Why do people cheat?
Is cheating something that happens to everyone/everyone does at some point?
>>17262740
Human nature.
It's easy.
People get bored.
Lack of attention from their partner.
Want any more justifications to validate you? It's all garbage. People are garbage.
If you find a good one, never let them go.
>>17262751
>Want any more justifications to validate you?
What do you mean by this?
>>17262740
>Why do people cheat?
People cheat in their teens/early 20's because they're stupid kids with no concept of impulse control or dedication.
People cheat later in life because they suffer from an untold variety of psychological and emotional disturbances that, for the most part are so benign and ingrained in everyday culture that they typically aren't even considered disorders.
Fear of intimacy is an accepted part of modern society so a lot of people can go their entire adult lives never knowing how to fully commit to one person and in many situations its even encouraged.
Human beings are messy, complicated creatures and no amount of pondering will change the fact that people do a lot of fucked up things for a lot of reasons. Don't try to quantify it into any sort of logical conclusion because it won't work and its pointless.
>Is cheating something that happens to everyone/everyone does at some point?
No.
Not OP, but also, why is it seen as worse when a woman cheats?
>>17262763
If it's not something that everyone has to deal with, is it at least common?
>>17262772
Very common. Just like drug use.
Look at the time Ashley Madison got hacked.
Everyone smokes weed and everyone cheats on their spouse. One is against the law, the other isn't. One is more accepted in society, and the other isn't.
So if you got cheated on, don't feel bad. Just separate from the person and realize it wasn't your fault they cheated.
>>17262740
because we are designed too. no where in evolution does it say humans having one life long partner is normal. on the contrary, having just one wife is relatively new idea.
humans are sexual creatures, and many mammals bond sexually. you have to remember that evolution was not designed to create a utopia. it was designed to make survivors.
half of our genes tell us to sleep around in order to get others pregnant. a womans genes might say to sleep around to have more than one man protecting her. both genders might have genes telling them to be jealous because if their partner is 'cheating' on them, they are either less likely to be protected (in the womans case) or less likely to actually be taking care of hteir own kid (the mans case). and obviously in the mans case, those genes die out cuz hes literally being cucked, and in the females case her genes die out cuz shes not get the protection she needs if she doesnt fight for it.
women might also sexually bond with each other on the side because it bonds them, and makes it more likely that they can help one another, or that a childless female will take care of your kid as well.
men might also sleep around with other men because it can bond two alphas together, or even better it can make a beta learn his palce and basically be your slave without him going after your womenz.
you also have to rememebr that even if genes did say we should have one partner for our life times, those lifetimes were extremely fucking short. 30 was the average age you'd get to. the chances of both partners making it that far are pretty low ,especially considering women die in childbirth. assuming you partner up at roughly 15 and no partner died until 30, you'd only be together for 15 years.
humans live way fucking longer than that now, so there was no chance for evolution to say 'this is our partner for life'.
>impulse control
>discipline
>inability to dedicate or commit
>>17262740
>Why do people cheat?
No self-control, impulsivity, no forethought, uncaring about the feelings of others, cowardice, and a plethora of other horrible traits. There's no excuse for cheating.
>is cheating something that happens to everyone/everyone does at some point?
No
>>17262772
The most accurate data we have points to about 20% of people are unfaithful. So the majority of people do not cheat.
>>17262766
Is it though? Is there actual empirical evidence that shows that?
>>17262766
Because our society often views women as commodities; trophies to be sought after and coveted. They're status symbols. Women are expected to be obedient, grateful to their providers, stable members of their family and more sensible and prudent than men. Now, before I get the "go back to Tumblr" post I will say its not all like that; we have made progress, and there are a lot of issues that men face that women don't. Although we've come a long way from the nuclear model of the 1950's it would be foolish to think that the people of that generation have given up their moral codes in exchange for the ones being developed today.
Males are also pressured to become providers and act as the stabilization factor in a family setting so when the mother has sex outside of the relationship its viewed as selfishness and betrayal. It is also true that women, typically, require more of an emotional connection to have sex so the implications behind a cheating woman are much heavier than a man, who for all intents and purposes can have sex with someone and have no feeling about it whatsoever.
In our society a lot of emphasis is put on finding and keeping the best looking, smartest, funniest, sexiest woman we can find. In short, its been the underlying theme of the past few centuries that men are "supposed" to cheat and women are not.
We know its wrong but we are, regardless, less upset and surprised when a man does it.
>>17262799
I always saw it as "We can expect the sex-crazed men to cheat, but a woman? No, they're better than that." Kinda like the whole "We can expect darkies to make violent rap lyrics, but a white man? White people are better than that" from the 90's.
>>17262799
From an evolutionary/anthropological perspective, female infidelity is a lot risker for the man than male infidelity is for the woman (though neither is desirable). It's not just "our society," it's also biology.
There's a reason these patterns crop up over and over again in society after society worldwide, across many thousands (actually tens of thousands) of years.
>>17262783
Your post is full of outright misinfo, but these points are particularly egregious.
>those lifetimes were extremely fucking short. 30 was the average age you'd get to
This is not true.
>no where in evolution does it say humans having one life long partner is normal. on the contrary, having just one wife is relatively new idea.
This is not true.
>>17262783
>no where in evolution does it say humans having one life long partner is normal. on the contrary, having just one wife is relatively new idea.
Actually one of the most apparent trends in hominin evolution was the evolution towards pair-bonding.
A rapidly changing environment selected for more meat eating, which selected for more tool use, which selected for greater intelligence, which selected for longer childhoods, which led to more dependent children, which selected for paternal investment, which selected for pair-bonding as opposed to promiscuity.
You can see this clearly through the fossil record from Australopithecus all the way to modern humans as life spans got longer, brains got larger, and sexual dimorphism decreased.
>>17262740
Hey, when you're attractive you'll understand ;^)
>>17262833
Oh also another point is that modern nomadic people (the closest thing we have to observing "natural" human behavior), like the Hadza, are serial monogamists.
>>17262834
When you finally get a gf so you can know what it's like to be cucked, you'll understand ;^)
>>17262854
That's a slightly simplified picture. Many also practice polygyny, or likely practiced it in the past. But you're absolutely right that serial monogamy is one of two or three basic relationship structures that people seem to naturally gravitate towards.
>>17262829
>30 was the average age you'd get to
>this is not true
my bad, i was off. 25 years is the average death. but it just further proves my point.
>one partner
>not true
depends on your definition of 'relatively' i suppose, but it actually is true. simply saying 'its not true' doesnt actually prove any point.
I on the other hand actually backed up my argument with facts and theories (rooted in fact) on human behavior. if we were meant to have on partner, we would. but we dont.
we want our partner to be comitted but want to fuck around. if it wasnt human nature then it wouldnt be human nature.
but i suppose you will just say
>this is not true
as if that proves anything, so good luck with that.
>>17262833
and yet cheaters outnumber people who dont cheat.
then again, your timeline of when humans started pushing towards a nuclear family doesn't really contradict my use of the word 'relatively' so in that way were btoh correct.
but it still hasnt stopped anyone form that moment onward from sleeping around.
>>17262869
I'll never understand polygamy. One wife is enough work, but 2,3 or more? fuck that lol
>>17262876
>and yet cheaters outnumber people who dont cheat
Nope. The most accurate data we have says cheaters are the minority.
>then again, your timeline of when humans started pushing towards a nuclear family doesn't really contradict my use of the word 'relatively' so in that way were btoh correct
The push towards pair-bonding started as early as Australopithecines. That's 4 million years ago.
>>17262876
>my bad, i was off. 25 years is the average death. but it just further proves my point.
You've misunderstood. Prehistoric life expectancies were relatively high; people could expect to live to 60 or 70 or thereabouts, *provided they survived past early childhood and didn't die violently.* Violent death was relatively common and the infant mortality rate was much higher than today, skewing the average life expectancy downwards.
>one partner
>not true
>depends on your definition of 'relatively' i suppose, but it actually is true. simply saying 'its not true' doesnt actually prove any point.
It's not true. This anon >>17262833 has it right. In the ancestral environment humans evince both polygyny, serial monogamy, and lifetime monogamy; all three are natural behaviors. This is supported by anthropological observation of contemporary hunter-gatherer groups, as well as other tribal societies (pastoralists/horticulturalists etc), the archaeological record, the behavior of other great apes (particularly chimpanzees), and the structure of our own bodies in relation to them, which suggests a deep-set pattern of monogamy, both lifelong and serial, with occasional polygyny and infidelity.
>and yet cheaters outnumber people who dont cheat.
This is also wrong, as this anon >>17262792 noted (Reliable figures on this are hard to come by, but 20% is about as reasonable as anything else I've read, and there's no credible sources claiming that cheaters outnumber non-cheaters.)
>>17262915
A-are you anthropologist anon who usually goes to the poly threads?
Is there a reason? Probably. Who gives a fuck? Will understanding why people do it benefit you in anyway?
You're just giving yourself a reason to believe what you want to believe.
>>17262740
I can't bring myself to cheat, even if I'm feeling fucking miserable in the relationship. But if I'm feeling miserable I'll just break it off at some point and pursue something else.
>>17262923
I'm the selfsame anon, though I'm a little boggled (and flattered) that you've apparently remembered me across several threads!
I swear to god I don't go looking for these threads, they just always seem to pop up right before I go to bed and I end up staying up way too late posting basically the same thing every time.
>>17262930
OP here,
I feel the same, after I did it once, I felt awful and hated myself for a really long time.
>>17262915
Are there any records of female polygamy? Like, a woman having multiple husbands?
Also, when you and other poster say 20%, does that mean 20% of all men and women? Would you reckon more men cheat or more women cheat?
>>17262944
You're super cool. Could you talk more about the evidence of life-long monogamy being a natural sexual strategy in humans?
>>17262948
My source, a YouGov poll done last year I think, had around 19% of women and 21% of men had cheated. From most studies I've seen, it's usually men are more likely but not by much.
As for human polyandry, the only example that comes to mind is Tibetan polyandry, where two brothers will marry 1 woman.
>>17262948
There are, but it's very rare. It's called polyandry; polygyny is when one man has multiple wives (or at least female partners.) The citation you'll most often trip over is from Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, which aggregates information on over 1000 societies; of those, only 4 practiced polyandry. That figure might be excessively narrow, but it's still certainly not common, and there's a fair amount of research suggesting that polyandry might be an unnatural development that's sparked by economic hardship, demographic crises, etc. And I know I've read several papers that claimed that societies that do feature polyandry are unusually prone to jealousy-related violence -- in other words, that it's an unstable institution -- though for the life of me I can't find them right now. But regardless, historically, male sexual jealousy is one of the most common instigators for homicide.
>Also, when you and other poster say 20%, does that mean 20% of all men and women? Would you reckon more men cheat or more women cheat?
Honestly I'd need to do a little digging before I could break that figure down for you. It's an average, obviously; the sexes probably don't cheat in precisely equal proportions, but I'm not sure what those proportions are! There might not be general agreement on the subject, anyway, and I'm sure the figure's changing as fast as our society is.
>>17262956
Thanks for the compliment! And I'd love to, though I hope you'll bear with me while I dig through a couple sources first.
>>17262956
As the anon noted above, sexual dimorphism is usually correlated with polygamy (Which makes sense -- as a male, you want to be larger than your competitors so you can acquire more mates, and defend your harem once you've got one.) It's generally thought that hominins have become less sexually dimorphous over time, starting about four to five million years ago, strongly suggesting a shift towards monogamy. This is borne out by the size of the human testes, which are pretty moderately-proportioned for hominids; larger testes (which can produce more sperm) suggest promiscuity (chimpanzees, particularly bonobos, are more promiscuous than humans, and have larger testes, proportionally). Low sexual dimorphism and moderate testicular size suggests a tendency towards monogamy, although by no means an exclusive one.
The universality of marriage -- and it is a virtually universal practice, going back many thousands of years, well into prehistory -- suggests that humans are wired for long-term pair-bonding. There's a good publicly-available paper on the reconstruction of prehistoric marriage practices; google "Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices." Their conclusion: reconstructing the details of prehistoric marriage is pretty hard, but marriage definitely goes back to prehistory, and it's also been a structured institution, not an informal one, since well before the agricultural revolution (supported by similarities in the practice even across groups that split off from each other a very long time ago.)
cont'd
This is also supported by the archaeological record; it's possible to reconstruct social structures & residence patterns from the archaeological record. It's not an exact science, but archaeologists can be pretty ingenuous. By looking at prehistoric artifacts, for instance, you can get an idea of who produced and used them, where and how they lived. If men produced one kind of artifact and women produced another, and male & female artifacts that you're reasonably sure came from the same two people keep being found together, clearly produced years apart, could they have been husband and wife? If artifacts that display a particular characteristic marking them as coming from one group are consistently found at a site occupied by another group, mightn't that indicate intermarriage? Sometimes finding remains from one population buried amongst another's can indicate intermarriage as well. House structure & size can also indicate marriage, and so on.
And then sometimes you just stumble across something that's a hell of a lot more obvious than that; when you uncover a prehistoric cemetery with men and women of approx. equal age buried together, it's pretty reasonable to assume they were husband and wife. I've read about several sites like that.
For a really good summary of all of that, google "Marriage patterns in an Archaic population" by Brenda VE Kennedy. Also a publicly-available paper.
Lastly, you can also just look at our instincts today. Romantic love is as universal as marriage, sex encourages pair-bonding. Significant parental investment isn't universal but it's extremely common, even in men. It's also worth noting the existence of instinctive female sexual jealousy, which suggests that even prehistoric women expected their men to stick around, and not expend resources on caring for other children by different women. Lastly, in tribal societies that permit divorce -- and most tribal societies do, with less stigma than modern ones -- it's permitted, but not universal. Serial monogamy is also very common, but even when they're given the option to do so, not everybody chooses to move on after a few years or even a few decades. And from an evo. psych or evo. biology perspective, investing all your resources into raising and protecting a couple children, begotten by a single partner, isn't a bad strategy at all. It's just not the only viable one.
And that's all she wrote. Sorry for taking like an hour and writing three long-ass posts, but considering I run my mouth about this every week or so, I wanted to give a real answer. I hope you're still around, or that you'll see this tomorrow!
>>17262740
i dunno if what i did counts as cheating but
>dating a guy who wouldn't put "gf" label on me
>we were supposed to be exclusive (his words, not mine), but he's always busy either partying or doing work to pay attention to me
>basically an ornament to him instead of a partner
>he was fine not talking for days. which was stupid annoying when i was trying to break up with him, since he would never pick up his phone.
>another boy starts showing me a ridiculous amount of attention, i don't even like him that much but he was more of a boyfriend in a single day than my current at the time was in 8 months
>sleep with boy, dump bf the next week when he finally picked up his phone
>find out he was using tinder behind my back anyway lol
>mfw we're on good terms anyway
also idk if this counts
>be casually "dating" current; it's an LDR, met him on tinder (kek, thanks george)
>nothing is official. i had met him only once at this point... honestly didn't think anything would last because i thought online + LDR relationships were a meme
>so i go to this party with my friends and end up kissing a couple guys when i was super drunk, nothing else
>he knows i'm at the party, and this stresses him out so much he asked me to be exclusive the next time i saw him. also put the gf label on me.
>now we've been together for a year and neither of us strayed. at least to my knowledge.
yeah... that's about it.
>>17263174
>>17263168
>>17263163
Thank you so much! I'll definitely read those papers. The part about individuals within serially monogamous societies sometimes chooseing to be life-long partners reminded me of http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text/2 where the elder of that camp had only ever been with his one partner for their entire lives.
If you wouldn't mind me asking more, what do you know about the Mosuo? I read a lot of conflicting information about them and their social structure and practice of "walking marriage".
>>17263229
I've never read a paper or ethnography about them specifically, I don't think. My first thought: I wonder what it is about the Tibetan & Himalayan regions that makes them so prone to unusual marriage structures. A lot of papers have tried to link group marriage, polyandry, etc, with economic hardship / harsh terrain and climate / high mortality rates and so on. Obviously Tibet can be a pretty harsh place to live, but there's plenty of those worldwide.
Their marriage practices certainly sound interesting. From what I'm reading, though, I'm inclined to believe the folks at mosuoproject.org (the ones cited on the wiki page on walking marriages), who claim that they're largely serial monogamists, and neither polyandrists nor particularly promiscuous. I took a look at the Blumenfield paper, the one cited on the wiki page as "But, in other anthropologists' views …" and it's really … not too impressive. It gives no account of the methodology she used to conduct her ethnography, but whatever she used doesn't seem to have been very rigorous. I absolutely do not believe that crime & rape are unknown amongst them. Her work has a really clear political slant (which doesn't invalidate it but does raise my suspicions a little) and for the love of god, if I hear one more claim that the form of "[X] have no word in their language for [Y]" I might scream. "Russian has no word for freedom," "Eskimo has a hundred words for snow," "Na has no word for jealousy", it's almost invariably bunk. So if she's the primary defender of the idea that the Mosuo are free-lovin' hippies, I'm not buying it (That's usually my reaction when somebody makes a really extraordinary claim about a particular society; it's usually either outright false or there's extenuating circumstances that they've neglected to mention.)
Regardless, they still seem fascinating and I'm definitely going to look for more on them later.
>>17263319
That was exactly my take on her views, especially the claim of the "no word for jealousy". I didn't buy that for one second.
There are so many documentaries about the Mosuo, but it's a shame that all seem tainted by political, ideological, or sensational agendas. I would really just like to know the straight facts.
>>17262740
Cheating happens because there is a need not being met either in the relationship or internally within the cheater because of this even if the person didn't cheat the relationship won't work
>>17263341
I agree, and I wish that was a lot less common in anthropology (particularly cultural anthropology) than it is. I'd love to continue this -- it looks like there's been several widely-cited ethnographies published on the Mosuo and I'd love to sort through 'em and figure out which ones are worth reading -- but it's way past my bedtime (per usual when I get sucked into one of these threads) and I should really get to bed. It's been fun, though. Cheers!
It's natural for a man to cheat. Men have needs, and one of those needs is to spray their sperm in any many holes as possible.
>>17263391
I'm glad I ran into you again, anthro-anon
>>17263399
Only in vaginas anon. Not bumholes or mouths.
>>17262740
Many people like to act like hormone-driven animals with no self control
>>17262783
It is the display of self control and refusal of promiscuity that puts us beyond dogs, anon. Nowhere in evolution does it say that we should be moving around at high speeds in metal boxes powered by explosive liquid, either.
Some of us have very little self-control. Also we think as long as we keep it secret everything will be fine.
Yeah i know it's shitty.
>>17262762
Validations: you are beautiful. I love you. You are my man. You are so hot you make me wet. You make me laugh. I like you so much
A lot of people get in relationships because they're scared of being alone and then they end up feeling even more lonely with their partner, since the only reason why they chose them was availability.
When they feel lonely they seek that feeling you have at the beginning of the relationship (the excitement, the validation, the attraction) with someone else.
