Is it reasonable to expect men to remain monogamous?

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.