At least by one author (mostly), what's your view? Is it valid or invalid?
http://ideas.ted.com/2014/01/23/10-facts-about-infidelity-helen-fisher/
http://ideas.ted.com/2014/01/23/10-facts-about-infidelity-helen-fisher/
Infidelity explained
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
Well, there is a lot there, and they cited research for each claim it seems.
That being said, even if all of their claims are true, like even if there turns out to be a gene for cheating, I still cannot accept it. Maybe I believe very strongly in free will, but it seems to me like having an affair is always a choice that someone makes.
That being said, even if all of their claims are true, like even if there turns out to be a gene for cheating, I still cannot accept it. Maybe I believe very strongly in free will, but it seems to me like having an affair is always a choice that someone makes.
I mostly agree.
Look, anyone who has ever been in a long term relationship (say, 6+ months) has, at some point, wanted to fuck the hell out of another person who isn't their mate. If they deny it, they're probably lying or have a low sex drive. It's just part of life.
I'm all for not doing it (monogamy), but I can't stand it when someone wants me to play along with a socially constructed fantasy where it's never felt in the first place. It's a lie and I won't go along with it just because someone has deposited their sense of self-esteem into my perceptions. Fuck off with that.
Any girl I've dated has wanted a dick other than mine and I've wanted to put my dick in another girl. Always, at some point along the way. It doesn't bother me. I just laugh about it and get back to whatever I was doing.
Look, anyone who has ever been in a long term relationship (say, 6+ months) has, at some point, wanted to fuck the hell out of another person who isn't their mate. If they deny it, they're probably lying or have a low sex drive. It's just part of life.
I'm all for not doing it (monogamy), but I can't stand it when someone wants me to play along with a socially constructed fantasy where it's never felt in the first place. It's a lie and I won't go along with it just because someone has deposited their sense of self-esteem into my perceptions. Fuck off with that.
Any girl I've dated has wanted a dick other than mine and I've wanted to put my dick in another girl. Always, at some point along the way. It doesn't bother me. I just laugh about it and get back to whatever I was doing.
Ya, well I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel like that article claimed to have explained infidelity in its entirety, more bring light to some interesting statistics. There are plenty of things I'd like to do that I don't, so unless a clearly mutual relationship is designated open, regardless of my desire I wouldn't. When I see questions of freewill come up in conversations like this I usually just see indirect attempts at avoiding fault for actions we know are harmful towards others. Unless you live your life from a place of non-action, don't use it as a conceptual scapegoat. 'I'm sorry babe, the cavemen made me do it.'
You fell in love with the dream
To fuck forever endlessly
But you don't, and that's ok
The rest is better anyway
Am reminded of that.
Now the topic... It's a nice finding and compilation.
I think I can and will apply a certain thought pattern combatting evolutionary psychology. That might happen; like differences between sex, but to say that it is NOT shaped or influenced by culture is HA HA HA.
It's like they said; back then infidelity are somewhat popular, they are certainly present.
But note that monogamy itself has been present for a long time.
It's 'exclusive monogamy, NO CHEATING BAD BAD CHEATING' that's probably something new, something puritan (all hail Queen Victoria)
Therefore, there too was a need for both of them.
The needs are probably different. Infidelity and/or polygamy was more about the sexual urges (or perhaps social status of being a 'stud' / 'caretaker')
Monogamy was probably more of a idealistic, dogmatic issue of loyalty and honor, as well as property and inheritance rights, avoiding all the drama.
Love, affection....respect..they came later. They probably can come in both types of marriage in different ways.
But changes of culture will influence people. And very possibly within genetic level, a-la natural selection?
Like how lack of opportunities had made differences within (testing of) black people compared to white people,
or how generations of different tasks, activities, etc, had made difference between sexes in some culture.
It's valid, yes, but I think it's as much a social construct as it is monogamy. And it can be deconstructed as much as monogamy itself can be deconstructed.
What to do with the urge themselves doesn't matter. To follow or to restraint, to accept or to reject...
Personally, I'm with Korg. It's absurd to think that LOVE will reduce chances of attraction to other people (although I probably wouldn't mind THAT).
Fantasizing about it is a different matter. Pursuing it is a different matter. Making it a lifechoice is also a different matter.
To fuck forever endlessly
But you don't, and that's ok
The rest is better anyway
Am reminded of that.
Now the topic... It's a nice finding and compilation.
I think I can and will apply a certain thought pattern combatting evolutionary psychology. That might happen; like differences between sex, but to say that it is NOT shaped or influenced by culture is HA HA HA.
It's like they said; back then infidelity are somewhat popular, they are certainly present.
But note that monogamy itself has been present for a long time.
It's 'exclusive monogamy, NO CHEATING BAD BAD CHEATING' that's probably something new, something puritan (all hail Queen Victoria)
Therefore, there too was a need for both of them.
The needs are probably different. Infidelity and/or polygamy was more about the sexual urges (or perhaps social status of being a 'stud' / 'caretaker')
Monogamy was probably more of a idealistic, dogmatic issue of loyalty and honor, as well as property and inheritance rights, avoiding all the drama.
Love, affection....respect..they came later. They probably can come in both types of marriage in different ways.
But changes of culture will influence people. And very possibly within genetic level, a-la natural selection?
Like how lack of opportunities had made differences within (testing of) black people compared to white people,
or how generations of different tasks, activities, etc, had made difference between sexes in some culture.
It's valid, yes, but I think it's as much a social construct as it is monogamy. And it can be deconstructed as much as monogamy itself can be deconstructed.
What to do with the urge themselves doesn't matter. To follow or to restraint, to accept or to reject...
Personally, I'm with Korg. It's absurd to think that LOVE will reduce chances of attraction to other people (although I probably wouldn't mind THAT).
Fantasizing about it is a different matter. Pursuing it is a different matter. Making it a lifechoice is also a different matter.
Last edited:
Erich Fromm posited a very unscientific, ie wasnt empirically researched but based upon his observations of clients in therapy and literature reviews, theory about determinism which I would consider a "soft determinism", that peoples choice diminishes on the basis of all prior choices, so you begin with all the options but as you select one your subsequent options are less and less. He gave the example of someone having an affair, when they first say hello to someone at the water cooler or coffee machine they have total free choice but at the point at which they are booking into a motel together the choice to have an affair has been replaced with thoughts about how to rationalise it to themselves and others because of the chain of conscious and unconscious decisions and choices which led up to that. I am not sure about it but I do see some sense in it and do think soft determinism makes more sense than hard determinism, ie that all our decisions are a consequence of nerve endings (or genes) and narratives (or memes) of which we arent even aware and cant be.
Kant's belief in absolute determinism but that we all should conduct ourselves as though it where not so and we all possess free will has always baffled me somewhat and I think about it a lot. I am a big proponent of consequentialism and just desserts and penalties but I dont believe in hard determinism.
I sense you feel strongly about this, although I dont think the vulgarity and swearing are necessary to the point.
I'm single and have spent much of my life single, apart from one time when I was at uni and decided cynically to steal peoples girlfriends and really test my skills as a pick up artist, those "relationships" sucked and they fed that cynical part of me, however I would not say that this is anymore natural than the condition I've experienced for the rest of my life of being single and not expecting random hook ups to be the norm or looking for someone who understands commitment the same way as me.
I dont really think of this topic in terms first and foremost of judgementalism and condemnation BTW, perhaps that is deserved if someone is totally selfish and cyncial and either aiming to or not caring if they hurt people or not.
Especially for males, the drive is to reproduce. That doesnt change just because they have a full time mate. The drive is to reproduce with as many different women as possible to create as many viable offspring as possible. That is nature in action, that is our programming in action.
And so I add, females will never understand just what a commitment it is when a male chooses to stay with them alone becaue their perspective is entirely different most of the time. This is a foundational truth and I am constantly amazed when it becomes a discussion. It should be considered common knowledge by now.
And so I add, females will never understand just what a commitment it is when a male chooses to stay with them alone becaue their perspective is entirely different most of the time. This is a foundational truth and I am constantly amazed when it becomes a discussion. It should be considered common knowledge by now.
Thank you for your opinion, but I'm not going to change how I express myself.
I kind of relate to the first part of your sentence here. I wasn't motivated by the PUA thing, but I deliberately went after women who were attached as one of many exercises in eroding my conscience. I think a part of me secretly hoped my efforts would be fruitless, but the reality was that it was easier than I thought; what I saw when I peeked behind the curtain was so repugnant that my nihilism and misanthropy probably doubled in the course of a few months. I'm not sure what the second part of your sentence means, but maybe you could explain it differently.
I don't think of it in those terms either.
My point is simply that, for a lot of people, monogamy necessarily means that you cease to have attractions for everyone other than your primary partner. I don't condemn or judge people who buy into this definition - I'm merely saying it's unrealistic and, thus, I won't go along with it in my relationships. It might be a white lie, but it's a lie nonetheless.
So it's less a matter of "condemnation" and more a matter of choosing honesty over a fairy tale.