# Why do so many people have affairs?



## Axe (Aug 1, 2014)

if you're going to have an affair own it. you could say it's because there is too much pressure to get married.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

apa said:


> Just because we have advanced enough that it is not a necessity. Does not mean that our body understands that.


Sex is a necessity, not polygamy... It's an option just like every other method to satisfy your whatever need. Sexual frustration and it's effects on consciousness is real yet you can't rationalize an impulsive behavior that you can control as a modern human. It's still a decision and you are responsible for it's consequences. Cheating on your wife is your own decision. Mutually having an open relationship with her is also your own decision. Your wife still have a point by claiming that you are a selfish liar. You, as a couple, also don't have the right to claim that everybody should have an open relationship if they are human beings.



apa said:


> Talking about justification. How they fuck do you justify some bone, being compared or equal to some primal instinct in our biology? It nearly sounds like you think we lost our libido in evolution.


Indeed, we lost a little... Because we have enough comfort with civilization. Sex isn't a grotesque privilege anymore. It's nothing you should do your best, risking others life or your own. Including killing the infants of most fertile female around to rape her or constantly being ready to kill males on sight just because they have the potential for killing your offspring to rape you. We have countless ways to enjoy an equally intense dopamine release by satisfying many other instincts, including the ones we artificially developed with civilization. Needless to say, we also have a ridiculously homogenized and overcrowded social structure. There's enough whatever for everybody if you compare it with this or that animal in nature. That's why erectile dysfunction isn't the end of human race from the evolution's standpoint. It's not even the end of individual's offspring anymore. Sex is enjoyable as always yet we are not "hardwired" to fuck as many people as possible beyond our control... Again, it's like nutrition. You will never die from hunger like a caveman if you don't eat as much as you can as a city dweller and I'm not going to buy that argument to justify overeating... Just because abusing that instinct is enjoyable with no purpose thanks to our starving ancestors.



apa said:


> I hope I am wrong, in understanding you that way. Because that sounds very silly. Why silly? Because we don't needed that tail to survive, do we need to fuck to survive? Do I even need to answer my own question...


Probably you don't... It's not a simple question with a simple answer. There are many other questions we can ask and try to answer. My reaction is mostly aimed at "everybody is willing to cheat on each other because it's the human nature" nonsense.


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

@yet another intj



> Sex is a necessity, *not polygamy*


Do you feel I ever have said polygamy was a necessity?



> Indeed, we lost a little. Because we have enough comfort with civilization.


So if we have food enough, we also lose our appetite? Doesn't make sense to me.



> Sex is enjoyable as always yet we are not "hardwired" to fuck as many people as possible beyond our control.


You are seriously saying wanting to have sex is not hardwired? Without speaking for others, from my personal observation it seems like most men get a boner when they see a hot woman. Which ultimately seem like a hardwired biological mechanism, wanting to bang her. If they see another woman also being attractive, their body reacts the same way. How come our body does this, if it isn't hardwired, and we are made to fuck as many as possible? Don't you think the body has a certain intelligence as well?



> "everybody is willing to cheat on each other because it's the human nature" nonsense


Well, again. Have I said that, or why are you telling ME that.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

apa said:


> In today's society the rate for survival is higher than ever before, because of medicine and education. You talk about it like we live in some cave, and need to put all our eggs in one basket. Like we can protect one kid with 2 bodyguards full time, and the chance will be bigger for survival.
> 
> I would make a bet with you, that having 10 kids with 10 different women in a western society has much greater chance than having 1 kid with 1 woman.


I don't think anyone _needs_ to do anything. I know a lot of single mothers though. They struggle and so do their children. 

A lot of sociologists argue that they're more likely to partake in illegal and dangerous activities when they get older too (which shortens life span). Obviously that's not always the case though and there are plenty of amazing single mothers in the world. Even when it is the case that's not to say that the mothers aren't amazing.

Medicine and education aren't just up for grabs like candy either. Your quality of both depends a lot on your school district (nicer areas fund better schools), access to private opportunities, your healthcare provider, etc.

I seriously doubt that you would be paying child support for all of these ten children? Or that you would be a substantial presence in their lives? How could you? That's spreading yourself awfully thin.



apa said:


> Even just statistically just having 1 kid is actually imploding society, because if everyone only had 1 kid, the entire society would directly implode, because we would then literally be dividing our exact population number. If your only child then got murdered/died in an accident/got cancer or whatever. Then from a biological perspective you have literally failed as a life-form. Wasting maybe 20 years of your life putting all your eggs in one basket. I know it might sound harsh, but nature and biology are brutal.


Yea, nature and biology are brutal. Spoiler: We all die  At some point. At what age does procreation become a success? When they pass down your genes to their own offspring? I can get that thinking given your reasoning. If I ever have a child I would want them to have siblings. I feel like very few people I know only have one child. There may be some morbid reasons for that, even subconsciously. Plenty have them with the same woman and maximize their joint resources though. And give their children that bond among each other.



apa said:


> Even if your 5 out of 10 kids died, it would be 500% more, and then they could make off springs too, and suddenly you're a biological success.


Or you're creating a cancer if you're unconcerned about quality of life. Women aren't breeding factories and children aren't numbers. We're also in danger of overpopulation, so society wouldn't directly implode if we tried to reduce the amount of children we're having. It would probably be more the opposite.

I can understand when dudes fight monogamy with male libido arguments (it's more primitive and it hasn't caught up with society yet), but not when they make it about the "children" - bull. People who care about their children treat them like human beings and not like dandelion seeds. Maybe that primitive _drive_ is still there, but dudes should be evolved enough to know what the result of that is in civilized society.

There's a reason people do what they do. It's not because they're idiots who haven't thought this out already, lol.

If I decide not to get married I'm not going to have kids.


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

@Veggie



> I don't think anyone needs to do anything.


Well, fair enough. Glad to hear we have humanists like you to support ISIS. I think they NEED to stop. If we want to have a peaceful world. But okay we might be different. I fight psychopaths with drones, you fight them with hugs. If that is what you believe in, then god bless you.



> I know a lot of single mothers though. They struggle and so do their children.


You totally take what I say out of context and put a lot of emotion and unnecessary stuff into it. I am just purely speaking about human biology and survival seen from a biological standpoint. Also you assume way too much from an example. Like a guy just impregnating 10 woman and moves on.



> Or that you would be a substantial presence in their lives? How could you? That's spreading yourself awfully thin.


- Because they would have hobbies, friends, and thousand of other things to do than hanging out with me all the time. Do you think everyone wants to fit into your ideal of having 1 child? So they can give the kids attention in head and ass, every minute of every day? I can be friends with 10 kids, just like I can be friends with 10 adult people. Nothing different. Also again, why are we even here? I spoke about biology. Veggie I have to remind you that it is possible to make theoretical example, without directly having to translate it into reality. I don't even want to have kids. So stop talking to me, like I want to have 10 kids. Why should I even defend some shit I don't even want. Because you get sentimental about some kids who doesn't even exist, because I made an example about biology? Good god... 



> Or you're creating a cancer if you're unconcerned about quality of life. Women aren't breeding factories and children aren't numbers. We're also in danger of overpopulation, so society wouldn't directly implode if we tried to reduce the amount of children we're having. It would probably be more the opposite.


My example was not based on the quality of the kids, or their lifespan. It was based purely on biology. Spreading your seed to as many as possible, and allowing them to spread their seed. That's the only thing biology wants. It doesn't give a shit about paying child support, or your kids have to wear quality clothes.



> Women aren't breeding factories


I see the INFJ in this one. But if you take the biological glasses on. Women are just breeding factories, and men are just sperm cannons. We are just organisms wanting to spread. Nothing else. Then we can take the romantic sentimental glasses on. We are so much more, so colorful, such depth, such nuances blabla. Do what you want. I never said women were supposed to be looked at as breeding factories. So again, did you think I said that? Or why are you even mentioning it. Do you think I see women like objects or what. Again assuming all kind of shit you don't know about me. It's quite tiresome, having to explain claims about myself which doesn't even are true. Imagine if I created some picture of you being an arrogant nasty bitch, always mocking people, based on some random shit you wrote. Would it not be a tad annoying, when you are indeed a sweet, and nice person Veggie?


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

apa said:


> Do you feel I ever have said polygamy was a necessity?


Actually, I felt like that you think I'm talking about "sex" in general. So, I explained the difference. Many people in this thread rationalized cheating, beyond a mutually open relationship as a fundamental part of human nature. So, that's my argument against their oversimplifications. "_We have genitals, fucking is enjoyable. We always want to hump random strangers because that's nature._" It's not that simple if you are not a dog. If you want to act like a dog, don't expect others to treat you like a human being.




apa said:


> So if we have food enough, we also lose our appetite? Doesn't make sense to me.


It's the difference between rushing into a pile of rotten vegetables, impulsively eating like there's no tomorrow after starving for weeks. Because that's the only chance you can eat between starvation periods... And... Trying to decide if you want to eat noodles or cake for tonight. Because you are still digesting your breakfast... I don't know you but that make sense to me.




apa said:


> You are seriously saying wanting to have sex is not hardwired?


Let me repeat myself: Cheating is not polygamy and polygamy is not hardwired... The one and only natural way to experience sexuality is not polygamy, at least not for modern humans.




apa said:


> Without speaking for others, from my personal observation it seems like most men get a boner when they see a hot woman.


Social observations are deceiving... It's hard to be sure which one is honest or faking their reaction with gender roles, which one is tempted with emotional aspect, taboos or cultural references, which one is having or not having a boner with unhealthy levels of testosterone... Human sexuality is exceptional, there are too many variables and indirect ways to explain it. There's no breeding season and we are constantly busy with everything else. No animal have our plasticity with transformational capabilities on a single lifetime.




apa said:


> Which ultimately seem like a hardwired biological mechanism, wanting to bang her.


I don't know what kind of weird society you are living in or which awkward crowd you picked for your observation... But... There's no such thing as "hot woman". Every single culture, subculture, even individual have it's own definition of sex appeal. Even worse, that definition is constantly evolving according to cultural revolutions, economic models, even the age and the personal experiences of individual... Nobody universally wants to bang "her", whenever, wherever. Males are capable of finding a female attractive without feeling the urge for impulsively fucking her. There's no biological mechanism to find the right partner but the intention with capability under the right conditions... Needless to say those conditions are mostly trivial and far from the nature of a sharp animalistic instinct.


That's not a common scenario: "_Nice to meet you son... That woman was the one with the biggest breasts around 20 years ago and I fucked her. That's how you born... I guess... Then, I unknowingly fucked many others because they have wider hips... Don't judge me, I'm a human being._"


Everybody have many ridiculous reasons to find their partner genuinely attractive. Those reasons are beyond "superficial breeding qualities" and that's why their effect lasts for years and years, instead of losing it's meaning after the act of sex.




apa said:


> If they see another woman also being attractive, their body reacts the same way. How come our body does this, if it isn't hardwired, and we are made to fuck as many as possible?


I hate to burst your bubble but last time I checked humans doesn't have any Pavlovian reflexes. That's why you don't have to dry your mouth while cooking and why you are thinking about doing the same thing everyday before repeating it once again.




apa said:


> Don't you think the body has a certain intelligence as well?


It's the difference between being intelligent and smart... Being intelligent is knowing something with cause and effect enough to generate options to manipulate nature, including your own... Being smart is nothing but adaptation with practical and efficient solutions. Humans are intelligent beings and that's why they are capable of questioning their body while it's trying to be cluelessly smart. Our body is smart enough to make us sweat until it kills us with dehydration, that's why we are intelligent enough to invent air conditioners.




apa said:


> Well, again. Have I said that, or why are you telling ME that.


YOU are welcome.


----------



## Alpha_Orionis (Jan 18, 2015)

Understanding why are there so many people who have an affair is beyond me. Going to the basics, why would someone enter a relationship if they will look or are looking for an affair? Why don't they terminate the relationship and then look for someone else?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

apa said:


> Well, fair enough. Glad to hear we have humanists like you to support ISIS. I think they NEED to stop. If we want to have a peaceful world. But okay we might be different. I fight psychopaths with drones, you fight them with hugs. If that is what you believe in, then god bless you.


No, I don't find psychopaths with hugs. (Though, that could potentially be an effective method depending on the psychopath). I think that peace requires war at times too. (Ideally, we'd get to a place as humans where peace only required smaller battles).



apa said:


> You totally take what I say out of context and put a lot of emotion and unnecessary stuff into it. I am just purely speaking about human biology and survival seen from a biological standpoint. Also you assume way too much from an example. Like a guy just impregnating 10 woman and moves on.


I'm not taking anything out of context, I'm expanding on it. Yes, you're presenting an argument that biologically we are driven to ensure that our offspring survive, and I'm considering that in a real world context. I don't see how that's "emotional" - and no, I'm not assuming that the guy impregnates 10 women and just moves on without a backward glance, but I am assuming that taking care of those ten children would be difficult if not impossible for most men given monetary and time constraints.



apa said:


> - Because they would have hobbies, friends, and thousand of other things to do than hanging out with me all the time.


Who's funding these hobbies and activities? Who's coordinating these playdates with friends? Who's providing these "thousands of things" to do?



apa said:


> Do you think everyone wants to fit into your ideal of having 1 child?


My ideal of having 1 child? I very specifically said that I don't believe in only having 1 child. (Or at least, that I wouldn't).



apa said:


> Veggie I have to remind you that it is possible to make theoretical example, without directly having to translate it into reality.


Lol, sure, and I have to remind you that there will be people who will poke holes in weak theories that don't translate into reality.



apa said:


> My example was not based on the quality of the kids, or their lifespan. It was based purely on biology. Spreading your seed to as many as possible, and allowing them to spread their seed. That's the only thing biology wants. It doesn't give a shit about paying child support, or your kids have to wear quality clothes.


Biology doesn't just want to spread it's seed, it wants to ensure survival. There are many biological processes beyond procreation. And actually, you did bring up lifespan, because supposedly having children die is a biological fail given what you said previously. 



apa said:


> I see the INFJ in this one. But if you take the biological glasses on. Women are just breeding factories, and men are just sperm cannons. We are just organisms wanting to spread. Nothing else.


No, we are not "just" these things, but sure, they're a component of what we are. I have my biological glasses on. I wear those more than you might think. I've even been accused of being the "most depressing girl in the world" for it before, LOL.

To keep this from being a total derail, I don't think that cheating is the worst relationship sin either. I do think that we have a difficult time as humans integrating the primitive with other aspects of who we are. Especially after sitting in a cubicle all day. It does break trust though. If I'm in a committed monogamous relationship again I'd maybe agree to opening the relationship at some point. I think there's a chemical bond that's built from monogamy initially, but after a few years or so I'd maybe be up to reconsider, with that already hopefully in place.



apa said:


> So again, did you think I said that? Or why are you even mentioning it. Do you think I see women like objects or what. Again assuming all kind of shit you don't know about me. It's quite tiresome, having to explain claims about myself which doesn't even are true.


I didn't make a claim about you as a person. I'm responding to your arguments.



apa said:


> Imagine if I created some picture of you being an arrogant nasty bitch, always mocking people, based on some random shit you wrote. Would it not be a tad annoying, when you are indeed a sweet, and nice person Veggie?


_
Am_ I a sweet, nice person?


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

"I need to spread my seed! It's a biological imperative!"


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

@Veggie. I am too tired to answer to your entire response. Maybe another day.



> Who's funding these hobbies and activities? Who's coordinating these playdates with friends? Who's providing these "thousands of things" to do?


Not all hobbies cost money. Not everything needs to be coordinated. Children also have a brain. Again why do you assume all kind of stuff?



> Lol, sure, and I have to remind you that there will be people who will poke holes in weak theories that don't translate into reality.


Okay first of all. You simply call breeding biology for a weak theory. Can't you comprehend that it is possible to say that our genes want to procreate as much as possible. But the body is just one aspect of us. We also have a brain not just to make 10 children without thinking some stuff do. At least some of us use that brain, I can't speak for all of us.

You simply deny that if a man who just let him control by his body had 10 attractive women in front of him, and he could have sex with all of them. He would deny it? If there was no societal consequence and blabla. That is a weak theory? 

Just because we speak theoretical biology mechanics doesn't translate to just go and do it tomorrow...

That is equal to me talking about it is indeed possible for a desperate person to kill 30 people with 30 bullets. But then you go. Where are you going to get the gun, how does the desperate person have excess energy to find a gun, and pay for 30 bullets. 

Is it impossible just to take science/theory/hypothetical things for what they are. Without the need to make a to do list on how to do them in 5 mins. I don't understand your need and brain on that point.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Come on, guys. I'm sure they accidentally slipped and fell down right onto someone's else genitalia. 

@OP
Affair can be a nice distraction or an escape from real problems. Marriage brings problems into your life.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

apa said:


> Not all hobbies cost money. Not everything needs to be coordinated. Children also have a brain. Again why do you assume all kind of stuff?


Most hobbies cost money in today's day in age. Even that ball to throw at the wall costs money. Children have a brain, sure, but they can't take care of themselves when they're young. I've read theories that we _are_ designed to be monogamous for about 4 years at a time due to this because that's about the length it takes a child to grow from infancy.

I'm not assuming anything either. I know a lot of mothers  And I know a lot of fathers who take for granted the amount of work that can go into what they don't even consider. I'm not saying that you are one of these fathers. You don't have children. (Right?) Lol.



apa said:


> Okay first of all. You simply call breeding biology for a weak theory. Can't you comprehend that it is possible to say that our genes want to procreate as much as possible. But the body is just one aspect of us. We also have a brain not just to make 10 children without thinking some stuff do. At least some of us use that brain, I can't speak for all of us.


Mere procreation doesn't automatically equal gene survival though. Actually, even removing the "human" and societal aspect from this, even in the wild this isn't synonymous. The offspring of female lions are often killed when a new male joins a pride, for example. There are other animals (mothers) who will kill or eat their babies if they don't feel that their living conditions are conducive to properly raising their young.

If the goal is survival of the seed and not just the spreading of the seed, it often benefits the male to stick around.



apa said:


> You simply deny that if a man who just let him control by his body had 10 attractive women in front of him, and he could have sex with all of them. He would deny it? If there was no societal consequence and blabla. That is a weak theory?


No, I don't deny that, but as I already said, I think it's weak to directly link libido with a desire to look out for the welfare (survival) of genes. And I'm sure there are dudes who would deny this anyway. What if the women repulsed him? What if he were gay? What if he'd just eaten a whole lot of Taco Bell?


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

@Veggie

What if this, what if that. What if we just focused on what the other wrote, instead of creating a billion scenarios assuming stuff the person never wrote or intended.

Maybe we are more a like than we should think? In my humble opinion you just have a quite weird way formulating yourself, that a lot of people might misunderstand. (But so do I) - For example in the thread about "having game, as a man" I did actually agree with the essence of what you wrote, but the way you phrased it really make it look weird, and that is why most people responded to you like they did. Even though that people might have agreed with what you really meant if you had formulated yourself in a different way.

I am done for today. Too tired. We are very different, and that is both the frustrating, yet fascinating part about a debate. So thanks for writing.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Because relationships are all about how we feel in a world where feelings are not a societal priority. Because people don't take emotional commitments seriously and assume that that is the way it ought to be. Or maybe they know they've committed to the wrong emotions (that's the more likely). 

Because it's easier to seek from the outside what is waiting to be discovered on the inside. The reasons I imagine are going to be as varied as the people who do it. Maybe it's nothing but hedonism in its finest. 

Or maybe it's just another testimony to how stupid people truly our with our asumption that we're entitled to things and experiences just because. 

Studies actually suggest the more options a person has, the less happy they are. Love is a fantasy and not a documentary. Not everyone is in the privileged position to be patient for love, nor is everyone deserving of a happy ending. 

Maybe our happy endings ARE the affairs. (No pun intended). Maybe we need to choose and create and limit our options to what we need as opposed to what we think we want. 

And maybe we need to learn to give good enough a chance because with that foundation an actual house can be built. Too many people have moved into nothing but a house of cards and inevitably find themselves in an affair seeking stable ground. How ironic. Yet, not surprising at all ...


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

> Studies actually suggest the more options a person has, the less happy they are.


Studies also suggest studies are biased, and limited  - Not really difficult to find studies for whatever to back up any belief you have. Pretty black and white trying to drag that down over all of our heads, that we are supposed to be less happy with more options. Don't you think people are very different, and therefore it is very relative to the person if more possibilities is puncturing happiness or not?

For example, I dislike very strongly being limited. Know a lot of others being like that too.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't know, but they must have a lot of reasons.

Of the people I've known who have cheated...some were "he/she cheated on me first," which seems like a silly reason but perhaps we shouldn't underestimate passive aggression. Cheating is sort of aggressive in that it's dismissing another person's feelings.

Another possibility is that one relationship was more rational for the life goals (having a family etc.) whereas the other contained romantic and intellectual chemistry. So the passionless relationship contained the security, while the insecure one contained the romantic or erotic satisfaction. 

And some seem to romanticize it as they are just following their feelings and seem to think they are caught in some kind of cheesy romantic paperback that is set in the past. Like cheating used to be symbolic of feeling or romance overcoming hierarchy, tradition, or rationality (like lets marry these people to each other so we become richer and more powerful), but there are not the same pressures in most situations now, and sometimes cheating is more an example of calculation over feeling.


----------



## HermioneG (Jul 1, 2015)

HermioneG said:


> Because monogomy is for swans. Not natural for humans.


 I have never cheated. I have fought against the urge my entire marriage. A lot of that urge comes from disappointments in my husband and in myself for allowing our issues to grow as large as they have. I have gotten to a point where I feel I could cheat and not feel guilty if I was in the right situation. That scares me, because I know it isn't "right" by our society's standards and I value rules and doing the right thing. I used to always think there was something wrong with me for feeling this way. Now I realize that I am just not wired to be monogamous. I think a lot of people are the same but don't talk about it. Staying monogamous is the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I have sacrificed my happiness and my health in order to keep my pants on.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

HermioneG said:


> I have never cheated. I have fought against the urge my entire marriage. A lot of that urge comes from disappointments in my husband and in myself for allowing our issues to grow as large as they have. I have gotten to a point where I feel I could cheat and not feel guilty if I was in the right situation. That scares me, because I know it isn't "right" by our society's standards and I value rules and doing the right thing. I used to always think there was something wrong with me for feeling this way. Now I realize that I am just not wired to be monogamous. I think a lot of people are the same but don't talk about it. Staying monogamous is the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I have sacrificed my happiness and my health in order to keep my pants on.


But this, in my view, actually supports his view that monogamy isn't natural but more of a societal construct. What you are doing might be noble, but it is a hard struggle as it is against your natural desires.


----------



## FelixFahrenheit (Aug 9, 2014)

for the craic


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

apa said:


> @Veggie
> 
> What if this, what if that. What if we just focused on what the other wrote, instead of creating a billion scenarios assuming stuff the person never wrote or intended.


I am focusing on what you wrote. You wrote that a man, just focusing on his body alone, would feel a biological drive to have sex with ten women in front of him. I'm providing purely physical scenarios where this wouldn't be the case. I could go on. Maybe they're his sisters. Maybe he's detecting pheromones warning against an undesirable genetic mutation should he implant his seed in these particular women. Maybe they're all on the rag.



apa said:


> Maybe we are more a like than we should think? In my humble opinion you just have a quite weird way formulating yourself, that a lot of people might misunderstand. (But so do I) - For example in the thread about "having game, as a man" I did actually agree with the essence of what you wrote, but the way you phrased it really make it look weird, and that is why most people responded to you like they did. Even though that people might have agreed with what you really meant if you had formulated yourself in a different way.


You don't need to insult (excuse me, "help me with" ...lol) the way I write as a last ditch attempt to assert dominance. I think I communicate just fine. It's a craft I try to fine tune often. People were probably disagreeing with me because we had different stances on the issue.

Yea, we probably do have a similar outlook on this though. I'm a lot more forgiving of the whole libido argument than a lot of people I've found (I dunno, libido aside, I can get bored in relationships too if I'm being completely honest), but taking that a step further to a survival of offspring place is something that really bothers me and that I'm not willing to budge on.



apa said:


> I am done for today. Too tired. We are very different, and that is both the frustrating, yet fascinating part about a debate. So thanks for writing.


Lol. Sure.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

apa said:


> Studies also suggest studies are biased, and limited  - Not really difficult to find studies for whatever to back up any belief you have. Pretty black and white trying to drag that down over all of our heads, that we are supposed to be less happy with more options. Don't you think people are very different, and therefore it is very relative to the person if more possibilities is puncturing happiness or not?
> 
> For example, *I dislike very strongly being limited*. Know a lot of others being like that too.


I think that the idea that having lots of choices being a hindrance to enjoying life is quite well-founded. Although we all think we want more choices, it might not in reality make us happier. It's a form of illusion of expectancy that as such isn't much different from thinking that your life will be o so much better once you get married. An abundance of choices is like marriage; sounds great but might not live up to what you expect, and you'll be just as happy (or less) as you were before.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

I remember watching a documentary a few years ago regarding mammalian reproduction. According to my memory there were basically two strategies that would ensure the survival of your offspring, one was to rely solely on having strong genes, and the animals who did this would share a list of traits, like the male being much larger than the female, one male would have hundreds of females while many others had none, and many other that I don't remember. The other strategy would be monogamy and animals in this group would have traits like the male and female being of equal size, monogamous, longer period in which they took care of their offspring, etc.

The interesting thing about humans was that we were an in-between species. We use both strategies simultaneously. Our males are slightly larger than the females, but not as excessively as seen in many other species. We have the emotion of love which makes us focus our attention on a specific, attractive individual with whom we can mate, so we certainly have selection mechanisms. All in all humans are torn between two opposing systems which are both defining of us.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

IDK maybe a one time affair is due to a breakdown in communication that leads to unresolved resentment issues & after a while of hurt piled upon hurt, the damage just wears you down to the point that it appears irreparable. At some point it's just easier to start over with another & so it's time to try other people out in an attempt to locate what's missing. 

Serial cheaters are just broken people that are unworthy of others affections.


----------



## 54-46 ThatsMyNumber (Mar 26, 2011)

Marriage is an outdated unnecessary institution and we are animals, what do you expect. Keep getting married, keep buying into the illusion, care what your neighbors, friends or acquaintances think or assume about you, keep believing the movies, tv shows and magazines, the truth is its just a word and it changes everything for the worse. We are intelligent monkeys at best, why would we force ourselves into unnatural circumstances and feel bad about doing what is natural and programmed withen us. Marriage is just like time or money, an unreal untrue man made institution.


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

For the reason that a specific person cheats in a specific situation.

Considering this whole monogamy isn't natural controversy. It's irrelevant. Being faithful should be a matter of integrity more than anything. Honesty to yourself and someone you love. If you are with them without actually wanting to, or because you're pressured by society to do so, that's a whole different story. Point is, we're intelligent and free enough to make our choices, stick to them or not. Biology plays a part in it, but I cannot accept either that I'm an animal, or that I'm completely free of natural urges.


----------



## doublejm1 (Sep 2, 2012)

stargazing grasshopper said:


> IDK maybe a one time affair is due to a breakdown in communication that leads to unresolved resentment issues & after a while of hurt piled upon hurt, the damage just wears you down to the point that it appears irreparable. At some point it's just easier to start over with another & so it's time to try other people out in an attempt to locate what's missing.
> 
> Serial cheaters are just broken people that are unworthy of others affections.


Great points.


----------



## MaggieMay (Dec 27, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> marriage gets boring


Only if you let it.
I think a more accurate statement would be that marriage changes and it eventually becomes comfortable.
If two people let their spark & flame die or the other partner snuffs it out, it is not that marriage got boring but that they stopped chasing each other and making their relationship a priority instead of "getting to it later." 

Just my personal opinion, but I suspect that is a great cause of marriage being "boring."


----------



## MaggieMay (Dec 27, 2014)

54-46 ThatsMyNumber said:


> Marriage is an outdated unnecessary institution and we are animals, what do you expect. Keep getting married, keep buying into the illusion, care what your neighbors, friends or acquaintances think or assume about you, keep believing the movies, tv shows and magazines, the truth is its just a word and it changes everything for the worse. We are intelligent monkeys at best, why would we force ourselves into unnatural circumstances and feel bad about doing what is natural and programmed withen us. Marriage is just like time or money, an unreal untrue man made institution.


Lies. 
Loyalty is a matter of personal integrity. 
We are not animals, we are human and that allows us to also disillusion and excuse ourselves. 
Marriage will never be out-dated, it is the only thing that can sustain us in every way without ruin. 
By the way, it is said that God created marriage because it was the foundation to build something lasting. Just because you feel from personal circumstance or opinion that it is not concrete does not make it untrue. We are programmed with a choice to follow lust or to follow what we know to be right. Which dog you feed and let win is entirely up to you. 

I don't mean to come off any specific way other than disagreeing, by the way. 
Your comment was just so full of negativity and hurt about one of the most wonderful things that I've ever experienced I felt compelled to reply.


----------



## marygold (Aug 23, 2015)

https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_perel_rethinking_infidelity_a_talk_for_anyone_who_has_ever_loved


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

Because they didn't love their partner, and they didn't marry their partner out of love, they probably marry their partner for some other reasons other than true love. 

Sad, but true.


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

Veggie said:


> In today's complex society as human beings with educations and careers to consider your genes have the best chance of surviving and thriving in a stable and nurturing home environment.


Your hormones and genes are very primitive and primal. They know nothing about society. You could get blindfolded and stimulated to orgasm. Your body doesn't give a shit about education and conditions.


----------



## Tao Te Ching (May 3, 2013)

Because we are all shit bags.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I've had married women come on to me, haha. It's weird.


It sort of seems like every other person cheats. It's kind of sad, but irks me the most is that these people can't even be upfront and honest and just avoid freaking marriage or long-term relationships if they can't handle commitment. Or maybe I just attract cheaters *sigh* I don't know. It's like weed. 

How many people say that don't, when actually do toke; at least occasionally?


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

It reminds me of this song actually. It's almost as if marriage is no longer temporary, or expected to be. But people should seriously asses for themselves if it's right for them, instead of doing it "just because" it's tradition or whatever.


----------



## UraniaIsis (Nov 26, 2014)

Different humans have different hard-wiring. Some are hardwired for long-term mating, some for short-term, some for no term at all than to jackrabbit their way through existence, others seem to have no hard-wiring to mate whatsoever. There is no one-size-fits-all mating preference for humans, regardless of what various societal constructions try to impose. 

Having an affair is socially considered a taboo and people in general seem to have a fetish for the taboo. It's the thrill of not getting caught or the potential of being caught that has humans pursuing that adrenaline rush. Emotional fulfillment and understanding my a**. It's all about taking a chance with long-term and costly risks and consequences for temporary reward and instant gratification. Doing it just because one can, which is perfectly fine among the non-married and/or those who have mutually open marriages. But, just as in any business, if one party breaches their end of the marriage contract there will be legal penalties that no amounts of "I'm sorry" are going to fix. Most of the "cheaters" don't experience the epiphany of their potential losses until they are caught and everything in their lives snowball downhill from there. Thank goodness for religion, most spouses probably wouldn't forgive and would divorce as soon as possible.


----------



## Deejaz (Feb 19, 2014)

the amount of hostility towards the nature of monogamy surprises me.

I would simply say they are unhappy, or are unfulfilled. But then, who isn't.


----------



## TapudiPie (Feb 21, 2015)

Because divorce is a financial burden.
Loyalty and money have different weights to different people so some choose to break their loyalty in order to prevent half their cash being "taken away"


----------



## 54-46 ThatsMyNumber (Mar 26, 2011)

MaggieMay said:


> Lies.
> Loyalty is a matter of personal integrity.
> We are not animals, we are human and that allows us to also disillusion and excuse ourselves.
> Marriage will never be out-dated, it is the only thing that can sustain us in every way without ruin.
> ...


lie2


lī/


noun


plural noun: lies


1.


an intentionally false statement.

That's what you think I did? I have an opinion that differs from yours, you can think it's bullshit, I could care less but I'm not lying. It's just that


There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right."


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

apa said:


> Your hormones and genes are very primitive and primal. They know nothing about society. You could get blindfolded and stimulated to orgasm. Your body doesn't give a shit about education and conditions.


Dude we already did this. Back and forth and back and forth for pages. You kind of lost the debate from my perspective and resorted to pettiness. I'm not interested in continuing or repeating myself.


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Dude we already did this. Back and forth and back and forth for pages. You kind of lost the debate from my perspective and resorted to pettiness. I'm not interested in continuing or repeating myself.


I am very sorry about my pettiness, can you forgive me?


----------

