Is it reasonable to expect men to remain monogamous?

philologos

I was reading the Sunday Independent this morning just before I went to church and there was naturally a good bit of discussion about the whole Ryan Giggs fiasco, but I never expected that I would see an article essentially justifying the affair saying that men just can't remain faithful to one partner (which I think is nonsense and is just a means of scapegoating). The author makes reference to his own behaviour:

When the urge strikes, we men can't seem to stop ourselves from straying, writes John McEntee MY heart goes out to Ryan Giggs. Allegedly caught with his trousers round his superbly trained ankles over his affair with former Big Brother star Imogen Thomas, he felt obliged to resort to lawyer to the stars Keith Schilling to keep his guilty secret from the gorgeous Mrs Giggs. For weeks, he must have squirmed as his expensively obtained legal shield crumbled to dust via Twitter and the feverish gossip of the internet.
His superinjunction backfired spectacularly and as fellow London lawyer Mark Stephens remarked last week: "Schillings made a disaster out of a crisis". At least Ryan gave his missus two weeks notice of impending Armageddon. But on mature reflection, the Welsh international must wonder why he bothered.
At £600-an hour the Manchester United star might feel that Schillings have not served him well. A simple case of (alleged) adultery has turned into an international debate about privacy. Years ago when the writer Clive James accused the then editor of Private Eye Richard Ingrams of writing stories which sent children home from school weeping, Ingrams retorted that it was not Private Eye but the behaviour of the parents which had made the children cry.
But Ryan Giggs was only following the well-trodden path of his species and doing what us men can't seem to help doing. I don't mean going to expensive lawyers but remaining monogamous. Women can vow to love, honour and obey at the altar and stick to that promise. Men, it seems, can't. From former Taoiseach Charlie Haughey to Boyzone warbler Ronan Keating, we can't seem to stay faithful to the love of our lives.
Many women feel complete by giving birth. We delight in replicating ourselves but that does not seem sufficient. We retain a wandering eye.
For us males, getting an illicit leg over is raging against ageing, rebelling at mortality, dodging the drop, kicking out against the shroud, rejoicing in life and to hell with the awful consequences.
How do I know? I am as guilty as Charlie and Ronan and, with an eye on Ryan Giggs's legal eagles just as fallible as the veteran Old Trafford footballer. I can't seem to stay faithful. Try as I might, the urges take over.
Long ago, and based in Dublin, I was blissfully engaged to the apple of my eye, the love of my life and the subsequent mother of three adorable children.
What do I do? I find myself churning through the Irish Sea between Dublin's North Wall and Liverpool on a bachelor trip to England. In the bar of the B&I Leinster I get into conversation with an extremely well-nourished Moore Street trader on her way to buy merchandise in Merseyside. Her particular mission was to purchase a wholesale consignment of a plastic male doll who peed like a water pistol when his trousers were slid down. He was called Cheeky Charlie.
After much non-intellectual conversation fuelled by Guinness, Cheeky John adjourned at 3am to the deserted upper deck lounge of the good ship Leinster. Frantic fumbling and slobbering kisses were followed by the most unromantic congress imaginable. Cheerio then, Bridie, or whoever, I thought. We'll never meet again. I was wrong.
Weeks later , strolling down Henry Street on a sunny Saturday afternoon hand in hand with my cherub, the focus of my affection, the light of my life, all seemed right with the world. Passing the entrance to Moore Street, a roly poly female vendor was bellowing: "Get Your Cheeky Charlies. Get Your Cheeky Charlies".
I failed to recognise her. Unfortunately I couldn't say the same about her. Suddenly she started to wave in my direction. "Howya, John, how's it going?"
Crikey, the penny dropped. I recognised her. I ignored her and urged my precious petal to accelerate. She noticed the old slapper bellowing in my direction: "She's waving at you, John. She knows you."
I insisted she was mistaken, that she was a demented harridan from Mary Street, ignore her, dear, move along. My thwarted and furious Moore Street squeeze got the message and immediately changed tack. With an outburst that could be heard in O'Connell Street she roared, "Jaysus, John, you weren't so f***ing shy when you were riding me on the Leinster."
I draw a discreet veil over the inevitable repercussions -- except to say that the love of my life and I are now divorced following further manifestation of this male need to be unfaithful. And her successor, equally lovely and utterly faithful, has had every justifiable reason to give me the elbow following my recent, illicit, amorous encounter with a delightful Indian lady in the disabled toilets of a four-star hotel off Trafalgar Square.
Unbeknownst to me my mobile telephone, located in the breast pocket of my suit inadvertently dialled my inamorata's telephone number while I was, for want of a better expression, furiously 'at it'. Every grunt and howl was duly transmitted, courtesy of Vodaphone, to my peerless darling.
No superinjunction, however turbo-charged, universal and copper-fastened, would have gotten Ryan Giggs out of that one.

I was thinking of posting this in After Hours but I think I might get a better discussion going in here.

Do you think the author is justified in saying that women are able to keep better control of men in a relationship?

Do you think that the author is making a valid argument in excusing both his and Ryan Giggs' behaviour?

Personally it disgusts me to see him justify something that can destroy peoples lives and families as if it is insignificant.

mystique150

No

He comes across as a wanker who clearly hasn't realised that a fling with a trollop cost him his relationship an is now attempting to justify his behaviour by comparing himself to other eejits. Instead of standing up like a man and attempt to reconcile his mistake, he attempts (rather poorly) to put it down to an innate inability to keep his cock in his pants. He did the wife a favour and she obviously found someone better.

No

Funny how it's always the cheaters proclaiming that all men have to cheat, just to make the cheater themselves feel better. And of course I suppose all the genuinely happy monogamous men are just in denial!
No, it's the same old "everyone does it" excuse with little basis in reality, as far as I am concerned.

philologos

No

Oh, and also, if you vote no please explain why

cakeisgood

No

That article annoyed me. Men CAN stay faithful, this jerk is just making an excuse for his disgusting behaviour. No-one forced him to cheat did they? Many men stay faithful so why cant the likes of Ryan Giggs and this idiot? I dont know about the author, but with Ryan Giggs (and it seems many celebrities) they seem to get so egotistical that they think that they can do what they want. Its stupidity too, they actually seem to think they will get away with it but the truth always comes out-Look at Tiger Woods, Ronan Keating, Ashley Cole, Wayne Rooney etc etc Footballers seem to be the worst cheater-too much money and too much ego. They deserve the repercussions, its their wives/girlfriends I feel sorry for

goose2005

Women can vow to love, honour and obey at the altar and stick to that promise.

That's a bit naive tbh. How does he even know that Cheeky Charlie woman wasn't married?

drkpower

The story from the Indo is clearly nonsense. Both examples he gives of being rumbled are essentialy urban legends; the type of fantastical horror stories blokes recite to one another in the pub.

Leaving aside this 'journalist's' tales, and on topic, of course men can remain faithful. And of course women can remain faithful. But many men and women dont. Arrogance ('I can get away with this'), insecurity, a lack of empathy (not caring about the repurcussions on your loved one) and irresponsibility (just doing what feels good now whilst ignoring the consequences) are, imo, some of the key factors, which perhaps explains why men tend to be unfaitful more than women. Whilst not exclusively male traits, they tend to be more common in men.

However, infidelity can occur in so many contexts that it is probably far too complicated to discuss properly in this format.

southsiderosie

No

Perhaps one should add "if they are in a committed relationship".

If a man wants to have an open relationship, and his partner is ok with it, well that is between them. If this particular man knows he can't keep it in his pants, then he has no business getting married.

I have several male friends who got married for the 'social respectability' factor, and who wanted to have kids with a 'nice girl', but also want to run around with anyone who tickles their fancy. It's incredibly selfish.

It's also silly to think that it is just a male thing - women also cheat. Yet mysteriously this is never chalked up to something innately female...

philologos

No

That was assumed by the article really.

Denerick

No

Women cheat just as much as men if you ask me. Typical scapegoating by feminazi's determined to paint men as some kind of primitive cave man.

It takes two to tango.

Bloody Nipples

No

Denerick wrote: »

Women cheat just as much as men if you ask me. Typical scapegoating by feminazi's determined to paint men as some kind of primitive cave man.

Which feminazis would that be exactly? Considering the author of the article was male and all the women posting here have rubbished his argument.

I personally believe men can easily remain faithful. I'd have been a bit of a player before I met my gf but I haven't so much as kissed another girl since the night I met her. I'd be a fool to screw up a good thing so why would I?

Denerick

No

Denerick wrote: »

Women cheat just as much as men if you ask me. Typical scapegoating by feminazi's determined to paint men as some kind of primitive cave man.

It takes two to tango.

How is the male author a feminazi? In fact, just - what?

Eliot Rosewater

I think cheating is a far more serious issue for people in relationships than the author of the article or, in my opinion, the average person in a relationship is willing to admit.

I think that if someone cheats on their partner it is a proof of a fundamental unhappiness with the relationship. This is particularly true of relationships which are founded primarily on base animal instincts like the desire to procreate and the desire to have a stable other member of the species as a partner. Cheating is all to do with the base animal instincts. "(S)he's hot, and I want to have them." So if one's relationship is itself based on these instincts, the act of cheating effectively nullifies it. It shows that what you get out of the relationship can be gotten elsewhere (and easily enough, too).

strobe

I'd say it is about as reasonable as expecting a hungry person not to steal food from their best friend.

cungryhunt

Has anybody here actually cheated?

Its way more common than you realise.

The fact is that people who cheat get good at cheating and you will probably not find out that your husband or wife was balls deep in "some trollop" (if youre not the 50% who are trollops).
For example, a survey I was reading recently showed 63% of latin americans have cheated.
Everybody thinks that their husband or wife is completely faithful, but the truth of the matter is that about half of all people will at some stage cheat.

In my opinion, much of the outrage that accompanies reports of people cheating is perhaps fear? Statistically speaking, half of those outraged above will probably or have probably been cheated on.

Hatemail on a postcard to the usual address.

strobe

cungryhunt wrote: »

Has anybody here actually cheated?

Its way more common than you realise.

The fact is that people who cheat get good at cheating and you will probably not find out that your husband or wife was balls deep in "some trollop" (if youre not the 50% who are trollops).
For example, a survey I was reading recently showed 63% of latin americans have cheated.
Everybody thinks that their husband or wife is completely faithful, but the truth of the matter is that about half of all people will at some stage cheat.

In my opinion, much of the outrage that accompanies reports of people cheating is perhaps fear? Statistically speaking, half of those outraged above will probably or have probably been cheated on.

Hatemail on a postcard to the usual address.

Any chance of some sources for the research that concluded that 50% (but 63% of Latin Americans) cheated? I'm not disputing the numbers really, but it's nice to have something more than someones say so. 71% of all people agree my sentiments.

southsiderosie

No

cungryhunt wrote: »

Has anybody here actually cheated?

Its way more common than you realise.

The fact is that people who cheat get good at cheating and you will probably not find out that your husband or wife was balls deep in "some trollop" (if youre not the 50% who are trollops).
For example, a survey I was reading recently showed 63% of latin americans have cheated.
Everybody thinks that their husband or wife is completely faithful, but the truth of the matter is that about half of all people will at some stage cheat.

In my opinion, much of the outrage that accompanies reports of people cheating is perhaps fear? Statistically speaking, half of those outraged above will probably or have probably been cheated on.

Hatemail on a postcard to the usual address.

I have never seen any data on marital cheating at the levels you are reporting here. A 2008 NY Times article suggests otherwise:

The most consistent data on infidelity come from the General Social Survey, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of Chicago, which has used a national representative sample to track the opinions and social behaviors of Americans since 1972. The survey data show that in any given year, about 10 percent of married people — 12 percent of men and 7 percent of women — say they have had sex outside their marriage.

But detailed analysis of the data from 1991 to 2006, to be presented next month by Dr. Atkins at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies conference in Orlando, show some surprising shifts. University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively.

Apparently the data is quite patchy, but this article suggests that the rate of infidelity is higher in poor countries - but still not anywhere near 60-70%.

Also, the question is, is it reasonable to expect men to remain monogamous? Considering that getting married is an obvious commitment to a monogamous relationship (in Western society anyway), and that millions of men manage to remain committed to their partners, then I would say yes. If that is not what he wants, or feels capable of, then he should not get married.

Sleepy

I've come across more women cheating on their husbands than vice versa to be honest.

philologos

No

strobe wrote: »

I'd say it is about as reasonable as expecting a hungry person not to steal food from their best friend.

I wasn't expecting this from you admittedly. How can you compare adultery to this? A marriage doesn't imply chastity, it should be possible to be sexually satisfied in a marriage. Besides even if you weren't the principled thing to do would be to end the marriage if you really wanted to pursue a relationship elsewhere?

cungryhunt wrote: »

In my opinion, much of the outrage that accompanies reports of people cheating is perhaps fear? Statistically speaking, half of those outraged above will probably or have probably been cheated on.

Amount of people cheating != makes cheating better

It's patently immoral, people should be outraged if that happened to them.

LisaLowlife

No

Yeah there's loads of people who cheat regardless of gender. It is without a doubt that it is reasonable to expect men and woman alike to remain monogamous.

This shouldn't even be a discussion

vibe666

No

as a man and a husband i can confidently say that it's perfectly reasonable to expect both men and women to stay monogamous if they are in a loving relationship, it's not hard to do at all, you just avoid having sex with other people.

and given the apparently high incidences of cheating that is going on in the world, assuming you've had at least a couple of previous partners in your life then it's reasonable to assume you've had someone cheat on you in the past so there's a good chance that you know exactly how it feels to have it done to you.

how anyone can claim to love someone and then go out and intentionally put them through that pain is completely beyond me.

philologos

No

What should be up for discussion is whether or not I should read Sunday papers anymore, or rather the Sunday Independent? :pac:

vibe666

No

philologos wrote: »

What should be up for discussion is whether or not I should read Sunday papers anymore, or rather the Sunday Independent? :pac:

i'm actually starting to believe that society as a whole is going to hell in a handbasket because of the mainstream media. everything from tabloids to reality tv dumbing us down more and more to lead us straight to idiocracy.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

strobe wrote: »

I'd say it is about as reasonable as expecting a hungry person not to steal food from their best friend.

I wasn't expecting this from you admittedly. How can you compare adultery to this? A marriage doesn't imply chastity, it should be possible to be sexually satisfied in a marriage. Besides even if you weren't the principled thing to do would be to end the marriage if you really wanted to pursue a relationship elsewhere?

I read it as strobe implying the opposite i.e. saying it's not reasonable to steal food from your best friend just because you're hungry. You might be entitled to ask, it's not reasonable to take. Could have read it wrong though.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect people to be monogamous. However, I do think far too many people get married "for the sake of it"., which is definitely a factor

philologos

No

Perhaps I misread the analogy!

aidan24326

No

It's a really terrible article. He condones cheating while relaying almost certainly made-up stories of his own infidelities. A fat Moore St trader on the ferry? Classy.

This is the nonsense that seems to pass for journalism in The Indo these days. Third-rate hacks who just make sh1t up when they've nothing else to write about (there are notable exceptions such as Gene Kerrigan and Vincent Hogan).

No

Although it is true for most monogamy and not cheating are not always the same thing. As such I am not sure asking if men can stay monogamous is entirely the correct question.

There are those in open relationships for example who are allowed be with other people. There are still rules and expectations in the relationship however. There are those of us who are in a committed relationship but the number of people in that relationship is greater than 2. Clearly monogamy does not apply there either despite the fact that the same rules apply to those people on cheating and sleeping around that apply to any “normal” couples.

It is worth recognizing therefore that you do not just commit to the person or people in the relationship but to the relationship itself. It is something you build together and it is a lot more than keeping your sexual organs away from people outside that relationship.

Making that recognition makes the Ops question easier to answer. It is very much reasonable to expect men – and women – to stay committed to the relationship they are in just like it is to expect them to stay committed to any project that requires work and trust and from which we expect some returns – whether measured in happiness or success or protecting what has been invested in that project (such as our hearts and trust).

That someone would throw so much time, energy and commitment into building such a project – and worse allow others to do the same – and then throw that all away merely for a bit of momentary sexual gratification on the side is for me not excusable.

There is a lot more to relationships than sex. We put a lot more into them than sex and we get much more out of them too. People who are in them with us also add much of themselves to the mix. I can not only say genuinely that it is reasonable therefore to expect me to stay committed to that relationship – but that I can never envision me even considering to sleep around or seek sexual gratification behind the girls backs.

doopa

No

From an evolutionary perspective it seems humans are pretty much monogamous. The ratio of males to females is about 10 to 11. In species that allow polygamy this ratio deviates more i.e. say 7 males to 12 females. In more monogamous species it would be closer say for every 20 males there would be 21 females. Humans are pretty much monogamous.If we weren't then there would be fewer men as less of men would be required!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Its a bit of a nonsense argument, end of the day if a guy cheats his girlfriend is gonna feel terrible and in many cases end the relationship

Whether he has more genes that push him toward infidelity or not is irrelevant to her feelings.

From an evolutionary perspective it seems humans are pretty much monogamous. The ratio of males to females is about 10 to 11. In species that allow polygamy this ratio deviates more i.e. say 7 males to 12 females. In more monogamous species it would be closer say for every 20 males there would be 21 females. Humans are pretty much monogamous.If we weren't then there would be fewer men as less of men would be required!

Wouldn't pay any heed to that. In the other species it could just be the weaker males are killed off or their parents don't feed them as much as females.

That wouldn't happen in modern human society so the runts make it through.

Then other's suggest male size in relation to female (being bigger) suggests we shouldn't be monogomous.

All these things are irrelevant to me. We aren't controlled by genes - they have an effect on our thinking of course, but sentience allows us to realise our spouse ain't gonna be pleased if we cheat.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

I wasn't expecting this from you admittedly. How can you compare adultery to this? A marriage doesn't imply chastity, it should be possible to be sexually satisfied in a marriage. Besides even if you weren't the principled thing to do would be to end the marriage if you really wanted to pursue a relationship elsewhere?

Yeah 28064212 is right. I was going for something along the lines of "I can understand people doing it (cheating) but do not believe it is right". Not sure why I chose to be so cryptic rather than just saying that. While I don't think monogamy is for everyone, I think there is a responsibility for the people who don't wish to abide by it to be honest with anyone they become involved with about that fact.

finbarrk

Not everybody tells the truth in these polls. It's not like' whats your favourite drink' or similar.
I would speculate that the % is not correct on here.

philologos

No

finbarrk: could you explain why you think that.

K_user

No

I’ve been with the same woman for 17 years and I’m 35, she’s 34. No matter which way you swing that, we are half our lives together.

A relationship isn’t about sex, its mainly about friendship. Its about spending time with one another, even if its while watching tv. You build on it over time, you invest in it. In the end its about making that other person part of your life.

What works for us is openness. I have no problem telling her who I think is attractive and vice versa. The difference is, least as far as I can see, I’ll find whoever is walking past me in the street interesting for about 10 seconds, while she would have more specific individuals that she likes. We find it no more unusual than chatting about it with our other friends. Trust and jealousy don’t mix well, so knowing where you stand is important.

People can be dishonest in a relationship in many ways, cheating while not the most expensive, is probably one of the most hurtful.

Going back to the OP, I think that men are pre-programmed to spread their seed, to be really crude about it, but its not an insurmountable need. I think people cheat, for various reasons, and I’d imagine that most of them regret it, or try to forget about it.

g.rose

No

The question is practically tautological... of course it is reasonable to expect monogamy from anyone who espouses being monogamous. Infidelity tends to be complex and is rarely about sexual gratification alone. It is fundamentally a weapon for unexpressed anger and unfulfilled need. Excusing men on a biological or social basis is incredibly patronising and ought to be viewed as reverse misogyny. Journo is a silly bugger pushing sensitive emotional buttons- I daresay he isn't up to much when it comes to pushing ladies erogenous buttons. sob.

Silentcorner

No

I have noticed that the majority of male "cheaters" tend to have greater security issues...they tend to be the type that are rarely single, have self confidence problems, often / sometimes perceived to be "the romantic type", the male needy type...ironically it is the attribute that most turns men off women....

Wibbs

No

Silentcorner wrote: »

I have noticed that the majority of male "cheaters" tend to have greater security issues...they tend to be the type that are rarely single, have self confidence problems, often / sometimes perceived to be "the romantic type", the male needy type...ironically it is the attribute that most turns men off women....

I dunno, I think that (common enough) notion "oh they're somehow damaged" is out there to make the rest of us somehow feel better. Especially those who have been cheated upon. I know I've tried to think similar. How could they do that to meeee, they must be damaged!

Truth is I've known cheaters, male and female(I'll come back to that) and some were as you describe and others were among the most clued in, intelligent happy in their nappy people you could meet. Most fell smack bang in the middle. In other words they were like anyone else. They were anyone else.

IMHO I would say you've described women cheaters I've known much more than the male kind. The male needy type rarely gets the chance to cheat that much. It's much more likely to be the confident cock sure male(on the surface anyway) that plays away.

IMHO The never single going from one partner to the next, addicted to emotional stimulation and emotionally needy and requiring of validation is far more descriptive of women who cheat in my experience. I would say that in my experience anyway many more women than men cheat especially when younger. They're better at hiding it and/or they explain it away as not cheating. Get a room of people and ask for a show of hands who cheated. A few honest types will throw up their hands. Now change the definition and ask for a show of hands of how many have had overlap between one relationship and the next and I bet you'll watch a lot more hands go up and they'll be more female hands. "Oh but that's not really cheating. Or is it?"

Ickle Magoo

No

Is it reasonable to expect men to remain monogamous? I'm not sure that's an expectation anyone could or should have...do I expect someone who's willingly and knowingly entered into a monogamous relationship not to break that agreement? Damn right. Certainly rather than do the cowardly thing and have their cake and eat it at the expense of someone else's feelings and self esteem just to bolster their own.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I was reading the Sunday Independent this morning just before I went to church and there was naturally a good bit of discussion about the whole Ryan Giggs fiasco, but I never expected that I would see an article essentially justifying the affair saying that men just can't remain faithful to one partner

Men can do anything if they want to. The real question is do they want to, and if they don't, why.

I think it would be silly to jumble all relationships into a single group and then ask about monogomy. Its like asking is it reasonable to expect that a person will never lie or break their word. How unreasonable that is depends on the context.

Plenty of people are in relationships they are not happy in, either not happy with who they are with or not happy with the terms of the arrangement (ie you can't sleep with other people).

How unhappy they are will effect how likely they are to break the terms of the agreement.

Take Ashley and Cheryl Cole. Ashley clearly wanted to be in a relationship where he could be with Cheryl and sleep with other people. I suspect Cheryl didn't want this. So the question becomes why did Ashley agree to a monogamous relationship when he didn't want one. Did he want one at the time and then change his mind. Did he want Cheryl and was prepared to lie to her to keep her.

The answer to those sort of questions will explain why he cheated, and how likely it was that he would cheat.

philologos

No

Wicknight: The question is whether or not it is reasonable to expect for men to remain monogamous in a committed marriage. That's what the article raises and that's what disgusted me the most about it.

By the by, not happy in a marriage shouldn't of necessity mean cheating. If one wants to enter into a relationship with someone else, surely the honourable thing to do is to finish the relationship that you are currently in rather than going off behind people's backs?

Happiness or unhappiness doesn't give people the right to do this IMO. Also, to claim that adultery happens primarily on this basis is weak to say the least as I would see it.

Paddy De Plasterer

Unsure

It all depends on tne quality of the relationship i assume.

philologos

No

Even if the relationship isn't in good shape, isn't it not better to deal with it directly? Or indeed isn't it the right thing to be fully honest about it?

I don't see how this justifies adultery.

Wibbs

No

philologos wrote: »

By the by, not happy in a marriage shouldn't of necessity mean cheating. If one wants to enter into a relationship with someone else, surely the honourable thing to do is to finish the relationship that you are currently in rather than going off behind people's backs?

oh yea+1.

I think you have to define cheating too. Like I said in my last post there is more than one type. In the above quote I'd say you've described the more common type of cheating, the "overlapper". Then there's the "bit on the side" while remaining in a primary relationship type. There's also the "I'm young and fun" type where guys and gals will snog/shag a loose alliance of peers while keeping a stronger public tie to one partner.

dimiec

Whenever I hear the argument that men are pre-programmed to cheat I always want to respond with - oh really, so then you won't mind if I also cheat (I am a woman). I don't buy into the whole men or women are programmed to be this way or that. It does not account for the randomness of human nature. Some people cheat, some people don't.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

By the by, not happy in a marriage shouldn't of necessity mean cheating. If one wants to enter into a relationship with someone else, surely the honourable thing to do is to finish the relationship that you are currently in rather than going off behind people's backs?

Well yes, but how important it is to the person to act honorably depend on a number of factors.

For example if you despise your wife acting honorably might be the least of your concerns.

philologos wrote: »

Happiness or unhappiness doesn't give people the right to do this IMO.

Well right or wrong are some what irrelevant. The question is is it reasonable to expect that this won't happen. Lots of wrong things happen all the time, and we anticipate that they will. Often it is more unreasonable to expect that they won't happen than that they will.

While I always feel sorry for people who are betrayed in this way, a lot of the time I can't help but also feel they are sometimes very naive people. Again look at Cheryl Cole. Really you have to wonder what she thought the relationship was based around, I think no one but her was surprised she was cheated on.

philologos wrote: »

Also, to claim that adultery happens primarily on this basis is weak to say the least as I would see it.

Which basis?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Even if the relationship isn't in good shape, isn't it not better to deal with it directly? Or indeed isn't it the right thing to be fully honest about it?

I don't see how this justifies adultery.

You are getting too hung up on the justification aspect. Blaming someone is rather irrelevant I would have thought. I would rather not be in a relationship where someone cheats on me than be in such a relationship but be able to say I can blame the other person.

I don't think being able to blame Ryan Giggs for cheating on her is much comfort to his wife.

philologos

No

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, but how important it is to the person to act honorably depend on a number of factors.

For example if you despise your wife acting honorably might be the least of your concerns.

If you despise your wife, do the honourable thing for both of you and end the relationship. Why would you want to prolong such a train wreck of a marriage anyway?

Basic human empathy the principle so perfectly summed up in "Love your neighbour as yourself", or indeed going as far as to say "Love your enemies". Even if you happen to hate your wife, as far as I see it it is still your responsibility to act honourably towards her.

Ethical principles don't suddenly change based on the person it is acting towards.

If you ever get a chance, I'd highly encourage you to flick through Book 1 of Plato's Republic and the dialogue that Socrates has with Polemarchus who says that ethics is about doing what is good to your friends and doing what is evil to your enemies. Your argument is bordering on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well right or wrong are some what irrelevant. The question is is it reasonable to expect that this won't happen. Lots of wrong things happen all the time, and we anticipate that they will. Often it is more unreasonable to expect that they won't happen than that they will.

Right and wrong are completely and utterly relevant. We are here in this world together, we have responsibilities towards eachother even our worst enemies.

Wrong things happen all the time, but why on earth should we be a part of it. Don't you aspire for a better place? Are you saying that we should just tolerate what is evil because it's going to happen anyway? To me that's sickening. Perhaps I'm young, idealistic and naiive, but I hope I don't turn any other way (apart from the young part, I can't control this :pac:).

Wicknight wrote: »

While I always feel sorry for people who are betrayed in this way, a lot of the time I can't help but also feel they are sometimes very naive people. Again look at Cheryl Cole. Really you have to wonder what she thought the relationship was based around, I think no one but her was surprised she was cheated on.

It doesn't matter how surprised she was. It's still wholly wrong.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which basis?

The context of a bad relationship, as if that even justifies adultery to begin with.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are getting too hung up on the justification aspect. Blaming someone is rather irrelevant I would have thought. I would rather not be in a relationship where someone cheats on me than be in such a relationship but be able to say I can blame the other person.

What's wrong is wrong and as far as I'm concerned. We need to be accountable to each other as human beings.

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think being able to blame Ryan Giggs for cheating on her is much comfort to his wife.

It is up for whoever to deal with what they have done. It's sickening to see someone justify adultery in the paper though. Calling what is good evil and what is evil good.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

If you despise your wife, do the honourable thing for both of you and end the relationship. Why would you want to prolong such a train wreck of a marriage anyway?

I'm sure people have reasons, such as social stigma of a divorce, having to give your wife things in the divorce etc.

The point is if you despise your wife you aren't really going to care all that much if you are caught cheating on her, other than the outside view that you have done something wrong.

You are probably not going to care all that much that her feelings are hurt.

philologos wrote: »

Basic human empathy the principle so perfectly summed up in "Love your neighbour as yourself", or indeed going as far as to say "Love your enemies". Even if you happen to hate your wife, as far as I see it it is still your responsibility to act honourably towards her.

Fair enough. But the question is about other people, isn't it?

philologos wrote: »

Ethical principles don't suddenly change based on the person it is acting towards.

Ethical principles only apply if you care about treating the person ethically.

philologos wrote: »

If you ever get a chance, I'd highly encourage you to flick through Book 1 of Plato's Republic and the dialogue that Socrates has with Polemarchus who says that ethics is about doing what is good to your friends and doing what is evil to your enemies. Your argument is bordering on it.

Er, what do you think my argument is. You asked is it reasonable to expect men to remain monogamous. You seem to have shifted gear into the question of whether it is reasonable to blame men who cheat. That is an entirely different issue.

Do you care about whether this will happen or not, or do you care about having an argument to blame the person with when it does? If it is the latter then we are having two different debates.

philologos wrote: »

Right and wrong are completely and utterly relevant. We are here in this world together, we have responsibilities towards eachother even our worst enemies.

And? What does that have to do with expecting someone to cheat or not. People cheat all the time, and often this is rather predictable. How right or wrong it is is rather irrelevant to whether it will happen or not.

philologos wrote: »

Are you saying that we should just tolerate what is evil because it's going to happen anyway?

I'm not suggesting you tolerate anything, though how you don't tolerate Ryan Giggs cheating on his wife I'm not sure.

I'm suggesting that in a number of situations it is quite reasonable to expect a man will cheat on his wife, it happens all the time.

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't matter how surprised she was. It's still wholly wrong.

Of course it matters how surprised she was. You are asking how reasonable is it to expect it to happen.

If she thought "This guy does not want a monogamous relationship, if we get married he will probably cheat on me" I seriously doubt she would have married him in the first place.

philologos wrote: »

The context of a bad relationship, as if that even justifies adultery to begin with.

I would have thought adultery was a pretty good definition of a bad relationship. Are you seriously considering a relationship where one person is cheating a "good" relationship?

philologos wrote: »

What's wrong is wrong and as far as I'm concerned. We need to be accountable to each other as human beings.

You can't stop people lying and you can't stop them cheating.

I would see going into a relationship with open eyes and healthy doubt far more productive than simply blaming the person after the fact.

What does that get you. Again I seriously doubt Ryan Giggs' wife feels any better about this situation because people agree that what Giggs did was wrong.

philologos

No

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure people have reasons, such as social stigma of a divorce, having to give your wife things in the divorce etc.

I think there's more social stigma in adultery once it is inevitably found out to be honest with you.

Wicknight wrote: »

The point is if you despise your wife you aren't really going to care all that much if you are caught cheating on her, other than the outside view that you have done something wrong.

The question is, should you?
You seem to have a very interesting take on ethics.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are probably not going to care all that much that her feelings are hurt.

See above. Doing what is right is more important than mere feelings as I would see it anyway.

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough. But the question is about other people, isn't it?

I don't see how this changes anything about adultery being wrong.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ethical principles only apply if you care about treating the person ethically.

Not really. Ethical principles are our duty irrespective of what we think of people.

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, what do you think my argument is. You asked is it reasonable to expect men to remain monogamous. You seem to have shifted gear into the question of whether it is reasonable to blame men who cheat. That is an entirely different issue.

It's the same issue. I guess this comes down to the fact that I believe in universal morality. That people are obliged to act in a honourable manner towards one another despite any given feelings they have towards them. You seem to be arguing that it is OK in a sense to do what is absolutely abhorrent to someone you despise.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you care about whether this will happen or not, or do you care about having an argument to blame the person with when it does? If it is the latter then we are having two different debates.

The issue arose from someone claiming that adultery was acceptable in last weeks paper. I would prefer if nobody did to be honest with you but that is only an ideal. I guess I'm an idealistic person though. I believe there is right and wrong in this case. That doesn't only apply to the person who is cheating on the partner, it also applies to the other party that they are cheating with.

Wicknight wrote: »

And? What does that have to do with expecting someone to cheat or not. People cheat all the time, and often this is rather predictable. How right or wrong it is is rather irrelevant to whether it will happen or not.

Plenty. This expectation is based on what is right and honourable in a marriage. It's hinged in common morality.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not suggesting you tolerate anything, though how you don't tolerate Ryan Giggs cheating on his wife I'm not sure.

I think it's disgusting that someone could OK adultery in a newspaper. That's where the discussion comes from. As for Ryan Giggs / Imogen Thomas it is up to them to determine what is best, but in terms of it's ethical character one could say that adultery is wrong.

Wicknight wrote: »

I would have thought adultery was a pretty good definition of a bad relationship. Are you seriously considering a relationship where one person is cheating a "good" relationship?

One can be in a perfectly good situation relationship wise yet have sex elsewhere.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't stop people lying and you can't stop them cheating.

It doesn't mean that we should OK them.

Wicknight wrote: »

I would see going into a relationship with open eyes and healthy doubt far more productive than simply blaming the person after the fact.

Sounds like paranoia to me, people should be able to trust their partners.

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that get you. Again I seriously doubt Ryan Giggs' wife feels any better about this situation because people agree that what Giggs did was wrong.

I never said she would...

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I think it's disgusting that someone could OK adultery in a newspaper.

And has you holding this position stopped them from doing so?

So again what relevance does your belief in universal morality have in stopping adultry, or making it very unreasonable to think your partner might cheat on you?

philologos

No

Wicknight wrote: »

And has you holding this position stopped them from doing so?

How is that question relevant to the thread?

Wicknight wrote: »

So again what relevance does your belief in universal morality have in stopping adultry, or making it very unreasonable to think your partner might cheat on you?

Read the OP. I asked the following:

Do you think the author is justified in saying that women are able to keep better control than men in a relationship?

Do you think that the author is making a valid argument in excusing both his and Ryan Giggs' behaviour?

I would like to think that human beings can expect each other to act honourably and decently towards one another and that the vast majority of us will act according to these principles.

Throwing morality out of the window makes this thread pointless.