie
College students and movie stars clearly are the best people to study when it comes to determining a realistic rate of infidelity.
Ugh ... what's next, determining the rate of binge drinking by studying only frat members?
"unreasonable expectation"?
"unreasonable expectation"? It is an "unreasonable expectation" to restrict sex to your marriage partner, whom you vowed to be faithful to under your own free will?
Biologically speaking, after a couple has a baby, the man's testosterone levels decline. This shrinks his libido and augments the likelihood of him sticking around to raise the child. Kissing and touch stimulate the release of hormones that bond partners together on the foundation of trust. I'm not a biologist, but humans have the capacity of monogamy.
It all boils down to a instance of mind over matter. Humans have the ability to reason with themselves. A sort of, "Yes, that prospective mate is sexually attractive, but I already have a mate, so I choose not to act upon my urges." Intellectually speaking, humans are not comparable to animals. We are in control of our own actions, no matter how inclined we are to dispute that fact. We have the ability to reason moral vs. immoral actions with ourselves. People give up on their partners too easily. Saying that monogamy is unreasonable within marriage is just a lazy cop-out.
I wouldn't have been able to
I wouldn't have been able to say this as well as you did. I agree with you completely. We have the capability to make decisions and see right from wrong.
The attempt to mainstream mental illness
Thanks, for another wonderful piece, revealing the thought process of the mentally ill.
More specifically, Bipolar disease.
Speaking of Bipolars-it looks like Michael Jordan is going to give marriage another try, to a much younger woman,of course.
Hopefully, he's medicated.
Thanks for your comments David.
Hopefully Michael has sought professional help and learned from his first ill-fated attempt at matrimony.
From the Author
I'm Professor Eric Anderson, author of The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love and the Reality of Cheating.
I've had just a very brief glance at the article and thought I'd give a few comments. I will not be checking back, so please don't bother asking me to further elaborate (that could consume my time rather quickly).
First, I must say that while the article most repeats what I said to another journalist responsibly, I found it discouraging that an erudite publication, such as psychology today, would rely on second hand information rather than contacting me for an interview directly.
Second, the very first thing that I state in my work, is that women cheat, and that they cheat at high rates as well. I, however, have chosen to study men because I am an expert on masculinities, and much of my work is based in masculinities studies.
Third, contrary to what the article says, I am not an evolutionary psychologist or socio-biologist. And while I pull some work of those fields into my book, that is not the principle my book or theory is built around. Again, shame on Psychology Today for fabricating such.
Fourth, this is qualitative work concerned with 'why' men cheat. I hesitate to even give my 78% finding, and I make no attempt to generalize to all of society from this 78%. I was interested in the processes that men go through from valuing monogamy to cheating. But there are hugely varying rates of cheating reported in studies. One reason I found a higher rate, than say GSS data, is that I interview young men only; of which half are athletes (and thus maintain high sexual capital). Essentially, I went looking for cheaters.
Fifth, survey results are poor indicators of cheating rates, however, not only because of reluctance to report stigmatized behviors, but because they are not clear about what cheating behaviors are. In my research, I count anything as cheating that one's partner would consider a violation: most people in GSS data would assume intercourse.
So while I'm not concerned with reporting rates of cheating from my book, I am concerned with the hegemony that monogamy maintains. I show that men fully desire monogamy, but that as their relationships continue, they strongly grow a desire to sex with someone else. This form of cognitive dissonance (wanting and not wanting extra-dyadic sex) is dealt with usually through cheating. Cheating represent a logical choice for these men as it best gets them their desires met, without having their partners break up with them for asking for that extra-dyadic sex. Few get caught, so it is also somewhat sensible
I highlight that this cheating and lying is a produce of our monogamist culture, and suggest the way out of it is for us to begin equally valuing sexually open relationships, alongside monogamous one. Only when there is no stigma to this will men begin to be more honest (likely women too) about what they want, and how they desire to achieve it.
But, anyone attempting to suggest that my 78% finding applies equally to all men would be making a mistake; similarly, anyone suggesting that the processes I describe among young men might somehow change with the addition of a marriage ring would also be wrong. Our sexual desires do not wane after marriage, and the expectation for monogamy only grows stronger.
Many of the pages of the book are available for free on Amazon.
Sorry for not responding to further questions, but monitoring all the various press articles on my book and responding to questions could completely consume me in a not-so-healthy way.
You can see more of my work, and a free copy of a similar article I wrote in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, on my website. www.EricAndersonPhD.com
Sincerely,
Professor Eric Anderson
Thanks for your contribution Dr Anderson.
But nowhere in the article did we call you an "evolutionary psychologist" or "sociobiologist" any more that we called Kurt Russell, Goldie Hawn, Spaulding Gray and Katherine Hepburn "evolutionary psychologists." We actually called you a "Sociology Professor".
Robert Wright, senior editor at New Republic magazine, reported in a Time Magazine cover story that the theory of evolution can explain the decline in marriage, stating that "according to evolutionary psychology, it is "natural" for both men and women- at some time, under some circumstances- to commit adultery or to sour on a mate." This scientific rational for unfaithfulness has become part of the national dialogue on marriage and infidelity in America. Your solution to the infidelity problem, "to keep one emotional lover and just having casual, meaningless--and hot--sex with strangers" is congruent with the worldview of evolutionary psychology as described by Mr. Wright and practiced in Hollywood by celebrities like Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell for years.
Our apologies if we misinterpreted your statements. The huge response to our blog about your book, which is designed to discuss topical issues in the realm of relationships, shows that you selected a great topic with passions on all sides of the issues of infidelity and monogamy. Best wishes to you and we hope your book is a huge success.
Narrow, very narrow
I believe that many people fail in marriages and relationships because skills required for them is not taught by their parents and schools.
I believe that we are capable of going both ways, monogamy or promiscuity. Which way we go is affected by various factors but I believe that education can help, especially if society wants people to be monogamous.
Its just that people fail to teach their children about relationships, sex, emotion and lots of important stuff... stuff that makes us humans. We let our children go with no knowledge or skills for having good relationships, having sex, controlling emotion etc. Schools are honing our minds but do nothing about our hearts and bodies. We tend to think that if our child is studying in this, or becomes this or working in this or getting this, etc. then they would be happy complete humans.
It seems to be this ridiculous way in America. To them money, infamy, big houses, cars, parties, Phd's etc. = happiness. Such a narrow and misguided attempt to live. No wonder people blunders as they go through life.
Also, situation matters. Schools, Hospitals, Workplaces, Prisons etc. creates a set of rules and patterns of behavior that is just unnatural for us humans. We could say that many people are thrust into situations that make it difficult to be happy... or sane. We create situations were we are forced to be "not" human. We are living in a prison of our own making.
People keep saying they need this, they need that... but really how happy are we when we achieve these needs? Or are we just seeking them because we are missing something and is having these 'needs' to temporarily fill these emptiness?
I believe there is something much deeper out there that we are missing when we are having these kinds of arguments. People in arguments tend to see only their own views and what is on the table when there are more important, relevant and 'correct' things out there. Very much like the so long ago wave/particle-nature-of-light argument in physics. In turn out that light is neither, its just its own unique and interesting entity... far more interesting than waves or particles.
If only we step back from these stupid this-or-that arguments and speculations and instead look further out of the boundaries where further insights lie awaiting to be discovered.
Good point Wandering
We agree that the public schools have been derelict in teaching the history of courtship and marriage in America as we transitioned from arranged marriages to free will in courtship and from patriarchal marriage models to the more enlightened companionate marriage model.
A key weakness of the companionate marriage model is the requirement of honesty in courtship. If both partners are candid in their courtship, there is a strong possibility they will choose to marry based on a full disclosure of the strengths and weaknesses of each partner. As co-equals, negotiations and allowances will be made to the diversity of both partners so their individuality won't be smothered in the marriage union. Neither will then feel defrauded after marriage by the reasonable behavior of the other.
Unfortunately, courtship mutated in the early 20th Century. The new courtship emphasized physical attraction and charm and inhibited the candor and openness needed for a successful companionate marriage. Encouraged by the media of music, film and later television and the internet, men learned to cheat the system by pretending to be emotionally compatible, which greatly increased the chances of positive short term romantic results.
The new style of dishonest courtship led to such unstable relationships that men and women began to realize it was foolish to invest the time, emotional capital, legal entanglements and money to get married. Now whether in cohabitation or marriage, healthy relationships between men and women are at an all-time low.
The sad result of the decline in heterosexual relations in the last century is that today college women are faced with two extreme choices: hooking up or being joined at the hip. Neither are likely to lead them to an intelligent, long term relationship that might lead to marriage. Yet they are custom made for the deceitful man who wants immediate gratification.
Parents, educators and the media must instruct our children on the healthy way to date and mate to strengthen the primary building block of our country and turn America around.
Its too bad everyone is so damn shallow.
I'm really so tired of this argument that men are biologically predisposed to cheat. It provides a nice excuse for people in general to have sex without intimacy, with whomever they want. However, sex is intimacy. Relationships are about developing deep emotional bonds. Anyone who believes that having multiple partners does not rob them of that as well the opportunity to develop a more thorough understanding of yourself and and another person, probably don’t know what they are missing.
We are not just animals, we are a highly intelligent species and we have the developed the capacity to control our instincts which has enabled us to develop highly complex infrastructures. Perhaps the problem is that following the masses is easy and distracts us from more difficult but more satisfying preoccupations such as healing, understanding and developing our emotional and intellectual selves. So, the shallow minded who live with this idea and this excuse will continue to mate and have shallow relationships, hurting themselves and others and never develop emotional security or self-awareness. However there is no integrity in this world we are building and I feel sad for the future generations. It is so unfortunate that this idea is being propagated by the so so-called experts. I think your theoretical model and your methods are garbage and your continued publication of these socially-destructive ideas is irresponsible and naïve. Alas, nobody considers the implications or consequences in this selfish culture. Instead we continue to breed pathological people with no conscience or values.
Perhaps it was the objective of cavemen to spread their seeds but that is no longer the objective of the human race. Actually, we are over-populated. However, the relationship between sex and life is inevitably neglected from the argument. If you really want to rely on biology to explain human behavior perhaps you should consider that sex produces life and life should be nurtured. However, we don’t seem to care about our environment or the health and welfare of the species either. Perhaps that is too deep and we are too preoccupied with legitimating our superficial selves via superficial acts of ego gratification.
I would like to see a study that analyzes how often alcohol or drugs is involved in sexual experiences among undergrads because this behavior does not emerge naturally, it is practiced. It starts with destroying our inner sensitivities and desires for real human compassion and developing the ego so that it can provide a barrier of pseudo-strength.
Unfortunately the people in the world that aspire to a depth of meaning and understanding are forced to isolate from the masses. I am so annoyed that men these days assume that I am willing to sleep with them upon introduction. I am so uninspired by the people that engage in this behavior. I would rather read a book. Its far more satisfying.
Please give us some detail and examples, Anon.
Why exactly is Mirage Man Syndrome "garbage"? Or are you speaking about evolutionary psychology, which we also criticized? Or Dr. Anderson's book, where he said men can't be expected to be faithful to their partner? Mirage Man Syndrome maintains that infidelity in marriage is often a sign of a relationship that was begun with artificial intimacy and approval seeking. We do not believe it is an inevitable consequence.
Yes, I refer the use of
Yes, I refer the use of evolutionary psychology to explain and extrapolate the results of the study. Unfortunately my rant was directed at the second person, when actually I was referring to Dr. Anderson. I do not object to the Mirage Man Syndrome.
Post new comment