''Infidelity is a patriarchal way of controlling women. It is about control"

[movie zombie]

probably the best thing i've read re the Tiger's and Jesse's of the world......with some great advice from a woman that lived it and got out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-norris-de-montaigu/infidelity-narcissists-ch_b_522809.html

mz

 

[perry]

Interesting article.

While I agree with the damage done by infidelity (where there is an exception of exclusivity); I disagree that the people who practice such out of control infidelity are trying to control. In the cases where people are sleeping with many multiple partners - they have lost control and are in no way capable of seriously thinking of or exercising control.

There are also a variety of reasons for infidelity. While it is easy to classify most infidelity into a couple common groupings... there are lessor cases that happen for other reasons. So you have to look at each case. Certainly, someone who is threatened that they will have sex or else (and the or else would have a signifiant impact on their life) is much different than someone who decides that they are just going to sleep with as many as they can for ego, instant gratification, etc.

Of course, a very interesting question that I have never gotten a good answer to: At what level is complying with sexual coercion considered infidelity and when is it rape (and is rape still infidelity).


Perry

 

[jewelz617]

Great article.

 

[stepcutgirl]

I''m not sure I agree that it is a way to control women. But I agree with most the rest of it.

 

[elrohwen]

I don''t agree with the quote, but I agree with the rest of the article. I honestly don''t think men are using this as a way to control women - I don''t think the control is really in their mind when they''re cheating. I think there are a lot of other things at work.

I found the article kind of hard to read with all of the ... but I agree with the content.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Date: 4/2/2010 4:41:12 PM
Author: perry

Certainly, someone who is threatened that they will have sex or else (and the or else would have a signifiant impact on their life) is much different than someone who decides that they are just going to sleep with as many as they can for ego, instant gratification, etc.

Of course, a very interesting question that I have never gotten a good answer to: At what level is complying with sexual coercion considered infidelity and when is it rape (and is rape still infidelity).

Perry

I can''t imagine any civilised, humane person considering rape as infidelity any more than someone would consider being rear-ended while driving as a vehicular suicide attempt - both ideas are equally ridiculous to me - and insulting to the rape victim! (not maybe the best comparison but it''s the best I could come up with right now) Rape is about power and control and demeaning and devaluing someone - this is not the victim''s choice and as such, cannot possibly be considered infidelity. Rape is considered the victim''s fault (or reflective of their own choices) in societies where women ARE already controlled and valued only as property.

However - I think there is a grayer area in terms of your first question - I think it would be a personal boundary depending on each case and each couple. For me - if my husband complied with sexual coercion if the consequences would lead to physical harm to himself or anyone else, I would have only empathy for him and the sexual abuse he suffered. If he complied with sexual coercion for another, lesser (to me) reason (i.e., to keep his job, or not get into trouble for a mistake he made or other, similar, reason), I would treat that as infidelity.

 

[Karl_K]

Just skimmed it but it was not written by a guy that''s for sure.
Everyone I have asked why they cheated the answer always was about sex.

 

[HVVS]

Date: 4/2/2010 7:05:05 PM
Author: Karl_K
Just skimmed it but it was not written by a guy that's for sure.

Everyone I have asked why they cheated the answer always was about sex.

Yes. I think what it reduces down to is: Non-monogamous men primarily have only one use for a woman. They will make any excuse whatsoever, but the behavior pattern is always the same. Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets for those men.

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 4/2/2010 7:35:46 PM
Author: HVVS

Date: 4/2/2010 7:05:05 PM

Author: Karl_K

Just skimmed it but it was not written by a guy that's for sure.


Everyone I have asked why they cheated the answer always was about sex.

Yes. I think what it reduces down to is: Non-monogamous men primarily have only one use for a woman. They will make any excuse whatsoever, but the behavior pattern is always the same. Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets for those men.

I'd be interested in seeing the research and evidence that led you to the conclusion that "Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets" for cheating men.

 

[perry]

Date: 4/2/2010 6:17:53 PM
Author: Maevie

Date: 4/2/2010 4:41:12 PM

Author: perry


Certainly, someone who is threatened that they will have sex or else (and the or else would have a signifiant impact on their life) is much different than someone who decides that they are just going to sleep with as many as they can for ego, instant gratification, etc.


Of course, a very interesting question that I have never gotten a good answer to: At what level is complying with sexual coercion considered infidelity and when is it rape (and is rape still infidelity).


Perry

I can''t imagine any civilised, humane person considering rape as infidelity any more than someone would consider being rear-ended while driving as a vehicular suicide attempt - both ideas are equally ridiculous to me - and insulting to the rape victim! (not maybe the best comparison but it''s the best I could come up with right now) Rape is about power and control and demeaning and devaluing someone - this is not the victim''s choice and as such, cannot possibly be considered infidelity. Rape is considered the victim''s fault (or reflective of their own choices) in societies where women ARE already controlled and valued only as property.


However - I think there is a grayer area in terms of your first question - I think it would be a personal boundary depending on each case and each couple. For me - if my husband complied with sexual coercion if the consequences would lead to physical harm to himself or anyone else, I would have only empathy for him and the sexual abuse he suffered. If he complied with sexual coercion for another, lesser (to me) reason (i.e., to keep his job, or not get into trouble for a mistake he made or other, similar, reason), I would treat that as infidelity.

I personally agree that rape is not infidelity; but I have heard enough other folks blame the rape victim and consider it as such.

To me, I''m not actually that concerned with if my partner has sex with someone - I am concerned about the reason for the sex; and acknowledge up front that their may be a reasonable explanation; thus I will listen to and consider the explanation and situation. A marriage is about a lot more than sex.

Perry

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 4/2/2010 7:47:19 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 4/2/2010 7:35:46 PM

Author: HVVS

Date: 4/2/2010 7:05:05 PM

Author: Karl_K

Just skimmed it but it was not written by a guy that's for sure.

Everyone I have asked why they cheated the answer always was about sex.

Yes. I think what it reduces down to is: Non-monogamous men primarily have only one use for a woman. They will make any excuse whatsoever, but the behavior pattern is always the same. Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets for those men.

I'd be interested in seeing the research and evidence that led you to the conclusion that 'Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets' for cheating men.

I'm all for research and evidence, but that conclusion is pretty obvious without it. If a woman has no career or money of her own, and no way to make enough money to support herself and any children she may have, it's pretty difficult for her to leave a cheater.

And it doesn't even have to be at the level of Tiger Woods marrying an au pair. If a woman gets married on the younger side, has kids pretty quickly, and ends up a stay at home mom, her earning potential is much lower than a woman who gets married later in life and has had time to establish her career.

The married young/SAHM would have to weigh her options carefully when deciding whether or not to leave her cheating husband. The woman who had time to establish a career wouldn't have to worry as much about her ability to support herself and her children. So it's a much easier choice for her.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 4/2/2010 9:17:58 PM
Author: perry
I personally agree that rape is not infidelity; but I have heard enough other folks blame the rape victim and consider it as such.

Perry

I sincerely hope you disabused them of such a misguided notion.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Date: 4/2/2010 9:34:31 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 4/2/2010 9:17:58 PM

Author: perry

I personally agree that rape is not infidelity; but I have heard enough other folks blame the rape victim and consider it as such.


Perry

I sincerely hope you disabused them of such a misguided notion.

Thank you Galateia! it is disugsting that people can think that way

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 4/2/2010 4:41:12 PM
Author: perry

Of course, a very interesting question that I have never gotten a good answer to: At what level is complying with sexual coercion considered infidelity and when is it rape (and is rape still infidelity).

I think the first part of your question is difficult to answer, Perry, but the highlighted portion is very easy to answer: No.

And I''m not really sure why you even had to ask.

 

[ksinger]

Well, I consider myself a card-carrying gen-u-wine feminist, and think that while this idea has some merit, it is also more than a bit simplistic. This issue seems less about the patriarchy than about mental illness and addiction. And I really do wish that people would stop tossing around the moniker of "narcissist". There was a REAL DSM diagnosable narcissist in my family, and trust me, narcissism of that type is NOT just being a selfish bastard. It is a horrid mental affliction that can destroy everyone who comes in contact with that person. Without knowing specifics about the type of cheating going on, it's a stretch to diagnose narcissism or to say that all men who cheat are narcissists. It seems likely that the Tiger Woods serial cheater types may be narcissists, but every guy who ever cheated? Not buying it.

So ladies, the lesson here is don't marry narcissists. Read up on how to recognize them, and then do the only thing to be done. STAY AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE!!

Oh, and the narcissist in my family was a woman....

 

[steph72276]

Date: 4/2/2010 9:31:49 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 4/2/2010 7:47:19 PM

Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 4/2/2010 7:35:46 PM


Author: HVVS

Date: 4/2/2010 7:05:05 PM


Author: Karl_K


Just skimmed it but it was not written by a guy that''s for sure.


Everyone I have asked why they cheated the answer always was about sex.

Yes. I think what it reduces down to is: Non-monogamous men primarily have only one use for a woman. They will make any excuse whatsoever, but the behavior pattern is always the same. Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets for those men.

I''d be interested in seeing the research and evidence that led you to the conclusion that ''Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets'' for cheating men.

I''m all for research and evidence, but that conclusion is pretty obvious without it. If a woman has no career or money of her own, and no way to make enough money to support herself and any children she may have, it''s pretty difficult for her to leave a cheater.


And it doesn''t even have to be at the level of Tiger Woods marrying an au pair. If a woman gets married on the younger side, has kids pretty quickly, and ends up a stay at home mom, her earning potential is much lower than a woman who gets married later in life and has had time to establish her career.


The married young/SAHM would have to weigh her options carefully when deciding whether or not to leave her cheating husband. The woman who had time to establish a career wouldn''t have to worry as much about her ability to support herself and her children. So it''s a much easier choice for her.

Thing,
While I agree it could be harder for a SAHM to leave if they were not involved in family finances, most SAHMs I have ever met (including myself) have a degree and have work experience before they became a SAHM. Also, most families have retirement savings and assets that would be split 50/50. That coupled with child support/alimony would make it easier to get out of a bad situation. I do know there are women that don''t have this kind of back up plan, but just don''t go feeling sorry for all stay at home moms thinking they have no way out if their husbands cheat

.

 

[KatyWI]

Date: 4/3/2010 9:29:30 AM
Author: FL Steph

Date: 4/2/2010 9:31:49 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 4/2/2010 7:47:19 PM


Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 4/2/2010 7:35:46 PM



Author: HVVS

Date: 4/2/2010 7:05:05 PM



Author: Karl_K



Just skimmed it but it was not written by a guy that''s for sure.



Everyone I have asked why they cheated the answer always was about sex.

Yes. I think what it reduces down to is: Non-monogamous men primarily have only one use for a woman. They will make any excuse whatsoever, but the behavior pattern is always the same. Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets for those men.

I''d be interested in seeing the research and evidence that led you to the conclusion that ''Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets'' for cheating men.

I''m all for research and evidence, but that conclusion is pretty obvious without it. If a woman has no career or money of her own, and no way to make enough money to support herself and any children she may have, it''s pretty difficult for her to leave a cheater.



And it doesn''t even have to be at the level of Tiger Woods marrying an au pair. If a woman gets married on the younger side, has kids pretty quickly, and ends up a stay at home mom, her earning potential is much lower than a woman who gets married later in life and has had time to establish her career.



The married young/SAHM would have to weigh her options carefully when deciding whether or not to leave her cheating husband. The woman who had time to establish a career wouldn''t have to worry as much about her ability to support herself and her children. So it''s a much easier choice for her.

Thing,

While I agree it could be harder for a SAHM to leave if they were not involved in family finances, most SAHMs I have ever met (including myself) have a degree and have work experience before they became a SAHM. Also, most families have retirement savings and assets that would be split 50/50. That coupled with child support/alimony would make it easier to get out of a bad situation. I do know there are women that don''t have this kind of back up plan, but just don''t go feeling sorry for all stay at home moms thinking they have no way out if their husbands cheat

.

Steph, I''d say that the truth of this statement GREATLY varies from region to region. I''m living in the Midwest, and I know PLENTY of SAHMs that are not at all or only partially college educated. In fact, I know lots of PEOPLE that don''t have a college education. Growing up in CT, college wasn''t really a choice, it was a given, and everyone just went. But out here? People make the decision not to go all the time.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 4/3/2010 9:29:30 AM
Author: FL Steph

Date: 4/2/2010 9:31:49 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 4/2/2010 7:47:19 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 4/2/2010 7:35:46 PM
Author: HVVS

Date: 4/2/2010 7:05:05 PM
Author: Karl_K

Just skimmed it but it was not written by a guy that's for sure.

Everyone I have asked why they cheated the answer always was about sex.

Yes. I think what it reduces down to is: Non-monogamous men primarily have only one use for a woman. They will make any excuse whatsoever, but the behavior pattern is always the same. Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets for those men.

I'd be interested in seeing the research and evidence that led you to the conclusion that 'Women who do not have their own careers, their own money, and do not wield some intellectual and financial clout of their own are prime targets' for cheating men.

I'm all for research and evidence, but that conclusion is pretty obvious without it. If a woman has no career or money of her own, and no way to make enough money to support herself and any children she may have, it's pretty difficult for her to leave a cheater.

And it doesn't even have to be at the level of Tiger Woods marrying an au pair. If a woman gets married on the younger side, has kids pretty quickly, and ends up a stay at home mom, her earning potential is much lower than a woman who gets married later in life and has had time to establish her career.

The married young/SAHM would have to weigh her options carefully when deciding whether or not to leave her cheating husband. The woman who had time to establish a career wouldn't have to worry as much about her ability to support herself and her children. So it's a much easier choice for her.

Thing,

While I agree it could be harder for a SAHM to leave if they were not involved in family finances, most SAHMs I have ever met (including myself) have a degree and have work experience before they became a SAHM. Also, most families have retirement savings and assets that would be split 50/50. That coupled with child support/alimony would make it easier to get out of a bad situation. I do know there are women that don't have this kind of back up plan, but just don't go feeling sorry for all stay at home moms thinking they have no way out if their husbands cheat

.

Not sure where I said all SAHMs didn't have degrees, or that I felt sorry for them. I know many SAHMs work before staying at home, but being out of the work force for a minimum of 5 years (if you just stay at home until the kid goes to school), but usually much longer, hurts a woman's earning potential no matter how many degrees she had before she left the work force. Funnily enough there's a great article in the Washington Post Magazine this weekend about a SAHM who was a former lawyer trying to return to the work force. link

The bottom line is that women in a divorce end up worse off than men in a divorce, regardless of alimony and child support. Research has shown that after a divorce, women's income decreases by around 20%, whereas men's income INCREASES by around 33%. And that has plenty of research to support it. Here's a link to an article that talks about it: link

My point (and I believe HVVS's) is that it's pretty obvious that a woman with none of her own $ at the time of the divorce is going to have a harder time deciding to leave a cheater than a woman who works full time and knows she can support herself if the marriage ends.

ETA Katy makes a great point, too. I was raised in a rural area on the east coast, and many of the girls I went to high school with didn't go to college, got married a few years after high school, had kids, and stayed at home with them. Their chances of landing a well-paying job after a divorce would be slim to none.

 

[steph72276]

Thing, I know you didn''t say ALL SAHMs don''t have a degree or that you feel sorry for them. I was simply pointing out that most SAHMs know the risk they are taking by going out of the workforce and are smart enough to have a back-up plan in case of sickness/death/divorce, that''s all.

 

[Miscka]

Date: 4/3/2010 8:15:43 AM
Author: ksinger
This issue seems less about the patriarchy than about mental illness and addiction. It is a horrid mental affliction that can destroy everyone who comes in contact with that person. Without knowing specifics about the type of cheating going on, it''s a stretch to diagnose narcissism or to say that all men who cheat are narcissists. It seems likely that the Tiger Woods serial cheater types may be narcissists, but every guy who ever cheated? Not buying it.

+1, was thinking this exactly.

 

[movie zombie]

imo, the article was about serial cheaters, not the "average" cheater. whatever the "average" cheater may or not be....male or female. i also believe there are women serial cheaters.

mz

 

[Arkteia]

I do not know if you are going to shred me to pieces or agree with me. I am a scientist by nature and maybe it makes me cynical. But as human beings, we have not gotten far away from our pre-anscestors. Now, in prehistoric times the average lifespan of a man would be 20 years. Most of them would die of accidents, in battles or during hunts. So...the main goal of any species is survival. A man had to leave as much posterity as possible. Hence there was no monogamy, in fact the less fidelity, the higher chance of procreation. So...it may be in men's genes.

It is a different thing for a woman. While she has to give birth to kids, she also has to safeguard their survival. To protect. To nourish. Being pregnant all the time is hard and wears her down prematurely. Having sex all the time when she is carrying a baby in her arms, breast-feeding him may be dangerous for the baby. So infidelity may not be in her genes.

Than is why an average man's lifespan is shorter than an average woman's one. Once he has fulfilled his function...of procreating and protecting the tribe...Women live longer because even when they are old, they can still help raise the children.

Same for sex drive. Man's sexual peak is in his 20-es. Woman's sexual drive peaks at mid-thirties...as if nature's attempt to make her wanting to have sex before she hits menopause and leave more children.

I don't know how things will change because a major invention in the course of evolution has happened - THE PILL. It is an incredible thing. Women have learned to control their cycles, and it is a huge thing. I believe this is the main cause of emancipation - not the fight for it, just the ability to decide when and whether to get pregnant. From the standpoint of biology, it is the pinnacle of liberation. No more male domineering, no more male control! Eventually it should change man's sexual nature. I do not know how soon, though, because it usually takes a while for the genetic code to change. But I think we are already seeing a difference.

That is why I do not support beliefs or traditions that do not allow women to use contraception. Sorry if I am offending anyone - but not allowing woman to decide is the ultimate form of control. As long as woman is able to make a decision whether to get pregnant or not, she is able to choose a mate. It becomes her choice. And eventually she'll find a person who is not cheating and will be a good father to the offsprings.

 

[jewelz617]

VERY interesting observations, Crasru! Food for thought, and yes I do agree that this makes sense.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 4/3/2010 6:13:56 PM
Author: crasru
I do not know if you are going to shred me to pieces or agree with me. I am a scientist by nature and maybe it makes me cynical. But as human beings, we have not gotten far away from our pre-anscestors. Now, in prehistoric times the average lifespan of a man would be 20 years. Most of them would die of accidents, in battles or during hunts. So...the main goal of any species is survival. A man had to leave as much posterity as possible. Hence there was no monogamy, in fact the less fidelity, the higher chance of procreation. So...it may be in men''s genes.

It is a different thing for a woman. While she has to give birth to kids, she also has to safeguard their survival. To protect. To nourish. Being pregnant all the time is hard and wears her down prematurely. Having sex all the time when she is carrying a baby in her arms, breast-feeding him may be dangerous for the baby. So infidelity may not be in her genes.

Than is why an average man''s lifespan is shorter than an average woman''s one. Once he has fulfilled his function...of procreating and protecting the tribe...Women live longer because even when they are old, they can still help raise the children.

Same for sex drive. Man''s sexual peak is in his 20-es. Woman''s sexual drive peaks at mid-thirties...as if nature''s attempt to make her wanting to have sex before she hits menopause and leave more children.

I don''t know how things will change because a major invention in the course of evolution has happened - THE PILL. It is an incredible thing. Women have learned to control their cycles, and it is a huge thing. I believe this is the main cause of emancipation - not the fight for it, just the ability to decide when and whether to get pregnant. From the standpoint of biology, it is the pinnacle of liberation. No more male domineering, no more male control! Eventually it should change man''s sexual nature. I do not know how soon, though, because it usually takes a while for the genetic code to change. But I think we are already seeing a difference.

That is why I do not support beliefs or traditions that do not allow women to use contraception. Sorry if I am offending anyone - but not allowing woman to decide is the ultimate form of control. As long as woman is able to make a decision whether to get pregnant or not, she is able to choose a mate. It becomes her choice. And eventually she''ll find a person who is not cheating and will be a good father to the offsprings.

Yeah, all the little bits and pieces coming out of the field of evolutionary biology are certainly fitting together in some interesting ways, aren''t they? I try to keep up as much as a layperson can.

 

[miraclesrule]

One thing that never seems to be discussed during the biological studies of a man''s need to procreate yada, yada... is that there lacks evidence that he has a concomitant biological imperative to LIE and CHEAT in connection with the biological need to spread seed.

We are not cavemen and women anymore. I think the problem of cheating men has more to do with the overwhelming number of women who have no respect for the other women in unavailable men. Men are often cowards. Most of them won''t leave a bad relationship unless they have another one waiting in the wings. It''s a crappy situation for a woman who refuses to get involved with a man while he has another women in the same house.

I have a friend who is well aware of the fact that men and women (especially attractive men and women) will find themselves the target of an infatuated member of the opposite sex and/or attracted to one. It happens. It is inevitable that we will be attracted to many people in our lives if we live long enough. It''s how one deals with it that matters.

My friend and her husband talk about it openly. If a new young teacher comes to school and becomes flirty with my friend''s husband and she''s cute and he finds her physically attractive...he tells my friend...his wife. They talk about it. It defuses the situation and normalizes without any need to get a self-esteem fix behind the back. UGH...it just pisses me off because these things are so easy to remedy...in my mind. But apparently, few think like I do.