Ya know, not all men are cheaters. Weiner was an idiot for doing what he did.

I'm not perfect. But I have managed to remain monogamous for thirty years.
I don't understand why some men engage in this behavior. To be fair, I like to look at female bodies and sometimes male bodies.

None of this would come as a surprise to my partner. I'll bet most of you in long-term relationships would say the same thing.

I can see posts here from people who condemn men for this behavior. It's a fair question.

Why can't they keep it zipped?

I dunno. I have.

We're not all cheaters.

Prove their manhood, feel lacking in sexual prowess, fell out of love, do not feel loved, seeking power,
and the list goes on

for being one of the decent ones. And I don't know why some men can't keep it zipped, but it seems to me that politicians are more notorious than the general public. And that may be a personality thing. I mean, really, how much self-confidence and arrogance and self-loving do you have to have to even have the nerve to run for office? I couldn't because I would take it too personally if I were to lose, especially lose big. Different beast.

famous, powerful person and got a lot of attention all of a sudden from pretty young women, and maybe he was more susceptible to temptation because of that.

I think about how Clinton used to say in amazement to his friends that although he was once the fat kid in the Big Boy jeans, all of a suddent as an adult he had women coming on to him--and he was absolutely overwhelmed with delight.

I think this is probably a lot of the motivation behind such behavior on the part of many successful men, since what leads to success for all except jocks tends to be nerdy activities, not brawn, and those guys are the ones who have trouble getting girls in high school and college. Then, when they become successful, they just can't pass up the opportunity to use their position to get some.

When I was young I was the lead singer in a band. Yeah, I was a nerd who got a lot of attention all of a sudden, and women were interested in me who would not have been before. I can see how that would happen.

Of course the behavior speaks of perpetual adolescence. But not sure you can contain it to nurds. Look at all the "popular" guys who had no trouble getting the girls, who then feel that entitles them to a lifetime of getting them.

Sad to see this in older men. But "mature" doesn't mean what it used to in terms of self-discipline and being thankful for a good partner anymore. All part of the approved and encouraged societal narcissism and "I got mine" mentality.

But who am I to say? Maybe women need to realize that men are just not going to be the way they prefer. Are women holding men to an impossible standard? What's the point of monogamy anyway? Maybe it's not realistic past the child-bearing years? I'm at that age where the kids are leaving home and seeing so many men jumping ship for what they think are new pastures...it's as though the right to have multiple relationships is undermining the monogamy paradigm. Maybe the "forever" thing is all a sham?

I never was one to fight hard for something that isn't realistic. Practically speaking, plurality of sexual relationships is messy. I like life to be focused and simple, emotionally stable. I would rather be alone than with a partner who was constantly...distracted.

From what I've seen both in public and private spheres, I'm not sure that monogamy is working for many anymore...:shrug:

why do we continually give a whole gender an out, on just being biological when facts prove otherwise?

still not as much as men. There are no definitive numbers out there on this, just educated guesses. I don't think you can get around the fact that it is not advantageous for women to cheat as much as men do in this society. The whole concept of cheating stems from the historical patterns established by men. Men still want to think that women don't cheat, whereas many women cheat IN RESPONSE to cheating by the man. So there is still a double standard there. Women take the marriage vows more seriously as it ensures more protection for children, and women do have more romantic notions about "forever" really being forever. When women cheat, it is partly an emulation of male behavior.

But I don't give women "an out." I'm not being that judgmental about it, for either sex. I'm observing the phenom, and it is very apparent that for a lot of men and women, that monogamy isn't working for them on a purely practical level. So what if more men and more women felt the freedom to not be married? If they have children, then that's an issue but there are so many kids of divorce now that kids need not feel different if their parents are not married.

I'm just saying, maybe we are witnessing the emergence of an alternative to traditional marriage--ie. not being married...ever? Maybe we need more legal protections for people who do not have a traditional marriage?

now that women are more on equal footing all those old myths are going to the wayside.

not being a romantic woman myself, and never having been in need to be connected with another (not being confined in that gender social box) i will say i have seen as many men as woman wanting the happy ever after and romantic feelings though using different words and actions.

women cheat for the same reason men cheat. lack of character. we give cozy, cuddly reasons women cheat and i call bullshit. it hurts the man as much when she cheats as it does the woman.

reality, instead of convenient conditionings for gender

a lot longer for gender equality, certainly in the area of sexual behavior. Women have always been playing catch up in every area compared to men and will for a long time to come.

Yes, I am speaking from conditioning. But also reflecting just what I see around me. I have a partner but it is not a traditional marriage, so I guess I feel less invested in the whole concept of marriage as a lifetime commitment to fidelity. I'm open to the idea that some may choose polyamory. I wouldn't (I don't like that kind of complexity) and that should be OK too. We have all been conditioned to think that monogamous marriage is the only way and people must conform or have "adulterous" affairs, which take a terrible toll on everybody. What if both men and women weren't sold the idea that everyone has to be married by the time they're 25? What if men felt they could stay single and settle down later, or never? Does this fit the reality of what's actually happening? There is more pressure on men to marry young than there is on women. What if we as a society did not put these expectations on the young, but let them make up their own minds? I just can't see bashing one's head on the wall of "norms" that are not working. Do you see that if there were more alternatives, there could be less heartache, less opportunity for people to get hurt by a partner who ignores vows? People who want to remain true to a single partner would certainly be free to do so, but that does not have to be the way everyone lives. As a monogamous partner myself, should I impose that on others?

It's kind of like, "church is for people who need it." Marriage may be for people who need it, not for those who don't really believe in it. Those who want something else would not have to lie & sneak around, therefore their "character" is not in question. It becomes simply a matter of making choices. And accept that traditional roles are changing. For example, as you say, women could be free to ignore the romanticism of marriage and men could be free to embrace it if they want to. Couples could meet with a commonality that is more real than the current marriage straight jacket allows.

and was totally cool with that. worked for me. i am a great proponent of not marrying young, but much much older. ups and downs in this decision, when raising kids, but from experience and what i see, i take being an older parent all over the younger parent.

my family is the odd ball. on my dads side, oldest brother with 4 girls. all in 40's or 50's. 1 married. 1 child. they were different. my aunt was not the nurturer and had to work. was successful professional. my uncle was the stay at home. my dads youngest brother, 4 boys. 1 is living with a woman a decade older for a long time. 3 not married. dads middle brother, married old and no kids

moms side, her brother, 4 boys. 1 dead. 1 married. two never married. moms sister. 2 daughters, one married.

my family. 3 of us. 1 divorced. 1 married. 1 never married.

we are all in 40's and 50's

saying, in my family more likely to never marry than marry. never had the pressure.

i look around my life and out of 6 marriages, one is divorce and the rest have been long and good.

my problem is today, society is working so hard at pushing the norm being anti marriage. that we are not monogomous. the men cannot biologically be faithful. that boys sexuality is all that. and it is a whole new conditioning.

so

as much as i am into deprogramming the old conditioning, i am fighting hard to deprogram the new conditioning or norm. my kids see marriage as a success in our environment, yet in real world a failure and that is all htey are fed. i have to know the true numbers because they envision a family life but are told it is no longer possible. they have to be able to have that dream as much as a comfort in not following that path.

just yesterday talking to youngest son telling me about a friend whose mom is working on her 3rd divorce. the third man in this boys life being kicked out. he is a mess. oldest son telling me his GF's mom is making life rough cause she is in middle of divorce with her second husband. i have these kids all around, in a real mess

as much as we want to advocate the adult living a true life.... there has to be a call for grown up and mature... adult behavior and responsibility, cause these people are raising kids.

all in all.... i agree with your post. but i dont buy into the gender privileges.

And you are coming from a family that really seems to have had no marriage pressure--on both sides--interesting how it worked out that many did not choose marriage, and the ones that did--well statistically that's working well for them/you. Your family really does illustrate the less pressured situation I'm talking about (altho you described the boys on Dad's side as "different"--a certain negative judgment. Were they gay or maybe socially isolated? (rhetorical question)

So I see how you are caught in the middle of trying to avoid the traditional pressures but also suggesting the positives as far as your kids are concerned. Re. the friends with all the divorces--maybe avoiding marriage in the first place would have been preferable (mature, adult behavior). But of course the problem is legal protection for kids. At any rate the friends situation should give your kids (boys) a lot to think about, not bad for them to observe. Remind them that relationships fail whether people are married or not. So it's not necessarily the failure of the concept of marriage. I guess you can only tell them, "marriage is what you make of it" and urge them to wait as long as they can before doing it.

As for gender privileges--guess that depends on families. In my family--the male gender is a BIG advantage in so many ways I can't even list them all. I know that you are all for gender equality, so we have no disagreement on the ideal of how it should be. But I don't think we'll get there by saying there are no differences in gender advantage while there is still so much to fight for.

:thumbsup: thanks for interesting post about your family & discussion...:)

her professional woman. she had a breakdown trying to raise four little girls. lvoed them. wasnt her. so another different in our family. not norm. that we all accepted and was fine with

i do have two gay brother in laws. more fun diversity in this whole relationship thing. they came out when hubby and i married. shocked the shit out of inlaws... conservative, catholic, texans. being a liberal calif i thought it was nifty. my bitch is though they all accepted, they all hid it and kept quiet from the kids and left us lying by ommission until i finally called the family on it and told them i was outing them to my kids anyway. so concerned they wouldnt be loved. pure foolishness and quietly implying something to hide. which i had to have a discussion with my boys about.

one more point... i think that made me different in all this perspective. we were not raised by gender. we were raised, unconsciously i think by parents, as people, not a gender. i did everything brothers did. we were a year apart all oct, three in three years. so didnt really even have year difference. all expectations of brothers, i had. sports, work, college. i raise my kids as people, not gender. just natural cause how i was raised.

i would like help on what this gender difference is. i dont see it.

privilege yes. advantages, yes.... but reality, dont see it.

But the conversation here was not about Weiner.

My post was a response to several threads posted with the common theme, 'Why can't men keep it zipped?'.

a woman has pages of emails from him and engaged in phone sex with him. While technically one might not define this as cheating, it really is in that it was a huge dishonesty in his married relationship. This is my opinion. If my husband has phone sex with another woman behind my back then he for all intents and purpose has in my eyes cheated on me.

watch porn and satisfy their needs (without taking away from his partner's needs).

along with the husband/partner as it is once more removed so is a different thing altogether on the intimacy scale. I have never had a real problem with porn in the house though I do have some feelings about how a lot of it objectifies women. I think it is healthy in moderation (as in it does not supersede the real life relationship).

they have went in the pursuit of happiness in a different manner and will have to take the ups and downs but it is their choice not yours and isn't your concern.

Who the fuck cares about your fidelity or some politicians lack of it? We have real problems that neither choice will change.

You say you are not perfect, well obviously neither is Weiner. Fair to say we all have our faults. But why is so much importance put on it? I know men who don't cheat and yet are a bunch of pricks to their wives and kids. I think of Martin Luther King, who was no saint, when it came to fidelity, yet he put his life on the line to fight for the rights of others. Does that make him less of a man? I think most defintely not. He's a hero in my book, and to a lot of others. I think the trouble with the whole issue of fidelity in a marriage, should not be judged by others, but by the people in the marriage. If they can deal with it, why is it anyone else's business? Some men and women are very passionate by nature, they may love the people they marry very much, they may be very happy with their marriage and with their home life and their kids, but something in them desires more. They don't want to give up their marriage, but it just isn't enough. So I don't know. But I think it's sad that a person is judged by one thing alone.

I don't go around regularly bragging about fidelity, but there were a bunch of sweeping generalizations made here about men. I posted because I thought it was a good idea to point out that it's not always like that.

And I agree that it's sad that someone can be judged by this one thing, despite all the other good things a guy like Weiner has done.

When people cheat, it's not my mission to go after them. Even though it's not my thing, to each their own as long as others aren't hurt in the process. And, therein lies the rub.

Peace.

And I know it wasn't your intention to judge anyone either, you just asked an honest question. I wish I really had the answer, but I just have my opinion. Peace!

the most intimately, it demonstrates a lot about who you are. I believe MLK's infidelity diminishes him as a man absolutely. I think if you could ever get one of the King family to talk off the record, they'd acknowledge that. It's funny but my husband is a pro athlete. He's approached by women all the time for sex. To a lot of women he's a "hero" for what he does. And I do believe passionately that if he were to stray, his credibility as a role model for young persons in our biz would be affected both in real time, and in our own home. I give no passes to MLK or Bill Clinton or other famous figures who stray. They KNOW they are doing wrong to the ones they love most intimately.

It IS all that important. Your primary relationships are IT. If you can even think about hurting those who love you the most closely, the most dearly, you are shit. I don't give a fuck about what "cause" you believe you are working towards (and believe me, my husband believes HIS cause is all that on a par with MLK), if you betray those who love you best, you aren't a person of true worth.

lessened my view of MLK, too. also explained his push for rights for black men, not necessarily black women. he really shit on the womans role.

and yes, still appreciate and respect him as a person and his accomplishments and sacrifice.

But how you define it..is something else. It takes a lot more character to face bigots, dogs, hoses, police, and face possible death, compared to not cheating on ones mate...I don't even know how you can draw a comparison to the two, or say, not cheating is "better" or show "more character" than putting yourself on the line for the rights of others. Edmund Burke once said "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." MLK did something...and not just for himself...but for a whole hellava lot of people. So you can have the guy that doesn't cheat on his wife...I'll take MLK in a NY Minute.

As far as your charge that MLK "shitted" on the rights of Black Women...I'd like to see some proof. The Montgomery Bus boycott that MLK helped to organize was in response to Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus. Last time I checked.... she was a woman, right? The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom... that included women! His work toward passing the Voting rights Act of 1965.... THAT included women!

In Selma, Ala., he led a voter-registration campaign that ended in the Selma-to-Montgomery Freedom March. King next brought his crusade to Chicago, where he launched programs to rehabilitate the slums and provide housing. A lot of those slums that he fought to rehabilitate were occupied by single mothers and unwed pregnant teens. And he was against black women's rights? huh??

Then, King turned his attention to the domestic issue that he felt was directly related to the Vietnam struggle: poverty. He called for a guaranteed family income, he threatened national boycotts, and he spoke of disrupting entire cities by nonviolent "camp-ins." "Guaranteed Family Income". If that's hating against women.... then I guess he must have been a woman "hater"


In regard to MLK and black womens rights to birth control. When Margaret Sanger's fight to bring birth control to all women, black women most definitely included, She opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city's health and social services. Sanger's "Negro Project," which was a unique experiment in race-building and humanitarian service to a race subjected to discrimination, hardship, and segregation. The Negro Project served African-Americans in the rural South. When Sanger died in 1966.. Martin Luther King said: "There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her."

Doesn't sound to me like a guy who was against black women or any women's rights.


So you made the allegation...please back it up. Thanks!

Your husband, athlete or not, is no where on the same plateau as a man who riskes his life to help others advance their human rights. Thats exactly what Martin Luther King did. Personally I have yet to meet any athlete that's a "Hero". They play games, and thats it. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose...big deal. I love Derek Jeter and Mark Sanchez...but to compare them to Martin Luther King? Are you for real? Come on! LOL! I'm sorry but thats just plain funny.

You have stated what you believe is important in a relationship. And I respect your right to feel that way. But that is your expectation of a relationship or a marriage, not everyone elses. I think when you love someone, your intent is never to hurt them, but sometimes you do. It might not be your intent, but it happens. Marriages take a lot of work, its a lot of give and take. A person may not meet your expectations in one area, yet they may meet them in all others. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad. People make mistakes and we forgive. But I hardly think it is my right or yours to set the criteria for everyones marriage or relationship. Thats their business, not ours.


I have seen people do far worse to their loved ones, then just cheat. They have brutalized, demeaned, and done some pretty horrific physical things to their wives and kids, but guess what? They don't cheat. To me that is real sick Shit .In fact to me that is the sickest Shit of all. So excuse me, if I don't get hysterical over someone cheating on a spouse.

and are very sorry when they do. It is compulsive, often rebellious behavior. You do whatever it is you are not supposed to do. Cheap thrills. So what are some other alternatives for these people other than just labeling them "shit." Which most of them are not. (The cruel & abusive ones are shit but not the impulsive stupid ones (John E comes to mind). What if we stopped expecting every man or woman to live a monogamous life? What if someone could really say, "I don't want to get married because I don't want to be tied down," and NOBODY (!) would criticize them or think a think of it? I know 6 guys in their 40's who are doing this (much to their family's consternation in the case of 4 of them). They are having as many relationships with single women that they want to have. So much better than asking a monogamous wife to put up with successive affairs. And this choice should be OK for women too.

Why commit to fidelity? Just be honest about it and nobody gets hurt. The problem is that marriage sets up monogamous expectations. For many it seems, these expectations are unrealistic.

More acceptance of non-marriage for men is needed (it has always been more acceptable for women and implied asexuality). But there are men out there now who are not marrying in order to be poly amorous. They may get married much later in life but they realize they would not make the best monogamous partner when younger. I admire these marriage avoiders MUCH more than the guys who get married, father children and fly the coop as soon as the kids hit 18 (usually having already hidden affairs). I see so much of that around me that I think maybe we are not realistic to expect men to remain monogamous for life, though many may choose to do so. Maybe we should not put a virtue on marriage as much as "to thine own self be true."

My point in saying this is that where people are getting hurt, hurting, and lives are being destroyed by emotional upsets, SOMETHING is wrong with the paradigm...so maybe we need to look at the way that society could accept more alternatives to traditional marriage? Not sure, just throwing it out.

touching them. It's a different kind of cheating which isn't technically cheating. I guess it would be emotional or mental cheating. I say more power to him if he didn't go and actually touch any of these women.

And I agree - not all men are cheaters. Don't judge them all by the idiotic behavior of a few.

I, too, haven't ever cheated, but to be honest my opportunities to cheat have been relatively few and far between. I can't say with total confidence that I would never have cheated if it were an ever-present option.

artist myself. I can tell you the shit is hard as hell. If the opportunity was there more men would fail than pass the fidelity test.

It is possible to be in a "marriage" and still have an open relationship, some may call it swinging, others call it polyamory --- they are all different. As long as there is total communication and agreement between partners, it is possible to enjoy a very rich and diverse sexual life and still be 100% emotionally committed to one person.

It is possible to never cheat, and have sex with multiple partners while in relationship. Cheating in this case is "lying" about it.

Just another perspective.

but from what I've seen, there are always certain expectations. The only "open marriages" I've seen broke up long ago. It usually works better for men than women as it follows the typical male patterns.

Isn't it really better--and more honest--just not to get married?

It's much more acceptable now for men not to do it in the first place. I know 5 or 6 men in their 40's who are not married but have multiple partners, simultaneously or consecutively. The women are either "never married" or divorced. I will bet that these men will not be married in their 50's either. They want multiple partners and they don't really want to deal with finding a woman to marry who will put up with that. I admire these guys. They're bucking the old "he must be gay" & all that jive --to prove that they can have "open" relationships without making the promises of marriage.

Consider though, men are rewarding psychologically for their sexuality, Woman are shamed. Then look at the number of male politicians that make up the US Congress. Last I checked we were 69th (yes that was the number) down on the list of countries for women sharing political power. That puts us behind a whole lot of countries.

Women cheat, men cheat. We don't have enough data to see how women would behave sexually if they shared equal political power, as such a situation doesn't exist, anywhere.

I did read a book one time on sexual behavior via prostitutes in DC. It was quite interesting, what men requested. Quite often they wanted to be dominated in some way. Not a science fact here, just one book, but I always found it interesting.

But you probably didn't do it in Playboy magazine.

...have very large, ahem, egos. They are not like us normal folk.

They need, ahem, stroking, all the god darn time. And, when they aren't getting it enough then BOOM.

Therefore, normal smart driven people self destruct right in front of our eyes.

Sad.

I thought the act of sexual intercourse needed to occur.

I've known lots of women cheaters too, so it's not something that's particular to just men.

No matter what, or how much they have, they're never satisfied.

Someone asked Donald Trump "How much money is enough?"

His reply "One more dollar."

to give me unsolicited attention and affection. I would feel a huge sense of guilt not only in ignoring that attention, but seeking out others for my unmet needs or confused feeling on being needed.

It's not for ME to be offended or not. Plenty of people do this with the knowledge and consent of their partners, I suspect. Open relationships of varying degrees are more common than folks realize.