The $30K shut off is kind of lame.

For those interested in looking at this more substantively, there is probably General Social Survey data publicly available that would let you run regression models until the cows come home.

The assumption that 50/50 demographic split is the norm in inaccurate. In general, more females than males are born and survive. Females are hardier than men before and during infancy.

This is incorrect. More boys than girls are born. In cultures with low infant mortality and/or strong cultural preference for male children, this persists or even increases through childhood. Only when boys grow up and start killing themselves and each other with idiot behavior are females more common.

Women, in general, are biologically hardier than men -- it's the two X chromosomes for full redundancy and suppressing negative recessive traits -- but most of the male failures happen in the womb (male conceptions are much more common than females).

You're right DCA. That's what I get for posting pre-caffeine.

In terms of the affair, I'm not really sure why it's relevant whether or not there was sex. You can certainly be unfaithful to your wife without sleeping with someone else.

n terms of the affair, I'm not really sure why it's relevant whether or not there was sex.

Here is one reason that it might matter

"He flatly denies having had any kind of an inappropriate relationship with her," Hardin said. "He's considered her a close family friend. ... He has never had a sexual relationship with her."

Top that off with:

From a public relations standpoint, Clemens' decision to file the suit against McNamee the night the Rocket appeared with Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" could end up being the biggest risk he has taken yet. Clemens, under investigation for perjury, has already endured the ignominy of publicly admitting his wife's own human growth hormone use, having photos of bloody gauze and needles linked to him and embarrassing scrutiny of an alleged injection-site abscess on his buttocks.

and you have to say that Rusty has done just about as bad a job as could be done with this case. Its the legal version of Limatime.

Is there anyone that would want syringes with assblood, assabscesses, and their flings with underage ass out in the public?

And every time Roger gets caught with his midsection going in and out of things its not suppose to, ol' Rusty is right there making some over the top statement about how he is going to sue somebody for public health violations, vehemently denying what other people are confirming, or floating a story that blows up. I wonder if he is going to tell us that McCready will need to "get a good lawyer" or if Roger is going to "eat McCready's lunch"

If there's a story about an affair, it's safe to assume there was sex involved.

You know what they say about assuming. It's not safe to assume that at all; if you believe the second story, that assumption you made would have been false for the first three years of the affair.

When newspapers print potentially defamatory stories, they have their lawyers vet those stories. When newspapers have salacious facts, they don't leave things to be "assumed"; they tell you. So what's actually "safe to assume" is that the Daily News didn't have a sufficient basis, at the time of the first story, to satisfy its lawyers that it could claim that there was sex.

So, no, you're wrong here too:

If there's a story about a bludgeoning, it's safe to assume there was a death.

If it doesn't mention a dead body, you don't "assume" there was one.

If there is a disproportionate amount of adultery going on among ballplayers, and my guess is that there probably is, they don't do it because they're rich.

The other half of the equation is that there are a lot of very attractive, very shrewd, very amoral women out there who would like nothing better than to steal away a young, rich and famous husband from another woman. In their own way, women can be as ruthless as any man, when another woman is standing in the way of something they want very badly.

So what's actually "safe to assume" is that the Daily News didn't have a sufficient basis, at the time of the first story, to satisfy its lawyers that it could claim that there was sex.

But now that McCready has confirmed what we all suspected fromt the first story, the point is moot.

"/I keed! I keed! This thread needed some levity."

A poor substitute for Craig's wife, but I guess I'll take it.

"In general, more females than males are born and survive. Females are hardier than men before and during infancy."

The perils of external genitalia. Get that thing caught in a door, and you really want to die.

The perils of external genitalia. Get that thing caught in a door, and you really want to die.

That's why you don't reveal your intentions until you're inside.

DtM, like many things involving socioeconomic status there are several variables at play, including opportunity and access. People who are more educated tend to make more money, tend to travel more, tend to be more exposed to members of the opposite sex who are more educated and wealthy, etc.

Or perhaps the sort of poor person who's inclined to cheat simply doesn't get married in the first place, whereas even faithless rich people get married. You can't assume that the two groups are identical.

"In general, more females than males are born and survive. Females are hardier than men before and during infancy."

This isn't true. More males than females are born but gradually females catch up to and then surpass males. But that doesn't happen until adolescence, I believe.

If there is a disproportionate amount of adultery going on among ballplayers, and my guess is that there probably is, they don't do it because they're rich.

It is probably all related to opportunity. If you expect the same percentage of people to cheat, and one group meets more people, there will be more incidences. People who make over 30G's (presumably) have more disposable income and more opportunities to meet new people.

See my acknowledgment of error at 203, kevin.

scotto - read your link

ida know about the $$$ means you have more time/opportunity excuse because pretty much everyone has plenty of chances to cheat unless you are always with the other person all the time.

before i got married i asked some men who were/had been married why they cheated on their wife because i didn't want my husband to cheat on me and i didn't want to make the mistake their wife did and i didn't never really get a straight or honest answer except for 1 man who said cheating is what men do so i asked him why he got married and vowed to God to not cheat when he never meant it and he said because women want you to say it even when they know you lying.
so i said why get married when you know you want more than one woman and he shrugged and said - ida know.

and here i am 8 years later and still i got no idea why so many people got no problem with cheating. splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

I don't understand it either, bbc.

da know about the $$$ means you have more time/opportunity excuse because pretty much everyone has plenty of chances to cheat unless you are always with the other person all the time.

I agree, cheating occurs all over the place. Unless you are in a Supermax prison, you have access to others that you are likely to find attractive.

splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

From the theories you have seen, there are as many reasons for cheating as there are cheats:

(1) Some its for status; they need to have cred among their peeps. (not everyone can just flash the Piru Blood sign like Paul Pierce), or in teh words of George Clinton

Like the boys
When they're out there walkin' the streets
May compete
Nothin' but the dog in ya

(2) For some, they legitimately fall in love, but view their committment to their children, or their spouse to still be important (albeit able to cheat at the edges for sex)

(3) For some, its just their nature or in in the immortal words of George Clinton:

Why must I feel like that
Why must I chase the cat
Nothin' but the dog in me

_________
There is not one answer.

Bow-wow-yippie-yo-yippie-yeah,
BL

splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

Imagine a situation where you are very happy with your life. You have a nice home. You love spending time with your kids. You like your social situation and don't want to monkey with it.

But something is missing. Perhaps your wife no longer makes you feel special. She has let herself go or is no longer interested in sex. Someone comes along and gives you that spark that you were afraid you'd never feel again.

I'm not saying it's okay to cheat, and I would certainly never do it, but I can understand it. Over the weekend I saw Chris Rock's movie, I Think I Love My Wife, on cable. It's not a great movie, but it's funny enough, and it does capture that feeling very well.

splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

What's not to understand? If you have a family and you are worried about the emotional or financial fallout from a split, you would try to avoid that.

That's cute and all, but I would say the reason for cheating is simply pure selfishness and utter cowardice regarding honesty. No other reason.

That's cute and all, but I would say the reason for cheating is simply pure selfishness and utter cowardice regarding honesty.

Come back when you're 45 and find yourself in a loveless marriage. Then we can discuss some more.

ida know about the $$$ means you have more time/opportunity excuse because pretty much everyone has plenty of chances to cheat unless you are always with the other person all the time.

Men with more income, in addition to more money (which they could use on escorts or entertaining other women and so forth) also tend to have jobs that take them to different places. If a man generally doesn't leave his own home metro area, in the back of his mind he thinks that there's more of a chance he'd get caught cheating than if he had the opportunity during some downtime at a sales convention halfway across the country.

In addition, couples with higher income tend to have their own private vehicles, which was not something available to my parents for much of my childhood. (That's less of an issue now since more couples can afford two cars.) With just one car, it's harder to get away.

Incidentally, many men have gotten good at telling women what they want to hear. No woman wants to hear a man say that he'll never be happy with one woman even if she strongly suspects that's the case. (Whereas I have had more than gay man tell me point blank that no, there's no way that he could stay faithful to one partner.)

Some men are satisfied with one woman, but some are not and some likely never will be. Of the latter, some are going to be constrained by external circumstances, others by a sense of duty. There's a lot of subtle social pressures towards pairing off, and most men aren't going to openly defy them for the entire lives even if that's what they ought to do if they really just want to play the field their whole lives.

Come back when you're 45 and find yourself in a loveless marriage. Then we can discuss some more.

So have some balls and leave. Don't provide silly rationalizations for cheating.

Come back when you're 45 and find yourself in a loveless marriage.

TMI.

More males than females are born but gradually females catch up to and then surpass males. But that doesn't happen until adolescence, I believe.

You might be a redneck, if anyone in your family's last words were, "Hey, y'all, watch this!"

So have some balls and leave.

That's easy to say when you don't have your kids to worry about.

Or maybe you just think it takes balls to ignore everybody else's feelings but your own when you're considering ending a marriage.

SoSH and Lassus, I respect your beliefs and I hope you can continue to live by them. Nevertheless, I don't know how old you are, but leave yourself open to the fact that the world might seem a little less black and white as you get older.

That's easy to way when you don't have your kids to worry about.

Or maybe you just think it takes balls to ignore everybody else's feelings but your own when you're considering ending a marriage.

If you were that concerned about your kids, you wouldn't be cheating, and you'd be honest about leaving. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that marriages with kids end all the time, and a majority of the kids end up fine.

Caring for your kids isn't a justification for CHEATING, it's a justification for NOT LEAVING, which is different. But we weren't discussing not leaving your spouse, we were discussing cheating, and THAT is based in selfishness.


And I'm 38. You don't need to be young to have standards for your behavior.

BL,

my GAWD you got an awesome memory!!!!!! damm boy!!!!!!!
- grinning
in case i am giving you credit when you don't deserve it, just lieeeeeee to meeeee
go ahead and lie to meeeeeeeeeee

when i didn't see you in the last beane thread or in the endless politix thread i KNEW you been busy and i hope it is going well 4 you and
before I forget again,
hope the contest went a little better this year - did you get to finals?

So what's actually "safe to assume" is that the Daily News didn't have a sufficient basis, at the time of the first story, to satisfy its lawyers that it could claim that there was sex.

But now that McCready has confirmed what we all suspected fromt the first story, the point is moot.

Actually, McCready didn't do anything of the kind. Nice try slipping that one by, but all she said was that the first story -- not the second story, and not "things we all suspected from the first story" -- was true. (Actually, she said that she "couldn't refute" it, which isn't quite the same thing, but I won't split that hair.)

In fact, the second story says that what you suspected from the first story was false. Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

Maybe I should be less righteous, I apologize for that.

I know that people cheat, and I know not all of them are bad people. Absolutely not. My father, my friends, people I have respect for and love. It happens.

However, it IS bad BEHAVIOR. And there is no, absolutely NO justifying your way out of that fact. If you are going to cheat, be honest that it is lying and betraying a person who has put their faith and love in you, and live with it.

That's what I mean, I guess. Frighteningly, I haven't even been cheated on to my knowledge, I actually just think these things.

What Lassus said in 229, except I'm 41, been married 16 years and have 3 kids. And when it comes to cheating, the name itself kind of suggests that it is black and white.

If you were that concerned about your kids, you wouldn't be cheating, and you'd be honest about leaving. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that marriages with kids end all the time, and a majority of the kids end up fine.

Cheating is not some sort of act of aggression against your marriage or even your wife. It's an act of giving into the temptation to have something that you wouldn't otherwise have.

My impulses towards unfaithfulness are 100% completely unrelated to any feelings I have about my fiancee. Being monogamous does not seem natural to me. The reason I don't cheat is not that I think cheating would make me love her less. It's that A) I'm afraid of the consequences if she or one of our friends finds out, and B) I have no desire to.

If I knew nobody would find out, I would have no reason not to cheat. However, I wouldn't, because I don't need anything that she doesn't give me.

However, if 20 years go by, and we're no longer romantically excited by each other...but still like living together and jointly raising the kids...

my GAWD you got an awesome memory!!!!!!

About 90% of the time, I can google lyrics. I doubt I'll forget the songs though

hope the contest went a little better this year - did you get to finals?

We were in Austin for the finals during the last week of March. Unfortunately, my trophy case still looks like Beanes.

Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

I've opined this elsewhere, but I wonder to what extent this is technically true in the WJ Clintonian sense, but that while sex was not technically had until she was 18 there was physically intimate contact.

If I knew nobody would find out, it would have no reason not to cheat.

Well, I think that's sad, but I will admit I don't expect everyone to be like me. And you don't think it's poor, selfish behavior to cheat?

my fiancee. Being monogamous does not seem natural to me.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pry or get personal, but I have to echo bb-chick's question here. If monogamy "does not seem natural" to you, why are you engaged (to somebody who, it sounds like, expects monogamy)?

Yes, it's selfish behavior, but it's not behavior that has anything to do with wanting to hurt someone else. It's the result of giving in to temptation. Like going into debt to buy a fancy car for no reason.

Adultery is virtually unique in that it can be done with no malice at all, and the person "victimized" by it can recognize that, and still feel very betrayed. Monogamy is a unique emotional situation.

Actually, McCready didn't do anything of the kind.

Well, if you think having an affair doesn't involve sex, then you might be right. I'm just used to calling those kind of relationships "friendships". And I suppose 99.9% of the rest of humankind does too.

But don't let that stop you from torturing the English language even further.

before i got married i asked some men who were/had been married why they cheated on their wife because i didn't want my husband to cheat on me and i didn't want to make the mistake their wife did and i didn't never really get a straight or honest answer except for 1 man who said cheating is what men do so i asked him why he got married and vowed to God to not cheat when he never meant it and he said because women want you to say it even when they know you lying.
so i said why get married when you know you want more than one woman and he shrugged and said - ida know.

You base your entire understanding of male infidelity on this?

It might be interesting to hear from cheaters as to why they cheat. I wouldn't be interested in speculation.

If you were that concerned about your kids, you wouldn't be cheating, and you'd be honest about leaving. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that marriages with kids end all the time, and a majority of the kids end up fine.

Caring for your kids isn't a justification for CHEATING, it's a justification for NOT LEAVING, which is different. But we weren't discussing not leaving your spouse, we were discussing cheating, and THAT is based in selfishness.

Agreed 100%. Well, 75%. I don't think divorce is generally good for the kids, and I think that if your personal lack of satisfaction is the only issue, suck it up and deal.

It's surreal that the same person that self-righteously denounces someone for allegedly using a substance that wasn't even against the rules as a cheatercheatercheatercheater thinks it's okay to cheat on one's spouse because one is bored with the marriage.

Frighteningly, I haven't even been cheated on to my knowledge, I actually just think these things.

??? Does this imply that you HAVE been cheated on without your knowledge?

Don't be embarrassed. We all walk that mile at some point.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pry or get personal, but I have to echo bb-chick's question here. If monogamy "does not seem natural" to you, why are you engaged (to somebody who, it sounds like, expects monogamy)?

Well, I figure everyone feels these temptations to one degree or another. Maybe I feel them more than she does, I don't even know. But similarly, we can all overcome them.

For religious people, it is much easier to consider something like adultery to be totally out of the question, because it's a sin. But for non-religious people...well, it's a victimless sin. Unless the "victim" becomes aware that it has occurred.

Personally I think that if I commit adultery I will in fact start feeling less love for the person I've committed to, even though that doesn't seem logical. That's another reason not to do it. But that doesn't make the temptation go away.

Crispix, just FYI, whether you mean poly relationships here or not, I'm not entirely sure. That's something else entirely, and I'm not unfamiliar at all. I've never ever ever seen one WORK, but I know that is not in the same realm cheating on a spouse with an agreed monogamy.

Yes, it's selfish behavior, but it's not behavior that has anything to do with wanting to hurt someone else.

This is something of a tautology. Selfish behavior, by definition, isn't about wanting to hurt someone else, it's about not caring about anybody else. In that regard, I don't see how adultery is different than any other selfish behavior.

It's surreal that the same person that self-righteously denounces someone for allegedly using a substance that wasn't even against the rules as a cheatercheatercheatercheater thinks it's okay to cheat on one's spouse because one is bored with the marriage.

Let me know when you've finally kissed a girl so we can graduate you from Celibacy 101, David.

It's surreal that the same person that self-righteously denounces someone for allegedly using a substance that wasn't even against the rules as a cheatercheatercheatercheater thinks it's okay to cheat on one's spouse because one is bored with the marriage.

You just assume he was bored. He didn't say he was bored.

Filliam H Muffman (Charles S) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:44 PM (#2762432)

splitting i understand. cheating i just don't

Imagine a situation where you are very happy with your life. You have a nice home. You love spending time with your kids. You like your social situation and don't want to monkey with it.

But something is missing. Perhaps your wife no longer makes you feel special. She has let herself go or is no longer interested in sex. Someone comes along and gives you that spark that you were afraid you'd never feel again.

- charles
then you go to him/her and say you want to go to marriage counseling because you are unhappy. or you both work out a business arrangement - you both have separate life but you don't bring it home

- and yes i DO understand that theres a LOT of men out there who do NOT want to lose their kids which is what happens to most men when they split - which is why my husband made me swear on the Bible before we got married that i wouldn't never do that to him.

- and yes i have talked to more than a few men who told me they stayed married to a woman they didn't want to be near until the kids grown because they did not want to lose their kids.

i understand wives who stay in a marriage with a man who insults her like that because she got nowhere to go and she does not want her kids to grow up with no father or poorer. and then later she too old to find another man because men don't want old women (so all the older women have told - i mean warned me.

but i think a whole lot of it is someone thinking - oh look there is this nice piece of (reproductive organ) and won't nobody know so why should i deny myself???

Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

Well, it is at least somewhat good to know that he isn't a statutory rapist, and there are certain lines that he won't cross.

However, this directly contradicts: "He has never had a sexual relationship with her.”

It will be interesting indeed to see whether or not he plans on sticking by this story too.

I've heard the following reasons for why people cheated, and please don't think that I'm using "reasons" as synonymous with "justifications":

1. The relationship is already over and this is a concrete indicator of that fact, and impels the cheater to leave the relationship they're in.

2. The cheater's partner will no longer have sex with their spouse, and all attempts at counseling, etc. have failed.

3. Cheater misses the thrill of a new relationship/wants to see/feel something new.

4. Cheater falls in love with someone who they feel more bonded to than the person they married.

It's not exhaustive, but all of these I've heard.

and yes i DO understand that theres a LOT of men out there who do NOT want to lose their kids which is what happens to most men when they split

This again?

For religious people, it is much easier to consider something like adultery to be totally out of the question, because it's a sin.

Hah. Show me one study that suggests religious people are more faithful to their spouses than non-religious ones.

??? Does this imply that you HAVE been cheated on without your knowledge?

Don't be embarrassed. We all walk that mile at some point.

What the hell are you talking about? To my knowledge, I haven't been cheated on. That's what I wrote. What's unclear?

Imagine a situation where you are very happy with your life. You have a nice home. You love spending time with your kids. You like your social situation and don't want to monkey with it.

But something is missing. Perhaps your wife no longer makes you feel special. She has let herself go or is no longer interested in sex. Someone comes along and gives you that spark that you were afraid you'd never feel again.

Or, imagine that your wife is an emasculating, selfish piece of work, who has no respect for you.

It seems that this discussion only leads to: When men cheat, it's because men are dogs, and when women cheat, it's because men are dogs.

I'm truly sorry for anyone who was/is in a bad marriage, but to lay the blame for cheating on men alone is ridiculous, and probably wishful thinking.

You slipped the word "frighteningly" in there. That sort of implied that you sensed something you were afraid to further investigate.

What Lassus said in 229, except I'm 41, been married 16 years and have 3 kids. And when it comes to cheating, the name itself kind of suggests that it is black and white.

43 years old--just celebrated anniversary No. 20--still crazy in love with my wife.

Yes, I count my blessings--especially when my wife wears blue jeans.

Best Regards

John

Carmona My House (Crispix Attacks) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:12 PM (#2762467)

Cheating is not some sort of act of aggression against your marriage or even your wife.

- well, actually, yes it is.
think for a minute how you would feel about it if your wife announced she had done some guy she met in the kroger's on the way home from work. i was feelin a lil fat, just needed a good f*** right then, she sez. or how about - well, i did the 18 year old next door. he done stuff you ain't even THOUGHT about in years. you keep it up for 2 hours/do it 4 times in 2 hours, then maybe i wouldn't have to go find someone who can. or - so i did the boss. big deal. it got me that raise, didn't it? what are you so upset about? it got you your F-15 didn't it?

It's an act of giving into the temptation to have something that you wouldn't otherwise have.

- sigh
that excuse can be used for any sin/theft you can think of

RDF. Nice post on #254, Joe.

I notice that too, the double standard of blame. Men can't cheat by themselves. For every cheating man, there is a homewrecking/cheating woman. In fact, I bet more often than not, it's the woman, and not the man, who initiates the affair. After all, who spends more time/money trying to look attractive to the opposite sex?

Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:13 PM (#2762468)

my GAWD you got an awesome memory!!!!!!

About 90% of the time, I can google lyrics. I doubt I'll forget the songs though

- sigh
darling boy, you a shtty liar but thats OK, i luuuuuuvvvvv you anyhow



hope the contest went a little better this year - did you get to finals?

We were in Austin for the finals during the last week of March. Unfortunately, my trophy case still looks like Beanes.

- i'm sorry.
ida know what to say. maybe it is the baseball equivilent of refusing to steal and/or lousy baserunning.
- since you KNOW you opponent and KNOW how he works/thinks is there any way to use his strengths as a weakness against him?

so i did the boss. big deal. it got me that raise, didn't it? what are you so upset about? it got you your F-15 didn't it?

Where on earth am I going to keep that aircraft?

Where on earth am I going to keep that aircraft?

Maybe if your wife bangs the boss a few more times, you'll get a hangar out of it.

(don't correct me.)

Sane Joe Bivens Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:22 PM (#2762484)

before i got married i asked some men who were/had been married why they cheated on their wife because i didn't want my husband to cheat on me and i didn't want to make the mistake their wife did and i didn't never really get a straight or honest answer except for 1 man who said cheating is what men do so i asked him why he got married and vowed to God to not cheat when he never meant it and he said because women want you to say it even when they know you lying.
so i said why get married when you know you want more than one woman and he shrugged and said - ida know.

You base your entire understanding of male infidelity on this?

It might be interesting to hear from cheaters as to why they cheat.

- patiently
if i had any understanding of male infidelity i wouldn't have wasted any time asking those cheaters why they cheated
- or spent time discussing it right now

Hah. Show me one study that suggests religious people are more faithful to their spouses than non-religious ones.

There are many such studies that show (1) religious folk [folk who self-identify by faith] are less likely to engage in extra-marital affairs, and (2) religious folk who practice their faith are still less likely to engage in extra-marital affairs. Amy Burdette of UNC was the lead author on a well-respected article confirming that. There have been others.

I notice that too, the double standard of blame. Men can't cheat by themselves. For every cheating man, there is a homewrecking/cheating woman. In fact, I bet more often than not, it's the woman, and not the man, who initiates the affair. After all, who spends more time/money trying to look attractive to the opposite sex?

Has anyone in this thread suggested that women who cheat are guiltless?

I doubt it.

Or, that the nonmarried actor in an adulterous affair has done nothing wrong?

(Pause to see if McCoy has posted)

No.

You slipped the word "frighteningly" in there. That sort of implied that you sensed something you were afraid to further investigate.

Ah, no, this was self-commentary on my rather strictly moral opinion on the matter. But I can see how you might be confused by my speech, especially when looking for reasons to not actually address the opinions expressed.

It seems that this discussion only leads to: When men cheat, it's because men are dogs, and when women cheat, it's because men are dogs.

What a load of freaking crap. Anyone who cheats is equally to blame, and the concept that women who do it are looked on as fine is such complete garbage. You and kevin both with this OH THE WOMEN ALWAYS GET A BREAK WAHH. Please.

Where in this discussion has this concept of the blameless woman cheat come up on this board? If I missed it, I definitely apologize. I'm at work.

I notice that too, the double standard of blame. Men can't cheat by themselves. For every cheating man, there is a homewrecking/cheating woman. In fact, I bet more often than not, it's the woman, and not the man, who initiates the affair. After all, who spends more time/money trying to look attractive to the opposite sex?

Geez, come on. While I agree often these things are presented as one-sided, don't go overboard and start pulling crap out of your ass. Your proof for the assertion women start it more often than men is that women wear makeup?

think for a minute how you would feel about it if your wife announced she had done some guy she met in the kroger's on the way home from work. i was feelin a lil fat, just needed a good f*** right then, she sez.

Well that wouldn't be an act of aggression against me, either.

- sigh
that excuse can be used for any sin/theft you can think of

My point was that most sins that one might be tempted to commit, such as theft, involve depriving somebody else of something. Adultery doesn't do that. All it is is breaking a promise.

My point was that most sins that one might be tempted to commit, such as theft, involve depriving somebody else of something. Adultery doesn't do that. All it is is breaking a promise.

It potentially exposes the spouse to STDs. It creates the potential for unwanted children. It's not exactly a victimless crime.

i don't know if all the comments about females cheating is pointing at me, but i originally asked about MEN cheating

i will say that there are PLENTY of female dogs out there who cheat for the thrill of it or because of any reason you can think of when their man didn't do wrong by them.

people might BOTH say - well i cheated because he/she isn't exciting, have good sex with me, doesn't pay any attention to me, etc. that stuff goes both ways and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as my mama sez...

and i know good and well that there is plenty of times when women say they only cheat because the man is a dog is not really true. and that women use that as an excuse for their own selves to cheat.

It's not exactly a victimless crime.

Not to mention the hurt that such a betrayal creates. I'd go further and argue that in the majority of marriages spouses are generally aware when the bonds start getting attenuated. An affair is going to create that awareness, and that is going to hurt the spouse as one partner psychically withdraws from the other.

An old girlfriend cheated on me more than once. It hurt like hell.

Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

I've opined this elsewhere, but I wonder to what extent this is technically true in the WJ Clintonian sense, but that while sex was not technically had until she was 18 there was physically intimate contact.

Actually, the language of the article was that "the relationship didn't turn intimate" until she was 18. It didn't say sex at all. So I don't think your argument works.

Carmona My House (Crispix Attacks) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 01:53 PM (#2762553)

My point was that most sins that one might be tempted to commit, such as theft, involve depriving somebody else of something. Adultery doesn't do that. All it is is breaking a promise.

- adultery most DEFINITELY does deprive somebody of something - the cheated on spouse is deprived of any honest emotional bond, the absolutel most important thing in a marriage. it completely breaks trust. it isn't just "breaking a promise" - do you really think it is the same thing as your spouse who promised to take out the garbage before bed not doing it?

Amy Burdette of UNC was the lead author on a well-respected article confirming that. There have been others.

See:

Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?
Amy M. Burdette
Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, burdamy@prc.utexas.edu

Christopher G. Ellison

The University of Texas at Austin

Darren E. Sherkat

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

Kurt A. Gore

The University of Texas at Austin

Although previous scholarship has examined the relationship between religious involvement and a wide range of family outcomes, the relationship between religion and extramarital sexual behavior remains understudied. The authors investigate how religious affiliation, participation, and biblical beliefs explain differences in self-reported marital infidelity. This study examines data from the 1991-2004 General Social Surveys and finds that religious factors are associated with the likelihood of marital infidelity. Both church attendance and biblical beliefs are associated with lower odds of self-reported infidelity. Additionally, the authors find substantial denominational variations in the odds of marital infidelity, particularly among those who strongly affiliate with their religious group.



In other words, people who consider themselves religious are more in denial and/or less forthcoming about their infidelities.

Actually, the language of the article was that "the relationship didn't turn intimate" until she was 18. It didn't say sex at all. So I don't think your argument works.

Tomato, tomahto. It then depends on how one defines what constitutes an "intimate relationship".

An old girlfriend cheated on me more than once. It hurt like hell.

I'm fairly certain XAB was with his current guy (whom he's on the rocks with) more than once while we were still an item. Yeah, that's not a good feeling.

In other words, people who consider themselves religious are more in denial and/or less forthcoming about their infidelities.

Nice work. Anyway, the study suggests exactly what you implied studies don't suggest. Wrong again, Kevin!

Why is she only investigating self-reported infidelities, JC? There's an inherent bias there and thus, a study without reliable conclusions. Religious people who think they think it is wrong/will be punished if they have extramarital sex are certainly going to be less than honest about ther extracurricular activities.

Before you start lauding reports, you need to be a little more circumspect about the hard data upon which they are based, JC. Relying on people to be truthful about their sex lives, especially socially-unacceptable aspects of their sex lives, in order to draw conclsuions does not lead to reliable reports, JC.

There's an inherent bias there and thus, an unreliable report.

Uh, no, it's not unreliable, it's limited. And, again, it suggests exactly what you implied no studies suggest. Had I the time and inclination, I'd find more such studies. It's really not that hard to believe, Kevin, that people with firm religious convictions will have fewer incidents of infidelity, is it? That doesn't make them better people necessarily; it's just confirmation that certain kinds of disincentives will influence behavior.

The General Social Survey not reliable? Jeez, it is only the second most used set of data in the US. Any survey is going to have self-reported data, kevin. That's what a survey is.

Uh, no, it's not unreliable, it's limited.

Well, excuse me. So the data is so limited as to be unreliable. I stand corrected, JC.

FWIW, JC, using interview results to generate data is a notoriously flawed method of data collection, JC. In fact, it's not really science.

It's really not that hard to believe, Kevin, that people with firm religious convictions will have fewer incidents of infidelity, is it?

Actually yes, it is hard to believe. It implies that religious people somehow have more control over their libidos than non-religious people do. I think that highly unlikely. You could argue the opposite. You could argue that religious people turn to religion because they feel out of control and don't know where else to go.

I think what has transpired with the clergy shenanigans in the US over the past 3 decades or so kind of blows a hole in that theory, no?

The General Social Survey not reliable?

No. People lie about their sex lives. All the time.

kevin and jc

i think all people both religious and not religious lie about sex. a LOT. even when it is supposed to be anonymous.

and trust me on this a LOT of females have - shall we say - INteresting definitions of the word "sex." i mean i have had a few of my gf INSIST they didn't "really" have sex with some guy because they weren;t into it or they were drunk or it was a mistake or it was just anal/oral or bout anything else you can think of

but i wonder if males, especially ones who are say that they are religions start doing the excuses - well, it was just a ho so therefore it wasn't REALLY adultery or cheating because she was 7 months and i hadn't got some for 2 months - kind of stuff

Well, excuse me. So the data is so limited as to be unreliable. I stand corrected, JC.

FWIW, JC, using interview results to generate data is a notoriously flawed method of data collection, JC. In fact, it's not really science.


It's really not that hard to believe, Kevin, that people with firm religious convictions will have fewer incidents of infidelity, is it?


Actually yes, it is hard to believe. It implies that religious people somehow have more control over their libidos than non-religious people do. I think that highly unlikely. You could argue the opposite. You could argue that religious people turn to religion because they feel out of control and don't know where else to go.

I think what has transpired with the clergy shenanigans in the US over the past 3 decades or so kind of blows a hole in that theory, no?

So much wrong and so little time! See scotto's post above, Kevin, about social scientific research and surveys. You don't know of what you speak. I know we're supposed not to criticize each other's professions here, but I love the ease with which you demean Burdette's work. As I said, her work is well-respected and I take your critique as the babblings of a blow-hard.

It implies that religious people somehow have more control over their libidos than non-religious people do.

No, it implies they have another disincentive not to relent to their libidos and nothing more.

I think what has transpired with the clergy shenanigans in the US over the past 3 decades or so kind of blows a hole in that theory, no?

No, as the "clergy shenanigans" find you talking beyond your pay-grade as usual. All the studies on the "clergy shenanigans" have showed that clergy are no more likely to engage in shenanigans than anyone else. The scandal arose not b/c clergy find it harder than the rest of us to zip their pants (and I grant there's something unfortunate about that), but b/c of coverups by bishops too cowardly to punish (and subject to punishment by law enforcement) their priests.

Clemens didn't have sex with her until she turned 18.

I've opined this elsewhere, but I wonder to what extent this is technically true in the WJ Clintonian sense, but that while sex was not technically had until she was 18 there was physically intimate contact.

Actually, the language of the article was that "the relationship didn't turn intimate" until she was 18.

Until she was AT LEAST 18. The article says:

After the teenage McCready met Clemens at a Fort Myers bar called The Hired Hand, she returned with the Rocket to his hotel room, but there was no sex that night, sources told The News.

It wasn't until later, after McCready had moved to Nashville and become a country singing star, that the relationship turned intimate.

So "later" could be anytime after that. It's entirely possible they didn't start banging until, say, 2000, in which case she was 25.

The Daily News says they had a "10-year affair," so he well could have slipped her the Pocket Rocket in her teenage years, but the News is obviously reporting this so we all draw the most salacious conclusions, notwithstanding whether they were accurate. Yesterday's article was clearly written to imply that Roger injected her with love steroids when she was 15, even though the News apparently knew that was not the case.

i think all people both religious and not religious lie about sex. a LOT. even when it is supposed to be anonymous.

Of course, bbc. I'll defer to scotto on this, as he's an expert on these issues, but such social science accounts for lying in reporting and fashions questions in a manner to remove as much ambiguity as possible. Kevin is merely doing what he always is doing: trying to redeem a blowhard assertion by attacking evidence to the contrary. He quite literally doesn't know what he's talking about and didn't when he made his initial assertion.

Well, if you think having an affair doesn't involve sex, then you might be right. I'm just used to calling those kind of relationships "friendships".

And one day, maybe you'll experience one.

FWIW, JC, using interview results to generate data is a notoriously flawed method of data collection, JC. In fact, it's not really science.

The US Census is based on self-reported data. So that should be disregarded as well? Being interviewed anonymously removes the need to lie, and if you fear interviewer effects you take that into account when you do the survey, or you make it so that the sensitive data is done without the interviewer being involved, either through a paper survey or on the computer.

There's been a ton of research that refutes your point, but if you disregard it then there isn't much point too discussing it.

You don't know of what you speak.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. You don't know the difference between objective and inherently biased data. For instance, how in the heck do you control for the inherent tendency of people to lie about their sex lives? If you don't have control of the data, you have no data.

As I said, her work is well-respected and I take your critique as the babblings of a blow-hard.

Certain aspects of social science research is not really science, therefore, not really research. It's just the way it is. It's like psychotherapy not really being therapy. It's never been experimentally validated.

Kevin: I guarandamntee you I know more about the philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science than you ever will, and I further guarantee the more you discuss this, the dumber you'll sound.

Again, see scotto's post #288.

Has anyone in this thread suggested that women who cheat are guiltless?

I doubt it.

Or, that the nonmarried actor in an adulterous affair has done nothing wrong?

(Pause to see if McCoy has posted)

No.

But to limit the discussion to why "men do what they do" without talking about the participation of women seems to place the entire onus on cheating on men. And, once we agree that non married actors in adulterous affairs are just as guilty of wrongdoing (if they're aware the other party is married), there are more subjects to interview.

Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?

"so i said why get married when you know you want more than one woman and he shrugged and said - ida know."

The answer to this one is pretty simple: Guys think that they're supposed to get married and settle down. There's significant social pressure to do so, and most are subjected from an early age to both conscious and unconscious conditioning that this is the way things are. Thus, even when a guy isn't really mentally invested in the idea of a monogamous lifetime commitment, he's going to say the words because it's The Next Step. It's expected: By his girlfriend, by his parents, even by his government (which provides tax breaks for married couples, in the expectation that marriage is everybody's default goal).

It's kind of analogous to the homosexuals who date (and sometimes marry) members of the opposite sex. They're trying to live up to a cultural ideal, and they don't have a good enough sense of themselves and their needs/wants to depart from that ideal and set out on their own path.

"injected her with love steroids"

Ew.

"For instance, how in the heck do you control for the inherent tendency of people to lie about their sex lives?"

Cameras. Cameras everywhere, running continuously. Alternatively, I guess you could install a little water meter on every guy's junk, and take periodic readings.

The scandal arose not b/c clergy find it harder than the rest of us to zip their pants (and I grant there's something unfortunate about that), but b/c of coverups by bishops too cowardly to punish (and subject to punishment by law enforcement) their priests.

A distinction without a difference.

The US Census is based on self-reported data.

There's a baseline of reliable data to build from. And census results are an approximation. Nobody would ever suggest the final tally is a hard number. But for the purposes of most of it's uses, it's good enough.

No similar reliable baseline of data exists for sexual habits. Look at the confusion that occurred in the early days of the AIDS outbreak when epidemiological experts were trying to track risk groups based on interview data. Haitians were falsely included as a high-risk group. It wasn't until an virus assay, an objective source of data, was available before the true situation could be sorted out.

You talking about apples and oranges here.

The answer to this one is pretty simple: Guys think that they're supposed to get married and settle down. There's significant social pressure to do so, and most are subjected from an early age to both conscious and unconscious conditioning that this is the way things are. Thus, even when a guy isn't really mentally invested in the idea of a monogamous lifetime commitment, he's going to say the words because it's The Next Step. It's expected: By his girlfriend, by his parents, even by his government (which provides tax breaks for married couples, in the expectation that marriage is everybody's default goal).

I totally agree, and would add that getting married is a way for immature people to pretend they're mature. Then, when reality sets in, we see so many divorces among couples under a certain age.

Kevin: I guarandamntee you I know more about the philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science than you ever will, and I further guarantee the more you discuss this, the dumber you'll sound.

Well, that's quite a statement. Someone who has studied science might know more about how to practice science than someone who has actually practiced it for 30 years.

Now who's sounding dumb? Of course I know how to conduct science better than you do. I've actually had to do it and you haven't.

But to limit the discussion to why "men do what they do" without talking about the participation of women seems to place the entire onus on cheating on men. And, once we agree that non married actors in adulterous affairs are just as guilty of wrongdoing (if they're aware the other party is married), there are more subjects to interview.

Joe, has anyone threatened you if the discussion veered into why women do what they do? Opine away.

In this case, it was a married man and an unmarried woman engaged in the act, so the discussion is going to lend itself to discussing why men cheat.

Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?

In my opinoin, women who knowingly sleep with married men (or men who sleep with married women) are engaged in behavior I find worthy of condemnation. I don't think they are as blameworthy as the married person sleeping around, but it's still wrong.

As for the "Who is the scum of the earth?" question, I already supported David's contention that Gromit held that particular distinction.

But to limit the discussion to why "men do what they do" without talking about the participation of women seems to place the entire onus on cheating on men. And, once we agree that non married actors in adulterous affairs are just as guilty of wrongdoing (if they're aware the other party is married), there are more subjects to interview.

Let's face it: women who sleep with married men are the scum of the earth, too. Right?

I certainly think so, but as I recall, there was vigorous dissent from that opinion coming from at least some Primates in the Leo Durocher thread.

Kevin: I guarandamntee you I know more about the philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science than you ever will, and I further guarantee the more you discuss this, the dumber you'll sound.

JC: now you know how us lawyers feel when dealing with Kevin.

I already supported David's contention that Gromit held that particular distinction.

He's eccentric, sure, but evil? His no-kill bunny business suggests that he's not wholly evil.