monogamy

[mama cass]

yolland, it was a bit of a shock for me too when i moved to France from the UK... was chatting to someone once who was quite matter of fact about her partner having had a "mistress", she just brought it up in passing conversation while i tried to stop my eyes popping out of my head lol

i live in quite a small community in rural France, and have seen quite a bit of switching going on around in terms of relationships in certain circles, and also there have been a fair few horror stories of local business men who have had serial affairs supposedly without their wives knowing, followed by horrible public humiliation of the wife in one particular case i know of! the men are literally applauded and cheered on by other men, and the wives are blamed for their infidelities! that to me has been incredibly shocking... it's pretty destructive i think... one lady i know is aware her partner is unfaithful, says she hates it, but just turns a blind eye, and recently two friends have finally split from their serial unfaithful partners after years and years of turning a blind eye... the worst thing here is the horrible gossip surrounding it all - there is zero anonymity and the locals pry so much into people's business it truly is vile!!

also, here it's not just the men, a couple of ladies i know with children (married or in a long-term relationship) have had several flings, and they're really not phased or embarrassed about it at all - it's all totally out in the open, and the kids just have to put up with it apparently, moving in and out of the family home with their mums' new boyfriends, etc... although in those particular cases, the husband/partner are also known to have affairs...

i feel such a prude sometimes lol!!

i am in a monogamous relationship, and couldn't or wouldn't want to be any other way - i would be devastated if either myself or my husband took that step and slept with someone else... to me sex is a big thing, hugely intimate, and it would be a massive thing for me to make that decision to physically be with someone else, i couldn't live with myself really, but that's just me - people just have to be how they're comfortable being...

 

[anitram]

my bigger question is whether or not we are placing too much emphasis on sexual exclusivity, and demanding that we be totally fulfilled (or, at least satiated) by our partners in so many areas of life that it becomes very, very difficult to find that one person who can do all those things, and those things may change over time.

I am not sure whether this is the position that you're taking but I would definitely disagree with it.

Yes, our partners would ideally have to fulfill man areas of our life if we are to have a truly good relationship. But to me, there are VERY important areas of fulfillment and then less important ones - a spectrum if you will. And I just place sexual compatibility or enjoyment or a good sex life or however you want to put it near the top of the list. I think that if my partner couldn't fulfill that need, the answer isn't to go have an affair, it is to evaluate whether that can be fixed and if it can't whether the relationship is salvageable. And those people who "don't want to bring it up" because it would cause conflict - really? I mean, what sort of relationship do you have where you can't talk about this openly with the other person? Maybe it's just so far removed from the type of relationship that I have that I can't even imagine it.

Besides which, I have yet to meet a single person out there who genuinely had an affair (not an open relationship) and was able to say that it didn't affect them negatively - even if only mentally or emotionally - vis a vis their current relationship. Whether it was emotional distancing from their partner or emotional connection made with the person they were sleeping with on the side, whether it was feelings of guilt, whether it was feeling bad about living a lie or worrying about the consequences it may have on their children and so on. Maybe such people exist out there, I just haven't come across one yet.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, our partners would ideally have to fulfill man areas of our life if we are to have a truly good relationship.

i assume you mean "main areas," yes?

(also, as an aside, i'm arguing a more philosophical position here, not one that i necessarily agree with, nor that i necessarily disagree with, philosophically ... just trying to do some thinking through real relationship issues, as well as gender issues).

But to me, there are VERY important areas of fulfillment and then less important ones - a spectrum if you will. And I just place sexual compatibility or enjoyment or a good sex life or however you want to put it near the top of the list.

do you think this will be the same when you are older? or what if it changes for your partner? how well would you react if your partner came to you and asked for an open relationship? would his request tell you that the relationship is subsequently doomed? would he have reason to fear that if he were to even broach the topic he'd do more harm through honesty? can we think, intellectually, "of course i could handle that conversation," but when it actually happens it makes you feel so inadequate that it becomes the beginning of the end of the relationship?

my guess is that what we value in a relationship at 30 is different than what we value at 45 and at 60. of course there are certain building blocks -- trust, communication, etc. -- that really need to be there, but as our lives change, what we value in another partner may change as well.

i'm trying to think of specific examples without getting anecdotal, and since everyone's relationship is a mystery from the outside, i suppose this could only truly be answered on an individual level.

I think that if my partner couldn't fulfill that need, the answer isn't to go have an affair, it is to evaluate whether that can be fixed and if it can't whether the relationship is salvageable. And those people who "don't want to bring it up" because it would cause conflict - really? I mean, what sort of relationship do you have where you can't talk about this openly with the other person? Maybe it's just so far removed from the type of relationship that I have that I can't even imagine it.

i can only speak from anecdotal experience, but i have seen relationships fall apart where one tries to be honest and express a need for a more open relationship and the relationship is soon over. there are times, maybe, when honesty isn't the best policy? is some level of deception necessary in the maintenance of all long-term relationships? do we really say, "i bought you the exercise bike because you're gaining weight and it's making me not want to have sex with you," because that's the honest thing to say?

obviously there's tact involved, but we certainly temper and pick-and-choose the truths we tell to each other over the course of 40 years or more, right?

in the bigger picture, i do think that it's less about being totally honest all the time and more about not being deceptive. and that might be a fine line. i think it would be great if many couples were able to communicate about sex (or anything) in a way where the point that, "you're great, but no one could ever be enough, i want to explore x, y, and z, and since you have no interest, let me seek something outside the relationship knowing that because i'm able to explore x, y, and z, this makes my commitment to the relationship that much stronger because i haven't felt trapped and haven't let it become all-consuming." or, "i simply want to have sex with someone new. you're great and i love you but you can never be new. i miss that feeling."

but do you think most couples could handle that? and most of would probably say that monogamy comes with it's benefits and it's costs, and we evaluate based on that. but the existence of sites like AshleyMadison let us know that there are millions of men and women who are in such situations -- are these just selfish idiots? maybe. but do i also think a more honest conversation about the role of sex in our lives -- especially now that women are as economically independent as men -- is probably not possible for many. it's such an easy trump card for sanctimony.

Besides which, I have yet to meet a single person out there who genuinely had an affair (not an open relationship) and was able to say that it didn't affect them negatively - even if only mentally or emotionally - vis a vis their current relationship.

this i'd agree with -- to me, an "affair" connotes something more than sex, whereas an open relationship seems to be about being open sexually to other people, but not necessarily (and perhaps necessarily not) open emotionally.

 

[anitram]

how well would you react if your partner came to you and asked for an open relationship? would his request tell you that the relationship is subsequently doomed? would he have reason to fear that if he were to even broach the topic he'd do more harm through honesty?

But I think we are talking about different things because from your initial post I understood you to say that some people would not bring up their lack of sexual satisfaction because it is something they would fear discussing with their partner. I would certainly be very upset if my partner was sexually unfulfilled but instead of coming to me and seeing how we could deal with that as a couple he immediately jumped to wanting an open relationship.

If you had already attempted to fix the problem and it STILL existed and there seemed to be no practical solution for it, then I think bringing up an open relationship is more sensical.

my guess is that what we value in a relationship at 30 is different than what we value at 45 and at 60. of course there are certain building blocks -- trust, communication, etc. -- that really need to be there, but as our lives change, what we value in another partner may change as well.

Sure but if you're arguing that sexual fulfillment is so important to a person that they would seek it outside of their marriage then THEY by definition value it enough to go find it where they can get it. Maybe it is less valued by their partner but if it is of such importance to them that they have to satisfy the need however they can, then to me it is one of the main needs that individual has.

 

[Irvine511]

If you had already attempted to fix the problem and it STILL existed and there seemed to be no practical solution for it, then I think bringing up an open relationship is more sensical.

yes, this is more what i'm getting at (and i've written a lot, and probably in circles a bit as i'm working through these thoughts). i think we could all agree that a fairly basic way in which a good couple communicates is about their sex life, and if you can't talk about that, you've got bigger problems than just sex. what's most interesting to me would be if the relationship is at a point where, despite efforts, one partner says, "sorry, i'm just not that interested in what you want" or the other says, "sorry, you just can't offer what i want." and this is the point where i think many people (myself included) would probably think along the lines of, "well, okay, monogamy comes with benefits, but also costs. my relationship is worth more than whatever it is i'm missing sexually, and it's just sex. everything else is good, so let's just leave it alone." but i also wonder how many people don't bring up the subject of an open relationship out of fear about the other partner's reaction and that the suggestion might mean the beginning of the end of a relationship. because once it's out there, you might be plagued by thoughts of, "i'm not enough, why am i not enough, what's wrong with him, what wrong with me, etc."

and it's in this strange area that a website like AshleyMadison comes into being. someone says, "i can have safe, NSA sex with someone who wants exactly that, perhaps while i'm away on a trip, i get to indulge myself a little bit, and i come back home with at least that part of my life satiated, and my partner never knows the difference." i think that's what's driving many people, men and women, to seek out people in exactly the same situation, and i think modern women are interested in sex for the sake of sex (as upsetting as this might be to some) and be totally uninterested in any sort of emotional commitment or attachment (maybe they always were). condoms and birth control can almost totally eliminate the risks of pregnancies and STDs. so, many might reason, why not? why should i demand that my wife hold a full time job, look after 3 kids, run a household, and also be a sexual dynamo? isn't that a lot of pressure for her? yet another demand on her time and energy? is it not more selfish of me to make yet another request? shouldn't i lighten her load? why should she have to do all that, and more?

(sorry to be gendered there, i'm trying very hard to think of the under-40s who's relationships aren't nearly as defined by gender roles as their parents)

 

[anitram]

and this is the point where i think many people (myself included) would probably think along the lines of, "well, okay, monogamy comes with benefits, but also costs. my relationship is worth more than whatever it is i'm missing sexually, and it's just sex. everything else is good, so let's just leave it alone." but i also wonder how many people don't bring up the subject of an open relationship out of fear about the other partner's reaction and that the suggestion might mean the beginning of the end of a relationship. because once it's out there, you might be plagued by thoughts of, "i'm not enough, why am i not enough, what's wrong with him, what wrong with me, etc."

I think that the issue is that there is a selfishness on the part of the person who would then go out and have a one-sided open relationship without bringing it up with their partner.

If a person decides that they like all the other aspects of their monogamous relationship except the sex, then I think they have to give their partner the OPTION of getting out of the relationship rather than being cheated on secretly. If the partners agree, fine. But to carry on with an open relationship that your partner is unaware of is deceitful and you can tell yourself that this is what is saving your relationship but in fact the other party was never asked about their feelings.

Choices and actions have consequences. So no, I would not support one side cheating on the other. If you bring it up with your partner and they freak out and leave you - well to be honest, that is a consequence of the choice that you have made.

 

[Irvine511]

Choices and actions have consequences. So no, I would not support one side cheating on the other. If you bring it up with your partner and they freak out and leave you - well to be honest, that is a consequence of the choice that you have made.

the consequence of making the choice to bring up the issue of an open relationship?

 

[yolland]

Yes. Because committed relationships are grounded on mutual trust and mutual agreement as to what the nature of the relationship is, which includes what role sexual intimacy plays in it. If you decide midstream you want an open relationship, then you're changing the terms of the agreement.

 

[anitram]

Yes. Because committed relationships are grounded on mutual trust and mutual agreement as to what the nature of the relationship is, which includes what role sexual intimacy plays in it. If you decide midstream you want an open relationship, then you're changing the terms of the agreement.

Agreed with yolland here.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes. Because committed relationships are grounded on mutual trust and mutual agreement as to what the nature of the relationship is, which includes what role sexual intimacy plays in it. If you decide midstream you want an open relationship, then you're changing the terms of the agreement.

seems you're making the jump in consequence that would lead most people to not feel as if they can have the conversation. at such a point as a discussion comes up, all that's happened is the suggestion of the possible renegotiation of the contract and action will only be taken if the two parties are in agreement.

and what i'm saying, as i saw when i re-read the thread, is that sexual jealousy likely won't let too many people think too rationally about such a suggestion, leading me to the bigger point, i guess, is that it seems to me that we're almost placing too much emphasis -- as we did earlier, went back and re-read this interesting thread -- on not just sexual exclusivity, but sex itself.

I'd go back to the incredibly emphasis on sex via Viagra and, say, a book by Suzanne Somers called, "Sexy Forever." honestly, do you really want to be sexy forever? why are you taking Viagra into your 70s?

 

[MissMoo]

I thought I would just jump in and say that when I was in my twenties and thirties I couldn't imagine being in a relationship without sex. But then, I realized how much things change when you are with someone. Not for everyone, but a lot of the popular ideas about what is needed in a relationship don't take into account how varied our experiences are. Sex is such a fluid thing and the books out there often talk about it as if it were one way for a person all their lives. It truly does change. I think a lot of the viagra ads and pills fit in with our obsession with youth. Everyone thinks you are worth less if you look old or aren't having sex. If people were allowed to look their age and act their age they might find some new expression of sex that they never thought of. This doesn't apply to everyone my friends mom was still enjoying sex in her eighties. It's just to say that the experience is more nuanced than what is being talked about. Also, I like what Dan Savage says about it, if you're not happy talk about it and explore an open relationship. I just don't know very many open relationships that worked that way for long.

 

[anitram]

seems you're making the jump in consequence that would lead most people to not feel as if they can have the conversation. at such a point as a discussion comes up, all that's happened is the suggestion of the possible renegotiation of the contract and action will only be taken if the two parties are in agreement.

Except that this is not a business negotiation, it's a relationship between two people and I am not sure when relationships and feelings have ever been characterized on the grounds of rationality.

The fact that one party has apparently sat down and considered an open relationship seriously enough to propose it to the other party would most probably leave the other party feeling vulnerable and fearful that even if they say no, their partner will then go and do it on the sly anyway.

To me, what you seem to be suggesting is that you (the generic "you" haha) want to be able to suggest to your spouse that you'd like to have an open relationship, and that you would also want them to respond rationally and consider this proposition in such a manner and then respectfully come to a mutual agreement together and if they don't respond the way that you want them to and even suggest bailing on the relationship then that's super unfair because you should be allowed to bring up sleeping with strangers without any negative consequences coming your way. Maybe if we were robots...

 

[yolland]

Sorry if this is a digression at this point, I just wanted to respond to these.

but i also think that it's American attitudes towards sexual exclusivity -- sort of a feminist reaction to said man's privilege -- is wrapped up in unrealistic expectations of our partners, particularly today. we have pills that keep men erect and ejaculating well into their 70s, we have creams and hormones that keep women sexually active later and later.

Actually I think the *more* significant change (compared to traditional societies) might be increased emotional exclusivity. The shrinking depth (not necessarily size) of the average person's social network, so that the spouse/partner becomes more and more THE blanket all-purpose salve for your every need for companionship, affirmation, attentiveness, support and so on...that's a pretty tall order too.

I think these medical aids can have their uses in situations where one partner's libido declines with age years before the other's does (and in some ways that may(?) actually be a tougher situation when it's the man whose libido declines first, since men can't really pull off the "well, I'm not horny right now, but closeness is always nice and if you want it to turn into intercourse that's fine too" thing--at least not with women). But yeah, if you're talking a couple in their mid-70s both with fairly low sex drives, I don't really see why that's a "problem." Most everyone enjoys affectionate touching and physical closeness their whole lives through, that much requires no pills though.

really? seems to me that women are now more than capable of having affairs of their own, and women become more empowered to seek ownership and responsibility for their own sexuality -- no longer "did he give you an orgasm" but more "did you get an orgasm" -- so too will the demand for sexual satisfaction be shared by the couple. so too will women feel entitled to more from their sexual relationships.

I was generalizing about French culture specifically, since you initially seemed to be citing that as one possible example of a perhaps more 'practical' or 'unselfish' approach to marriage (Mitterand-ish extremes aside), and I pounced on that because what I've seen suggests to me that that's too rosily egalitarian-sounding a reading of how that ethos, if that's the word, is actually transmitted and played out.

But even on an individual level, I'm not sure I really buy this "itch that needs to be scratched," orgasm-centric model of the urge to stray. If the dissatisfaction truly were solely physical, why not just masturbate more? It'd be a hell of a lot less complicated. Women who become *sexually* dissatisfied with their partners, and that's certainly a common female complaint and precedent for pursuing infidelity or divorce, are much more likely to phrase it as "not feeling desired" or "not feeling wanted enough" rather than "I just don't have enough orgasms." To me that signals a relationship dynamic problem, not a hydraulics problem, even though it's absolutely pertinent to the ability to get aroused with your partner and so on.

I've been married for 15 years, we have three kids, and I'd still say if I had the above problem and no improvements seemed to be in the offing, I'd rather get a divorce and seek a whole new relationship than cheat. Even if I were to conclude that monogamy, period, is somehow infeasible for me (and granted, for at least partly religious reasons I assume otherwise), I'd still rather be a 'serial monogamist' with a personal rule against getting attached to anyone than to have an open relationship--that just sounds way too complicated, for me. No matter how we arrange our intimate lives, there's no surefire way to avoid jealousy, heartbreak, humiliation, guilt, dissatisfaction or loneliness (lucky bonobos, eh?), so it's choose your poison, I guess.

 

[Irvine511]

I thought I would just jump in and say that when I was in my twenties and thirties I couldn't imagine being in a relationship without sex. But then, I realized how much things change when you are with someone. Not for everyone, but a lot of the popular ideas about what is needed in a relationship don't take into account how varied our experiences are. Sex is such a fluid thing and the books out there often talk about it as if it were one way for a person all their lives. It truly does change. I think a lot of the viagra ads and pills fit in with our obsession with youth. Everyone thinks you are worth less if you look old or aren't having sex. If people were allowed to look their age and act their age they might find some new expression of sex that they never thought of. This doesn't apply to everyone my friends mom was still enjoying sex in her eighties. It's just to say that the experience is more nuanced than what is being talked about. Also, I like what Dan Savage says about it, if you're not happy talk about it and explore an open relationship. I just don't know very many open relationships that worked that way for long.

you said what i've been trying to say very eloquently and succinctly. thank you.

i guess to use an anecdotal example, these are friends of friends, and actually friends of Memphis's friend (though now she's of course my friend). anyway, we were all having some wine and this friend-of-friend said something to the effect of, "i love my husband, but if i never have sex with him again, that would be just fine with me." and my first thought was, "poor guy." and then my next thought was, "but why should she grin and bear it just so he can have sex?" maybe this is a relationship that should be opened up, but it seems to me, and i could be wrong, that requests for sexual activity outside of the marriage would not be acceptable. so it seems like, "i don't really want to have sex with you, but i'll do it once a month or so out of duty, but you can't have sex with anyone else ever, and if you do, i'll divorce you and take the kids."

and it's kind of like ... really? is it all such a big deal? why might we take our partner's desire for extracurricular sexual activity as a commentary on our own inadequacies? or do we?

 

[Irvine511]

Maybe if we were robots...

exactly ... which comes back to the original premise of the thread, which is, "why are we sexually jealous? and should we be?"

 

[yolland]

Jealousy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One possible explanation of the origin of jealousy in evolutionary psychology is that the emotion evolved in order to maximize the success of our genes: it is a biologically based emotion (Prinz after Buss and Larsen, 2004, p. 120) selected to foster the certainty about the paternity of one’s own offspring. A jealous behavior, in men, is directed into avoiding sexual betrayal and a consequent waste of resources and effort in taking care of someone else’s offspring.

That doesn't explicitly address jealousy in women, but presumably 'maximizing the success of your genes' could apply just as well there too, since losing the man's sexual interest could mean losing critical childrearing resources. This would also seem to predict that men are more concerned about controlling access to their partner's body, whereas women are more concerned about controlling access to their partner's affections? (In other words, basically what A_W said in one terse sentence way back on Page 1. ) It's not an ethical argument for monogamy, and as with most any 'hardwiring' explanation you'd also have to take into account that humans are highly opportunistic creatures, capable to a great degree of moving into a niche then adapting our behaviors as needed to best exploit its resources and constraints (which we then proceed to elaborately rationalize).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The storyline of The Good Wife episode was so great-basically the Sarah Silverman character used the site and cheated on her husband with this guy. She said that they both used it and that it didn't affect their marriage and there was no jealousy and all that. So she ended up being accused of murdering the guy she cheated with because her car was seen at his place. But it turned out to be her husband-and he cut the guy's balls off too

When her character found out it was her husband she literally got all love struck and said "he was jealous" and ran over and hugged and kissed him. Even though he had killed a guy. The actual episode was much better than my lame synopsis, but it was just so well done about this whole issue.

The whole show constantly deals with monogamy, because she's (the Juliana Margulies character) a political wife whose husband was caught cheating on her.

 

[corianderstem]

I liked the storyline until Silverman found his jealousy-to-the-point-of-murder to be a turn-on. That was too much.

But I love, love, LOVE the show.

 

[mama cass]

interesting article on Dominique Strauss-Kahn

France questions itself over Dominique Strauss-Kahn's 'open secret' | World news | The Guardian

Consensual extramarital sex is a non-story in France, part of the right to a private life protected by fearsome libel and privacy laws. Having a mistress, philandering, even routinely propositioning journalists have been brushed aside for countless political figures. "How many senior male French politicians aren't either a groper, a cheater, a charmer or a serial seducer? And it goes right to the top of the political class," sighed one news editor. "France is still a kind of monarchy that kept the aristocratic morals of the 18th century. The lord of the manor has a right to the women; the king has his mistresses." If more allegations against Strauss-Kahn come to light and lead to criminal charges, it will call into question a taboo in France about speaking out.

Tristane Banon, the novelist and journalist is, according to her lawyer, preparing to go to police alleging Strauss-Kahn sexually assaulted her in 2002. Her mother, Anne Mansouret, a senior Socialist figure, said that she advised her daughter not to file a lawsuit at the time because Strauss-Kahn was a politician with a bright future, as well as a friend of the family. But she said that even the fact that her daughter later spoke out publicly about the attack on TV had left her "traumatised" by the subsequent "harassment" in her professional life over having dared to speak out.

what a horrible "mother"; what a betrayal!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Wow that Schwarzenegger sure knows how to be monogamous. Keeping it in house, so to speak.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I liked the storyline until Silverman found his jealousy-to-the-point-of-murder to be a turn-on. That was too much.

But I love, love, LOVE the show.

Yes that was too much, but it did make the point-subtle as a sledgehammer but it did. I love the show too, tonight's episode should be awesome.

 

[mama cass]

Wow that Schwarzenegger sure knows how to be monogamous. Keeping it in house, so to speak.

yeah... must be horrible for his poor wife... what an idiot...

 

[yolland]

How Infidelity Affects Kids - The Daily Beast, May 28

With nearly a quarter of married men and approximately 10 to 15% of women admitting to some form of extramarital activity, Schwarzenegger’s spawn are far from the only children affected by infidelity. Although adulterers are no longer branded with a scarlet “A,” the shame associated with infidelity still very much exists. So it’s no wonder that the adult children of cheaters often struggle with trust issues of their own. “I’m not saying that everyone does it, but 55% of adult children that came from families where one parent was unfaithful ended up being cheaters themselves,” says Dr. Ana Nogales, a clinical psychologist and the author of "Parents Who Cheat: How Children and Adults are Affected When Their Parents Are Unfaithful."

Exactly how children are affected by a parent’s transgressions depends on a number of variables. When children find out about an affair, it’s not just the cheating, but how parents deal with the crisis that can have the most profound effect on their children’s future relationships, says sex and family therapist Dr. Don-David Lusterman, who authored the book "Infidelity: A Survival Guide." “We’re always looking at the context to understand what happened,” he says. “Are we talking about a single act of infidelity, or is it someone who has always done this and just got nailed this time?” How infidelity affects children is complex, says Lusterman, and it’s important to differentiate between two types of cheaters. In the majority of cases, infidelity occurs unintentionally when there’s a communication breakdown in a marriage. A married person normally doesn’t seek out sex, but falls into an affair with a colleague or someone in close proximity because they feel neglected or can’t talk about what’s going on in their marriage, he says. Far less common are womanizers, or people who have a pattern of infidelity that started long before marriage and use sex to feel powerful. “There’s a need to feel worshipped, and if that is to take a sexual form, it’s as addictive as booze,” he says. ...Nogales agrees that while older kids are capable of comprehending the relationship dynamics that might make someone cheat, it’s more difficult to accept womanizing and secrecy. “There is a strong sense of shame about what has happened, especially in adolescents because their identity is developing,” she says. “It’s not easy when you’re trying to show your worth and value to society.”

According to Lois Braverman, the president of the Ackerman Institute for the Family, infidelity’s impact depends heavily on the parent-child power dynamic established after the affair. Children who are made confidants by the betrayer, or the ones left to comfort the parent who has been betrayed, tend to struggle with anger the most. “Different constellations of where children are placed in their parents’ relationship dilemma is going to influence how they feel,” she says. For instance, young women tend to suffer more when their fathers are caught cheating, suggests Nogales. But their reactions are sometimes counterintuitive: it’s not uncommon for daughters to respond angrily toward their mothers for “allowing” the infidelity. “Sometimes they blame the betrayed parent for being powerless and not being able to give them stability,” says Nogales. ...With younger children, the stakes can be even higher. Lengthy explanations might prove confusing, especially when the big issue is regaining trust after the image of their “perfect” parent is shattered. “The person that you trusted the most lied to you, so everything becomes suspicious,” says Nogales. “If the person you trust teaches one thing and acts totally differently, you wonder how much the world is lying to you. Your parents are the world.” This is, in part, why the story a parent chooses to tell about an affair has a profound impact on a child. "It’s about secrecy and shame. That’s the poison. It’s the deceit that makes it toxic,” says Dr. Azmaira Maker, a clinical psychologist who specializes in relationships and family therapy.

...Children of cheaters are by no means destined for infidelity. Yet without allowing them time to grieve over the loss of their “ideal” parent and addressing feelings of betrayal and anger, some might unconsciously go on to repeat the negative patterns. Even sons who don’t want to replicate the sins of their fathers may find themselves drawn to parallel situations. “Some people have what’s called a reaction formation. Their development is not about themselves, but about a reaction to their parents,” says Lusterman. “It doesn’t tell you what you want to be like, only tells you what you don’t want to be like. People who say they’ll never do what their father did end up doing exactly what their father did if you’re working with a negative model.”

According to Maker, there’s not enough long-term data to make generalizations regarding the effects of infidelity on a large sample of children as they grow into adults, yet patterns are clear. “It’s not just a behavior, it’s a whole dynamic of relationships,” says Maker, comparing it to patterns that occur in children whose parents were abusive or alcoholics.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Huffington Post

by Vicki Larson

Watching the Anthony Weiner scandal unfold, it was hard not to wonder how a smart, accomplished, beautiful woman like Huma Abedin got herself involved with a guy like Weiner.

After all, the New York Congressman was dishonest to Abedin, a longtime aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a messy, public way -- confessing to sexting and sending lewd photos to a young coed after lying about it for 10 days -- after less than a year of marriage. It's probably not what a newlywed would expect, especially one who's pregnant with their first child.

But, sexting sexcapades aside, the 46-year-old Weiner, whether you find him handsome or not, is a fit, intelligent, passionate, promising politician with a six-figure income who had a reputation of a ladies' man and was even named a Cosmo eligible bachelor -- the kind of man that many, many women are drawn to.

And that's where Abedin and other smart, beautiful, accomplished women often make their mistake. The more financially independent women become, the more they prefer good-looking men. But they don't just want their partners to be hotties; they want them to be masculine, physically fit, loving, educated, a few years older and making the big bucks. Oh, and they also have to really want to be a hubby and daddy.

That's a tall order.

And, evidently, it's working against us. Attractive men don't make the best husbands, according to researchers. Guys who are rated as the most masculine -- a billboard for a man's good genes -- tend to have more testosterone, and men with higher testosterone levels are 43 percent more likely to get divorced than men with normal levels, 31 percent more likely to split because of marital problems and 38 percent more likely to cheat. In other words, they may be better cads than dads.

We'd be smarter if we sought out guys who are uglier than we are because researchers have found that couples in which the woman is hotter than the guy are happier than if the situation is reversed. And since quite a few women have been telling Weiner how "hot" he is, it's clear that neither Abedin nor Weiner got that memo.

Of course, hottie women can also "optimize their looks to find other partners if she's unhappy," says Rob Burriss, a professor at England's University of Chester. Hello, Weiner? And Abedin, 35 -- one of Time magazine's "40 under 40" young stars in politics -- was considered a catch when Weiner started pursuing her a few years ago.

But who can blame her? She, like so many women -- and men -- pick a mate based on pretty predictable factors, dating back to caveman days when all we were trying to do was survive and keep our species going, according to physical anthropologist and Why Him? Why Her? author Helen Fisher, who has been studying human courtship for decades. We're drawn to guys like Weiner because they have good genes we can pass on to our kids. The downside is that we take a huge risk on whether he's going to be sexually faithful to us.

At the same time, who can blame the women who flirted with Weiner and who commented on how "hot" he is; women are more attracted to guys in relationships because they have "proven they can commit," says Ian Kerner, a sex and relationship therapist, and author (She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman). It's likely that we'll see more male poaching in the future -- "research shows that in societies where women are economically powerful, the more sexually and socially aggressive they are," says Fisher.

Regardless of whom we pick -- handsome or ugly -- chances are we're going to be struggling sometime in our fourth year of marriage, Fisher notes. Her research of divorce statistics from 62 countries, dating to 1947, indicates that the seven-year itch is really a four-year itch -- about the time it takes to raise a baby past toddlerhood. "To me, it clearly suggested that divorce might not be a cultural malaise, but an aspect of our inherited mating behavior," she says.

So, now that Abedin evidently has Weiner's good genes, she can either stick it out another few years or split from Weiner now, before their unborn baby will have memories of the divorce, and while she's still young and attractive enough to snag another mate.

This time, perhaps she should go ugly.



This post originally cited Satoshi Kanazawa's 2008 blog post on how attractive men don't make good husbands, but has been updated to reference Faceresearch.org's 2010 study, among others, instead. - Vicki Larson

 

[yolland]

^ Satoshi Kanazawa is the guy who recently got heavily bashed (from within his own field, evolutionary psych) for claiming research shows black women to be "objectively less attractive" than other women; I'd be automatically wary of any claims that relied on him as a key source.

Anthony Weiner is not what I'd call drop-dead gorgeous, and I can't imagine I'm alone in that assessment. If there's anything to the alleged evolutionary psych claims here, perhaps it has more to do with the personality attributes generally associated with "ladies' men" than with exceptional good looks. There does seem to be a very particular sort of competitiveness and drivenness associated with the "type," and to some women that may be highly desirable in and of itself.

 

[mama cass]

ew, Weiner is what i would call a total creep! repulsive even!

 

[Irvine511]

Weiner does seem like the male equivalent of a "butterface."

i agree, he doesn't have conventionally attractive facial features, but it's also clear that he's spent an enormous amount of time working on himself below the neck and pumping, primping, plucking, and engorging himself into someone who is going to look very attractive in photos intended for sexting.

again, so interesting how the internet changes all this, especially how we present our "assets" and how we're able to present certain assets that would be unavailable in a face-to-not-so-attractive-face encounter.

 

[yolland]

Oh, true, for sure having a very fit body enhances whatever visual appeal nature gave you, for both men and women. And butterface might be a little harsh--I don't find him glaringly unattractive physically, it's just that I'm surprised by the (article's) implication that women in general would look at him and think "Hottie!" based on fitness alone. Which is why I was bringing up the ("alpha"?) personality thing--admittedly, not sure how clearly those qualities might translate in cyberspace, but in real life it's just been my impression that women who're attracted to reputed "ladies' men" are responding as much to a certain personality type as to these men's looks, which as far as I can tell run the gamut from ho-hum to eye candy, body included. Actually, a few good male friends of mine over the years have (probably deservedly) been labeled that way, and though I'm not personally attracted to such men as partners (their underlying, and obvious, Me-Firstness is a turnoff romantically), I think I can see how the qualities that make them appealing as friends to many (men and women alike) might translate into sexual and romantic appeal for a certain kind of woman--in their favor, they're usually charismatic, witty, incisive, always engaged in interesting things that they're filled with enthusiasm for, and when they turn their full attention to you, you feel like you're getting 1000% rather than the 100% ordinary mortals can manage. The determination to be as physically accomplished as possible, to me that just seems like an extension of the overall personality type. But like I said, I'll grant I'm not sure to what extent those qualities actually translate through tweets, emails and brief media appearances (though I strongly suspect they translate quite well, if you've got the eye for them)...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Satoshi Kanazawa is the guy who recently got heavily bashed (from within his own field, evolutionary psych) for claiming research shows black women to be "objectively less attractive" than other women; I'd be automatically wary of any claims that relied on him as a key source.

I didn't even remember that was the same guy, I guess that's why she changed that to the "instead".

To me Anthony Weiner is not attractive at all. My feeling is that he falls into the politician/rock star/famous person who suddenly becomes hot to some women because of what he is. Of course some women could think he's physically attractive. We all have our own subjective tastes.

Of course intelligence, humor, and other qualities can also be "hot". Don't know exactly how much that played into the sexting stuff that was going on there.

 

[Irvine511]

--in their favor, they're usually charismatic, witty, incisive, always engaged in interesting things that they're filled with enthusiasm for, and when they turn their full attention to you, you feel like you're getting 1000% rather than the 100% ordinary mortals can manage.

which sounds very much like a politician, and more specifically like Bill Clinton. i don't think anyone really finds him conventionally attractive, but i do know a few people who have met him at least in passing, and his personal charisma is apparently extraordinary, especially should you shake his hand, and as you mentioned, it's that 1000% interest in you at that moment that makes people go weak in the knees.

seems to tie back to that NYT article i posted earlier about potential differences between the motivations for a man or a woman seeking office.