Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Cheating and Monogamy
A fantastic article right here from the Huffington Post which is essentially an interview of Dr. Eric Anderson, author of The Monogamy Gap. The article is mostly about men cheating and how monogamy doesn't work (duh) but open relationships are also discussed. It's just awesome. Here are some excerpts with my comments.
-By Caleb Jones
Exactly. Cheating is perceived as easier by men because men know that women will yell at them if they suggest the alternative, which is an open relationship or marriage.
In his study of 120 undergraduate men, 78 percent of those who had a partner cheated...
Note the percentage there. 78%. Shall I remind you that I've been saying for years (because the studies all show it) that 70% to 77% of everyone eventually cheats? I love how all the studies keep bringing up the same statistics over and over again. Like the guy in Close Encounters said, "It means something!"
..."even though they said that they loved and intended to stay with their partner." Contrary to what we may think, most men aren't cheating because they don't love their partner, he says; they cheat because they just want to have sex with others. And society shouldn't pooh-pooh that.
EXACTLY. Though I am 100% against cheating (everyone should just have open relationships instead), I can tell you for a fact that men who cheat on their wives, in addition to women who cheat on their husbands, still love their spouses.
Fact: Every married woman I have ever had sex with (which is not a lot, but some) still loved her husband and is still married to her husband to this day.
Cheating isn't about love. It's about sex.
Monogamy isn't the only "proper" way to be in a relationship, and he says it's time that society finds "multiple forms of acceptable sexual relationship types -- including sexually open relationships -- that coexist without hierarchy or hegemony." It's especially important for today's young men, for whom monogamous sex seems more boring than in generations past because of easy premarital sex and pornography.
Exactly what I've been saying for years.
(Interviewer:) The men in your study experienced a sharp decrease in the frequency and enjoyment of sex after two monogamous years...
What have I been saying about monogamy having an only three-year happy lifespan? The doctor here contends it's only two years, and often it is. When I say "three years" that's a maximum...an "if you're lucky" time frame. ...Since no one can sustain the kind of thrilling sex couples have in the beginning of a relationship, isn't it a healthy thing that it decreases?
Now let's try something. Based on that question, would you like to guess the interviewer's gender? JUST TAKE A WILD GUESS. Heh. If you said "woman", you're right. Only a Disney-infested woman would postulate that less sex in a long-term relationships is a good thing. I think I want to throw up.
Dr. Anderson: I wish young men got two years of good sex before it dropped off; it's a lot less than that! It may, however, be good that the sexual desire for one's partner weans; it means that we end up staying with our long-term partners for the socioemotional connection and not for the sex. If a couple is going to raise a family, it is the emotional connection that counts, not the sexual.
Correct. Most married couples don't stay together because of love or soul mates or romance or "self fulfillment" or other Disney reasons. They stay because it's the easiest way for (most) women to pay their bills and the expenses of having children (just have him pay them or help to pay them) and the easiest way for him and her to look normal to their family / friends / acquaintances / co-workers / church / etc.
Notice how things like sex and happiness are no where in there.
Our physical desires don't die; they just change from our partner to people other than him/her.
We falsely believe that when the sex dies, the relationship has also died.
Ah, that's exactly what WOMEN believe. Most MEN actually want the relationship or marriage to continue despite this. (They just want to fuck women on the side as well.)
Pure, utter Disney. False societal programming at its worst. You can tell this entire topic makes the female interviewer very uncomfortable.
Dr. Anderson: The diminution of sex is simultaneous to one's emotional bonds growing stronger. Long-term partners may have more intimate sex (most just have very little) but when men see a guy or girl who turns them on, it's not intimate and meaningful sex they are craving.
The good doctor knocks it out of the park again. Holy crap, I love this guy. When a man or woman is deeply in love with a partner but wants to fuck someone else, it's not intimacy they seek, IT'S JUST SEX. People in marriages or "serious" relationships like to conveniently forget that sex and intimacy are usually two completely different things that have nothing to do with one another, especially when we're talking about men.
GOD DAMMIT it's so difficult for society to come to terms with such a simple concept!
Interviewer: Honesty is a huge part of a relationship. How good a relationship can one have when there's deception, especially since you say after men cheat spontaneously, they are more likely to plan cheating?
Now here's where I agree completely with the interviewer. Lying is bad. Period. Cheating is a form of lying. Therefore it's bad, period. That's my opinion. Forget cheating! Learn how to do open relationships instead. Honesty is good sometimes, and horrible other times. There are good reasons to lie; it is an essential skill for keeping community and relationship peace.
I disagree, but I think he's talking about woman asking "Do I look fat in this dress?" and the man answering truthfully "Yes, you look very fat." So I get where he's coming from. Where I disagree is a man has options other than to either lie or to say she looks fat.
If he's an intelligent nice guy, he can say "Hm. Let me look at it for a while, then ask me later." If he's an honest Alpha male he can say "Ha! Sweetie, you know I don't answer questions like that. Your tits look good though." My point is if you just think a little bit and get a little creative you don't have to lie to maintain "relationship peace".
Lying = laziness.
The reason men lie about cheating is mostly because they know that if they ask for permission to have recreational sex: 1) they will be denied 2) after they are denied, they will be subject to scrutiny and increased relationship policing; 3) they will be stigmatized as immoral, and most likely broken up with. Thus, honesty doesn't meet their desires of having both a long-term partner and recreational sex with others.
Bingo. As I said in the beginning of this post, if women just relaxed their Disney about 20% and if men manned-up about 20%, men would never need to cheat. We could create long-term relationships and marriages where cheating would be impossible (open or semi-open relationships).
Interviewer: Wouldn't it be less harmful to relationships if we became serial monogamists -- marrying two, three or four times as our sexual needs change? Ohhhh boy. Again the feminine nature of the interviewer shines through like a beacon through fog. As I've said many times, even in my own glossary, women are serial monogamists and pro-divorce. Women want to get with one guy, love him for a while, get bored, dump his dumb ass, get a new guy, love him for a while, and repeat the process, over and over again until they get into their 50's when they finally start to calm down. It's how women work.
Dr. Anderson: Rather than marrying 20 times or more in one's life via serial monogamy, we can keep one emotional lover and just have casual, meaningless -- and hot -- sex with strangers. DINGDINGDING! I am officially in love with this man. I'm ready go gay for this guy. Couldn't have said it better myself.
This gives us the long-term emotional stability we desire psychologically, alongside the hot, carnal sex we desire somatically. It makes much more sense than lying and cheating , or the difficulty of breaking up with a loved one simply because you want someone else's body for an hour. Keep going doc, you're doing great.
Dr Anderson: Monogamy is culturally compelled, so the decision has been made for us. How much of a chance would a man stand to have a second date if on the first date he said that he was interested in an open relationship? Not much! Ask me how I know! Years ago when I was first mastering all this stuff, I tried that about three times before I said "Uh, yeah, this method isn't working."
At the point men enter into relationships they, too, think they want monogamy. It's only after being in a relationship for months or years that they badly want sex with others. But by this point, they don't want to break up with their partners because they have long-standing love. Instead of chancing that love by asking for extradyadic sex, they cheat. If they don't get caught (and most don't) it's a rational choice.
Wow. On the nose with every point, again. This guy is fantastic. But it is indeed selfish for men to want sex with others but not to want their partners to do the same. Yep. Fucking men. You guys really need to calm down about this. There are bigger things to worry about in your life than your wife or girlfriend having bad sex with some needy beta AFC. Really. This however is not just a "man" thing. Women also cheat; they also lie about it; and they also want to be able to cheat without their partners doing the same. Monogamy is a problem for all sexes; it builds in an ownership script regardless of gender.
Yep. Women cheat just as much as men, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that in long relationships or marriages, they cheat more.
Interviewer: You say love is a "long-standing sense of security and comfort." So, wouldn't open relationships potentially pose a threat to that security since, even if couples play by their own sexual rules, there's always a chance one could end up preferring a new lover over one's partner?
This is a good question and I've been asked it often. I have a good answer for it. Let's see if the doc has a good one too. People in open relationships structure their engagements as to reduce emotional intimacy. Bingo! In an serious OLTR, all other people the man or woman fucks on the side are fuck buddies only. You're not dating other people, you're just fucking other people. I have never in my entire life fallen in love or gotten romantic feelings for a fuck buddy, even decades ago when I was a young AFC.
But, yes, of course it can happen. What I find from those in open relationships, however, is that once they have had sex with that person they fancied, they tend to get over them. Good point. I have noticed this in longer-term OLTRs as well.
If we really want to prevent our lovers from developing the lust of others, or worse, emotional intimacy with others; if we really want to prevent men and women from cheating, we would be best to sex-segregate our jobs, our classrooms and social arenas, too. Emotional intimacy is the real threat to a relationship, not a one-off hour with a stranger from Craigslist. Ultimately, there are no guarantees that one's partner won't find love elsewhere. But controlling one's partner to prevent it only makes matters worse -- it makes them want to leave you. A better strategy is to be open, emotionally and perhaps sexually, too.
Wow. Just awesome. This guy should go on tour with me, Gene Simmons and Marc Rudov. That would scare the shit out of everyone. (Okay, maybe not Gene Simmons. I forgot he he's been corrupted by the dark side of the force.)
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Jed 2012-02-04 09:46:58
Great article. I was loving everything until I got to the final line and followed the link about Gene Simmons. WTF? Why did my hero do that?
Blackdragon 2012-02-04 09:52:39
He did it because A) like most men, he ended up getting needy, and B) he's 62. Things start to change when you get that old. I don't like it any more than you do.
Ken 2012-02-04 14:40:22
"extradyadic sex" .... sounds kinky ... I'm going to have to start working that expression into my everyday vocabulary 🙂
N 2012-02-04 21:57:51
Clicked the link. Read the article. Started to think that society was evolving. Then I started reading the comments section...
Godfather 2012-02-05 14:23:15
Mate! This is literally a reward for all your hard work! 🙂 I remember when i first started reading your blog! and found these things a bit dubious. I subsequently saw the light and now. This is like having worked hard and get an A+! Evidence you are correct! You won't get a similar sense of vindication of this magnitude until Romney prevails in November 😉 Keep up the good work.
zylya 2012-02-09 06:18:10
This is one that I see come up a lot : Interviewer: You say love is a “long-standing sense of security and comfort.” So, wouldn’t open relationships potentially pose a threat to that security since, even if couples play by their own sexual rules, there’s always a chance one could end up preferring a new lover over one’s partner? While you can structure a relationship to reduce the chance that this happens, it's kind of wasted energy, because there is absolutely nothing to stop someone doing this in a totally monogamous relationship. Even if you're monogamously married, there's nothing to stop your wife leaving you for someone else. In an open relationship, if you're pretty serious about the relationship, the odds of it happening are no more severe than in a monogamous relationship anyway. You can't stop someone from leaving you, and trying harder just pushes them away, so why bother trying to fight it?
Tony D 2012-02-09 15:17:23
You've inspired me. http://www.absoluteability.com/relationships/my-wife-cheated-on-me-beta-tales/
Rod 2012-02-15 09:49:30
I found this article that explains why modern societies encourage monogamous relationships... very interesting, but still doesn't convince me to turn to the dark side (monogamy)! http://www.futurity.org/top-stories/why-modern-life-left-polygamy-at-the-altar/
Blackdragon 2012-02-15 11:12:12
Good article. I actually agree with most of it. Monogamy is more stable for society than polyGAMy. Now we just need to shift from monogamy to polyAMORy, and we'll be good to go. The best thing about that article is that it reminds us that monogamy was/is imposed for the good of society, not the happiness of the individual. It's also representative of society's tendency to go from one silly extreme (one man with ten wives) to the opposite silly extreme (one man, one wife, neither can fuck outside the marriage). PolyAMORy is the happy medium between these two.
Nyew 2015-08-31 20:07:05
" Interviewer: Most of the men in your study were OK with sex on the side for them, but not their girlfriends. That seems unfair and incredibly selfish. A common feminine point where I actually 100% agree. Men need to calm the fuck down. Sadly, it is MEN who have more a problem with open relationships than women. Women will eventually go along with it. It’s guys who suddenly need to grab a shotgun whenever “their girl” fucks some other dude." This is because the costs are different for each sex. A cheating woman is, and always will be, worse than a cheating man, for many reasons. Consider that a cheating wife punishes her husband with the forced upkeep of another man's child while a cheating husband can simply walk away from the other woman. Also, women are more susceptible to STDs than men because they are the recipients of bodily fluids.
Ambrosia 2015-11-03 23:23:10
From a female perspective I am trying to decide where I land on this issue. I see things a little differently, but not for the reasons stated previously. I agree mutually open would be the only way to thwart jealously if both partners are of high value. Important points for me personally, the man would have to be at the very top of his game in mission and home and there could NEVER be ANY overlap of home/play. While I enjoy and subscribe to a male/female heirarchy, I do know I bring him high value beyond my lady bits to the table. Disrespecting his home and my status as his LTR with carelessness or lack of control drops him immediately and forever to beta. The immaturity expressed by being incapable of handling the situation HE initiated is a clear indicator his masculine (aspiring) alpha would never be able to hold his half of the frame in the fire with a feminine alpha. I define a feminine alpha as the natural polar opposite qualities of a masculine alpha. She embodies the highest valued feminine traits you desire and does for you what a male alpha does for a woman as far as tinglies. There are naturals, and I've noticed just as with men the big indicators of status is how they are regarded by their same sex peers in addition to the opposite sex proofing. Just as the asshole tries to posture himself as a real alpha, the female bitch is also only posing. Both model some qualities of the alpha, and will be able to fool a room of lesser individuals, but not typically both sexes at the same time. They were not born with the necessary skill sets required for built in respect from both sexes. When a higher alpha is introduced (of either sex) they will either suplicate or challenge. My observations against an open LTR situation: A high value, high quality female Alpha, the type I believe you would require for an OLTR (and as the mother of your children) has probably already tasted another Alpha (if not literally, at least in presence) prior to knowing you. In your situation she may find a rare beta occasionally sex worthy, but would always prefer an Alpha as a FB. Why sex a beta when you already have an alpha at home? We women are not typically wired to seek sexual variety… We follow the feelings. Sex may not equate to attachment ‘feelz’ for every woman, every time, at every point in her hormonal maturity, but sexy tingles from a HV Alpha, plus the oxytocin released during the FB playtime has a high possibility to cause attachment at least in some manner to a woman already in pair bonding mindset (Not the CC loving little girls playing money games). If she’s already got one Alpha on lock (you) that doesn’t desire or require fidelity, she is now free to hook up with Alpha 3.0 while you become Beta 2.0, father her children and keep her company in her old age. She could move on to him if he also registers her as high enough value to LTR (best bet for you) or just keep her mini alpha with only a few tingles providing for her forever and keep her Alpha Bucks for the really good stuff. Yes, you may get to play with all the little girls your heart desires, but your ability (whether or not you realize it) in your mission will be stunted at the point she bed the superior alpha for as long as you are with her. Your mission has nothing directly to do with a woman, Alpha or not. HMV benefits offered to a man by HMV women is the PRODUCT of him actualizing his mission successfully. Her mission was you, but you would be hard pressed to hold her respect after handing her on a silver platter with permission to a superior Alpha. You both fail in this paradigm. Your Alpha level is relative to the other Alphas in the bedroom. Period. My experience observing successful (self proclaimed by both parties), open marriages and LTRs (I know and am friends with 3) is they seem lacking an aspect in the deep, mutual bonding possible between two well suited, mature and self aware, sexually polar individuals. Fun? No drama? Easy? Yes. Yes. Yes… But I’ve not seen (not saying it’s impossible) a deep, sustainable long term satisfaction for both parties simultaneously. More often they come across more as great business partners than soulful lovers. It doesn’t look appealing to me. I would adore knowing my Alpha CAN get pieces on the side, but I respect a man more when he is more selective of whom he spends his time on. An Alpha that is truly selective and in control of his biology is way more sexy to ALL women. Ever see a little girl who thinks she's higher value than the Lady the Alpha chose and throw herself at him in front of his dish? Every person in the room will be affected in some way socially if the Alpha checks her for her disrespect of his choice. I am more devoted to a man and his mission if I feel he has chosen me, specifically, for the value I add. Knowing that I will definitely be replaced if I shirk my part of the deal (BUT if, and ONLY if, I do) imbues the healthy fear required to stave off complacency and boredom while also allowing for the deep satisfaction of security women desire. Utopian Lady Logic: As long as I continue to meet (at minimum) all of your current needs and always better myself into the future, I am able to relax into the trust that your honor will ensure my needs will also be met and keep my best interest at heart... Sometimes in spite of myself. Also food for thought: http://time.com/3461485/how-previous-sexual-partners-affect-offspring/ Although the biology swapping article does need more solid peer reviewed research, it is curious to ponder. Good for genetically superior offspring and furthering humans as a species, just not so great for YOUR personal agenda. Note the lack of downside and higher quality offspring for an evolved female. Probably not a conscious consideration (most women really aren’t self aware to a notable degree) but a great incentive for a woman to agree to this paradigm.
Boris 2016-08-15 08:37:03
Thank you so much. Wonderful ideas.
Lance 2017-03-22 01:30:05
Nyew - i very strongly disagree with your agenda! During my 33 years of live i have experienced a lot of interactions with ppl from different background, race and gender. What i have experienced from woman is just enormous amount of manipulation and lies. When i started playing their cards - suddenly i am being accused of anger, hate, etc. The role of the woman in todays western civilization is just to leach on a men work and lives. Sorry but that what i have observed, plus keeping us in dark ages regarding the social, cultural and emotional part of out lives. Sorry but i don't buy even 1 line of your post, have to say that i am really put off by your masculine yet still manipulative approach.