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

Yes. Humbled.

"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."

Yeah, exactly. That's the motivation behind a lot of those couples' decision to have their first kid, too.

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

Hehe. Supposedly there are, even as of this late date, lots of women out there who don't realize how often guys, um, play with themselves. Or at least that seems to be what the magazines at the checkout counter at the local supermarket assert, as half of them feature "Men's Sex Secrets Revealed!" articles and "Guys stroke off. A lot." is an item on most of them.

The previous owner of Answer Guy Manor subscribed to one of these magazines. They had a couple of nice recipes in them.

"Supposedly there are, even as of this late date, lots of women out there who don't realize how often guys, um, play with themselves."

By which, of course, we mean "continuously".

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

Not at all, and I did "opine"(kind of). I think that the issue of fidelity is far more complex than "men are dogs" or "women are sluts" or whatever the stereotypes are. I just think that if you want to expand the discussion from the specific instance of Clemens' cheating on his wife to why men cheat without acknowledging that women are also involved, you're only going to rehash the same tired stereotype I referenced above.

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.

Several Primates have just keeled over from shock. DMN actually gave an opinion. Bravo, sir!

Is it just me, or is there a lot of dick-measuring going on in this thread?

Best Regards

Joooooooooooohn

"Supposedly there are, even as of this late date, lots of women out there who don't realize how often guys, um, play with themselves."

Which is why we prefer to drive cars with standard transmissions and are disappointed when emissions tests aren't what we expected.

Best Regards

John

"...even by his government (which provides tax breaks for married couples..."

I actually thought there was a penalty for married couples. To the extent the 2 combine/aggregate income, and that kicks them into a higher tax bracket than the 2 might be, filing separately, then it is a tax penalty, not tax break, for being married.

"I actually thought there was a penalty for married couples."

Not so much, from what I can tell (though I'm not an expert). There's a good breakdown here.

Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.

"Is it just me, or is there a lot of dick-measuring going on in this thread?"

One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death.

"One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death."

That wasn't a bear. I was wearing my bear-skin coat, innocently walking in the snow, when you attacked me with you little unit for no reason. The only way I could get you to stop was to play dead. Now that I know who you are, you owe me an apology and money for the cleaning bill.

Rich-I would think a tip from him would be in order, too; perhaps 15% on top of the cleaning bill.

"The only way I could get you to stop was to play dead."

You had me convinced, right up until there. Why would I stop just because you were dead?

Y'know, Roger Clemens and Luis Polonia were teammates in 2000.

I'm just sayin'...

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.

Note all the women participating in this discussion. ONE. Hence the main discussion being men. I'm sorry, but that strikes me as the whining I referenced earlier.

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

Never said this about men (see post 232) who cheat and wouldn't say it about women either. I said it is lying, and bad behavior, and attempts to justify it as otherwise are weak and slippery excuses for selfishness and dishonesty. If we classified this as "scum of the earth" that would be kind of harsh in my opinion.

And actually, a single person sleeping with a married person is nowhere near the same thing as a married person sleeping with a single person, judgment-wise. Entirely different responsibilities and consequences for the respective parties involved.

One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death.

Yeah? Well, my wife thinks she's sitting on my lap when I'm actually standing plus they have to raise the drawbridge whenever I do the backstroke in the river!

Now that I know who you are, you owe me an apology and money for the cleaning bill.

Why, because he didn't call you back the next day?

Best Regards

John

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

In addition to what Lassus said in #316, the woman (or man) who sleeps with a married person doesn't always know they're married.

In addition to what Lassus said in #316, the woman (or man) who sleeps with a married person doesn't always know they're married.

I should have added "knowingly".

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

Testify. Had myself one of those, and didn't cheat on her (divorced her, however).

Honestly, I probably should have.

Note all the women participating in this discussion. ONE. Hence the main discussion being men. I'm sorry, but that strikes me as the whining I referenced earlier.

I missed that earlier post, sorry.

The ONE woman participating is the one who steered the topic of discussion towards "why men cheat". Not "why anyone cheats", but just "why MEN cheat". That we all answer has nothing to do with our gender, it has to do with the willingness to limit the discussion to "just men". I object to that. I acknowledge infidelity is a hurtful proposition, and that men are often to blame. I don't think it's helpful to focus on one gender, though.

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.

Less likely to engage in them, or less likely to admit to them?

EDIT: I did not intend for this post to be snarky; I'm honestly curious. And much of my curiosity has been addressed by the posts following the one I responded to.

The ONE woman participating is the one who steered the topic of discussion towards "why men cheat". Not "why anyone cheats", but just "why MEN cheat". That we all answer has nothing to do with our gender, it has to do with the willingness to limit the discussion to "just men". I object to that. I acknowledge infidelity is a hurtful proposition, and that men are often to blame. I don't think it's helpful to focus on one gender, though.

The one woman offered an anecodte about her personal experience. You were free to steer it in your own direction instead of using it as another excuse to whine about mean old bbc.

Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.

Not if you're smart and marry a woman with strong earning potential.

Joe - In your moral system, is the judgment level for a "bad" (everything being relative) person in your eyes exactly equal for a single person who knowingly sleeps with a someone who isn't single, and a person who isn't single cheating on their partner, with whomever?

The one woman offered an anecodte about her personal experience. You were free to steer it in your own direction instead of using it as another excuse to whine about mean old bbc.

I thought I did.

Your proof for the assertion women start it more often than men is that women wear makeup?

Those painted whores know exactly what they want and they aren't afraid to go out and get it.

Lassus--I guess it depends on the circumstances. Generally, I think it's the same. I think if you know someone isn't single, you shouldn't attempt to bed them, and it's bad if you do.

If the non-single partner's legal partner was an abuser, I would understand them looking for comfort outside that relationship. If you're the "comforter", I think you might want to offer a different kind of comfort and/or support than bedding the abused.

I'll get back to you later this evening, if this generates more comment.

Edit...and SoSH...looking back, I appreciate bbc's 270. She's with me.

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 sheer stupidity of your reply makes me wonder how you ever made it into the military.

Why don't you tell me how to do science again, JC? Tell me a story about your trials and tribulations in the lab.

The sheer stupidity of your reply makes me wonder how you ever made it into the military.

His is not to reason why. His is but to do and die.

True warriors ask no questions. They go in with their heads down and their swords up.

Why don't you tell me how to do science again, JC? Tell me a story about your trials and tribulations in the lab.

If you think I told you I can do your science, you're mistaken. That you're able to do your bit is wonderful, a true testimony to the GI Bill. I said, however, that I know from philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science, having studied those. I don't think you know what you're talking about given your criticisms of social research.

Lassus--I guess it depends on the circumstances. Generally, I think it's the same. I think if you know someone isn't single, you shouldn't attempt to bed them, and it's bad if you do.


What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then? or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.

That you're able to do your bit is wonderful, a true testimony to the GI Bill. I said, however, that I know from philosophy of science, social science, and "objectivity" in science, having studied those.

All those are are ephemeral abstractions to you, JC. I was critiqueing a specific method of data collection and you challenged me on that. I don't think you are in a position to challenge me, as you seem to be admitting here. I'm certain I know more about the objectivity of science than you do. I've had to deal with it firsthand and dealt with the consequences of making false assumptions. You haven't.

Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.

True. However, there's also a marriage penalty between two lower-income people, one of whom has children; they lose earned income credit. This is one reason why you see a lot of lower-income families where the mother and father DON'T get married, BTW; one parent claims the EIC as head of household, and that can lead to a considerable tax refund. (Don't get me started on this rant...)

And there are other kinds of marriage penalities that apply across the board. The itemized deduction phaseout, for example, begins at $156,400 (it's only reduced for married filing separately). So if someone making, say, $150,000 marries someone making $50,000, their itemized deductions will be reduced. If you marry someone during the year, your ability to take a child care deduction is limited by the "lower" of your income, or your new spouse's - so if you're making $60K and paid someone $7500 for the year to take care of your 5-year old, and then married someone who only made $5K, you can only get credit for the $5K.

-- MWE

That's crazy! What's the reasoning behind that?

Quick answers:
We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified. Where we get awesome poll results that make no sense like, "Men have more sexual partners than women" :)

People cheat because they are weak and/or insecure and don't value sexuality appropriately.

They also set themselves up for failure with unrealistically high standards and poor communication within their relationships.

Ultimately, cheating is an awful thing, and I never did both because I didn't want to hurt the person I was with and because I didn't want to ever be the kind of person who would.

A good strategy for not cheating with someone in a relationship--when I was single, I would just have them call their boyfriend and break up. Or I wouldn't do anything.

We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified.

Also, this site is generally a sausage party.

Breakfast, Italian, Polish, or Duck?

We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified.

??? Don't ever look at the magazine covers in the check-out line, huh, X?

What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then? or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.

Only if your adulterous relationship was actual, exclusive, hostile, continuous, and open and notorious.

Only if your adulterous relationship was actual, exclusive, hostile, continuous, and open and notorious.

That's only if you're doing it right.

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

Coincidentally, I don't consider any relationship intimate until tomatoes or tomato byproducts are involved.

What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then? or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.

Something to confess, my son?

Once you find out they have a family, then you realize you too have been betrayed. I know how I would react in that instance. I'd leave, in love or not. The issue of trust would be a sticking point I don't think I'd want to risk.

Also, this site is generally a sausage party.

And a dick measuring festival. You're in your glory, aren't you?

Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.

I don't see how that follows. I can see reading the evidence to say that, given two people with disparate incomes, they're better off married (and filing jointly). But you're saying something different.

but maybe some of yall might could help me understand why males - especially rich males - don't think there is anything wrong with them having sex with people other then their wife.

i've heard all the - it isn't "natural for males to be monogamous" and of course i know it isn't "natural for females to be monogamous" neither, but sin is all about doing stuff that is "natural" and some things that are "natural" are not sin.

so why do rich men believe it is their right to commit adultery? any ideas?

Any ideas, chick? Sure. You're confused. That all rich men believe x, y, or z, is a position absurd on its face.

edit: imagine the brouhaha if I said something like, "why do all ______ women think x?

??? Don't ever look at the magazine covers in the check-out line, huh, X?

You misunderstand. I mean sexual action, not objectification. I thought that my example: Men being "found" by (crappy) scientific studies to have more partners than women, made that abundantly clear. Sorry.

Although to answer your question: No, not really.

Only if your adulterous relationship was actual, exclusive, hostile, continuous, and open and notorious.

Adverse possession!

bbc -

Your male friends who tried to explain why guys cheat were IMO really just trying to rationalize it after the fact. If the best answer you can get is "it's what guys do" it's bull - whoever says it is hoping that's a good enough answer. Yeah, guys want sex, sure; but making a promise and keeping it is not "what guys do". Saying one's promises don't count because "she shoulda known I didn't mean it" is shifting blame on a failed marriage to the one who did the least to wreck it. I think a number of your friends meant their vows at the time, but don't want to admit that they screwed it up.

I think people* cheat because they find themselves (through their own fault or not) in tempting situations, and do not summon the will power to resist, partly influenced by thinking they won't get caught. Whether you're talking about cheating on a test, cheating on taxes, or cheating on your spouse, it's all pretty much the same. People start out with good (or no) intentions, then

FWIW, opportunities have presented themselves to me (without any effort on my part), and I've had no trouble turning them away each time. Having kids has nothing to do with it; I keep my promises. The fact that I love mrsidiom makes it easier, but even if it were difficult I'd still keep my word.

*I'm talking about most people. I'm sure there are some who actively seek to cheat, figuring the end justifies the means, or whatever. Offhand I don't think I personally know anyone who fits that description... but I've seen them portrayed on TV, so it must be true.

Nice post, VI. You bring up an interesting point--why is our media so full of nasty characters? I do believe that affects people's values in this area...

We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified.

Speak for yourself, my friend. I celebrate women's sexuality at least five times a day. Every man to his own mecca, if you will.

The sheer stupidity of your reply makes me wonder how you ever made it into the military.

There's something oxymoronic about this I can't quite put my finger on...

"Is it just me, or is there a lot of dick-measuring going on in this thread?"

One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death.

They save me for the Tyranosaurii.

Whoops... already posted. Need to hit refresh more often.

Adverse possession!

Beat me to it. What I get for sitting at a coldass Cubs game for 4 hours.

I'm sure there's a great "adverse possession" quip to be made vis a vis R Clemens and his mistress, but I'm definitely too tired to make it.

All we need to know is the length of time necessary to constitute adverse possession in the jurisdiction in which Ms. McCready was adversely possessed. (Insert your own Linda Blair joke.) Is 10 years enough in some states? Been way too long since I studied that crap.

goodness gracious - i go watch a ball game and look what happens (and by the way, levski isn't never gonna shut up about max scherzer so be prepared

anyhow, i never get in dick measuring contests because i'm guaranteed to lose

anyhow to catch up

Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:01 PM (#2762902)

Lassus--I guess it depends on the circumstances. Generally, I think it's the same. I think if you know someone isn't single, you shouldn't attempt to bed them, and it's bad if you do.


What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.

- then it is best to say good bye because he made of fool out of you AND her AND their kidz. and you know you dealing with a shtthead so time to cut your losses

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then?

- evil, no. foolish, yes.

or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.

- i don't know what a rea is, but falling in love with bad men - well, then you stuck with a bad man


. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:40 PM (#2762937)

Also, this site is generally a sausage party.


mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm sausage

villageidiom,

i appreciate your answer. thank you. i asked my grandaddy, not long before he died, why he never cheated on my grandmother (they hated each other, to put it mildly) and he looked at me and said - because it wasn't honorable. and actually, before i came here to this site and listened to all kinds of men talking about their relationships and wifes/gf, i really thought that men, regardless of $$$ almost never didn't cheat. i was REAL surprised.

Eraser-X is dominating this site! Posted: April 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM (#2763724)

Nice post, VI. You bring up an interesting point--why is our media so full of nasty characters? I do believe that affects people's values in this area...

- it IS a good question. you watch tv, you think white men are fat really STUPID slobs run by their skinny unbelieveably bytch wife and their unbelieveably RUDE kids. if the white men aren't fat and stupid, they dogs. i guess it is more "exciting" tv. bleccccch.

arkitekton Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:33 AM (#2763854)

We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified.


Speak for yourself, my friend. I celebrate women's sexuality at least five times a day.

oh myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

so husband is reading over my shoulder and i ask him if he thinks that womens sexuality should be celebrated and he all YEAH baby YEAH

so goodnight boys

If him and shoewizard could never shut up about why the hell Chris Young can't get his #### together and stop destroying my fantasy team, I'd appreciate it. He is totally killing me. I was hoping this new contract was because someone spotted improvement in his whifftastic ways. Not looking like it.

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

It's because you didn't marry an Asian woman.

Let me get this straight Niepronte: you're saying that even though Clemens began his relationship with this Mindy chick when she was 15, he waited the 3 extra years to wait until she was 18 to have sex?

This is your defense, that "he waited 3 years for her to turn legal?"

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.

Since I objected to what I saw as chick's bigotry, I have to object to this as well. Please don't tell me that you really think religious people have stronger morals than nonreligious people. Didn't the Inquisition, the jihad of your choice, the Quaker who bombed Cambodia, the latest parish scandal, teach you anything?

What disgusts me the most about infidelity is that it turns the other person's life into farce. If they wouldn't stay if they knew, by not telling them you deprive them of the chance of an honest relationship. And since (in many cases) the other person would leave, if they knew, how is it better than a kind of kidnapping, or false imprisonment?

so help me god, if 'Barely Legal' Magazine does a spread with this Ox of a woman, i am canceling my subscription.

and the best way to avoid massive threads about your infidelity is simply, don't get married.
then you can bang who ever you want.
Married chicks too.

There's no answer to "why people cheat". It's not a rational decision. It's a series of gradual slides down a slippery slope, none of which by themselves seem terribly important at the time, culminating in moment of truth. At that moment, either the brain is working, or it's not. When it's not, the person's brain is clouded by the chemical reaction of intense physical or emotional attraction, and they give in to the temptation. Everything that follows is just rationalization and/or analysis after the fact. For others, the moment of truth brings a moment of clarity, and the temptation is avoided.

And this is why when you ask a cheater, "Why did you cheat?", the answer is never satisfactory. It's always painfully obvious that the answer is a rationalization. Attack the rationalization with reason all you like, tear it down and show it to be false, there still won't be a satisfactory answer.

Surely we've all heard of the mice that will consistently choose a lever that will stimulate their pleasure center over even one connected to their food, to the point that they nearly starve? It's essentially like that. Cheating happens because the impending cheater feels a rush of pleasure when they're around the object of their affections. That rush of pleasure kills rational thought. It's why otherwise decent people cheat. It's why mankind has cheated through the centuries and will continue to cheat into the future. Really the question shouldn't be "Why do people cheat?", but rather "Why didn't this particular person cheat?"

I'm amused that a singer who hasn't had a song crack the Country Top 40 in a decade, and doesn't currently have a record contract is described as a "star".

Its all supply and demand anyways

Everyday of a womans life she is offered "Dick"
from about age 15 on, it is pretty persistent if she is another pretty face.

She goes to the grocery store, some guy offers her some dick
She goes to the car wash, some guy offers her some dick
She goes out to eat lunch, and the waiter offers her some dick
If she works out, she gets offered lots of dick.
If she works a job, she gets offered dick multiple times a day, usually by the same guys.

But if a guy is in the grocery store and some chic offers him ##### .... "Its his lucky day".

its all supply and demand.

women cheat because they give into the pressure, and, "this one has great ab's"

men cheat because the girl is willing.

Let me get this straight Niepronte: you're saying that even though Clemens began his relationship with this Mindy chick when she was 15, he waited the 3 extra years to wait until she was 18 to have sex?

This is your defense, that "he waited 3 years for her to turn legal?"

I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.

And how the hell can you misspell my name that badly when it's listed right above every single post I make? Nieporent. It's really not that hard.

And how the hell can you misspell my name that badly when it's listed right above every single post I make?

He might be afraid that if he types it correctly 3 times, he'll conjure something awful.

It's clear your focus is on the legal here. What about the moral? From the Durocher thread, I think I know where you stand on this situation, but, for the record, what's your feeling here?

And how the hell can you misspell my name that badly when it's listed right above every single post I make? Nieporent. It's really not that hard.

I thought the misspelling was cooler, because I turned your last name into something Hispanic-sounding.

Btw, my last name is Chiu, and people used to constantly misspell THAT, so yaddi yaddi yadda.

I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.

Here's the thing, wouldn't somebody who was willing to have a secret affair with a 15 year old be willing to violate a few age-of-consent rules as well? Just sayin', doens't look great for Roger.

"Btw, my last name is Chiu..."

Gesundheit!

so help me god, if 'Barely Legal' Magazine does a spread with this Ox of a woman, i am canceling my subscription.

Well, she's no longer "barely legal," so I think you're OK.

I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.

If you think that's credible, sure. I find it stretches the outer limits of plausibility, just because I don't see many 28-year old straight men forming platonic relationships with 15-year old girls. Maybe that's enough to keep him out of jail, or even keep the prosecutors' office at bay, but it's not enough to make me roll my eyes a bit. It's also a bit creepy.

I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.

I don't think anyone disputes that it's a "good defense," assuming it's true (but that, of course, is circular reasoning). What's being questioned is the credibility of that defense in this instance.

Since I objected to what I saw as chick's bigotry, I have to object to this as well. Please don't tell me that you really think religious people have stronger morals than nonreligious people. Didn't the Inquisition, the jihad of your choice, the Quaker who bombed Cambodia, the latest parish scandal, teach you anything?

Arkitekton, my conservative friend, please tell me you're not this daft. First, studies (that Kevin, eminent scientist and military hero, dismisses) do show that religious people are less likely to cheat on their spouses. You assume this means religious people are more "moral" and then point to apparent contradictions of this (your) assumption. Aside from the odd choices you make as evidence of immoral religiosity, the assumption is false. Just b/c religious people are less likely to cheat on spouses doesn't make them more (or less) moral. It means only that they're less likely to cheat, for whatever reason. For instance, some non-religious people may not even think morality requires fidelity, right? Or, non-religious people may not make fidelity as significant a value as religious people do (say, for instance, understanding fidelity of that kind to be witness to the fidelity of God). Anyway, your assumption was false.

Just b/c religious people are less likely to cheat on spouses doesn't make them more (or less) moral. It means only that they're less likely to cheat, for whatever reason. For instance, some non-religious people may not even think morality requires fidelity, right? Or, non-religious people may not make fidelity as significant a value as religious people do (say, for instance, understanding fidelity of that kind to be witness to the fidelity of God).

Surely you must think fidelity is at the very least either a component or a sign of morality rather than a mere symbol? Not that this is necessarily about how either you or I think. I'm not sure what good the word morality is if it does not somehow encompass keeping one's pledges.

"First, studies (that Kevin, eminent scientist and military hero, dismisses) do show that religious people are less likely to cheat on their spouses."

As was noted earlier in the thread, they show that religious people are less likely to admit to cheating on their spouses. That's not necessarily the same thing.

Query: Between the person who admits to cheating on a spouse and the one who does so but doesn't admit it, who is the more moral? Discuss.

As was noted earlier in the thread, they show that religious people are less likely to admit to cheating on their spouses. That's not necessarily the same thing.

No, that's not what they showed. It showed that religious people report not cheating more often than non-religious people. Your way of phrasing suggests they cheat and then don't report. As scotto pointed out, this is the nature of social scientific evidence: self-reporting. True, there is the possibility of false self-reporting, but as he pointed out further, self-reporting in these types of studies is generally accurate. Aside from that, that's the only evidence we can have of these things, and if someone asks "Who cheats more?" we can either talk out of our asses or look to the social science.

Surely you must think fidelity is at the very least either a component or a sign of morality rather than a mere symbol? Not that this is necessarily about how either you or I think. I'm not sure what good the word morality is if it does not somehow encompass keeping one's pledges.

Sure, I do AG, and I consider it an objective quality of morality. But many people do not and when they do not (for whatever reason) they may also regard their pledges as nullifiable based on their sentiment. That's my point above.

Query: Between the person who admits cheating on a spouse and the one who does so but doesn't admit it, who is the more moral? Discuss.

Your query can't be answered w/o more information. Further, if this is to suggest, following Kevin's "analysis" that religious people don't admit cheating, you cannot, by Kevin's logic, have evidence of that.

Further, if this is to suggest, following Kevin's "analysis" that religious people don't admit cheating, you cannot, by Kevin's logic, have evidence of that.

Well, that's beside the point; the query assumes we know who's cheated or not, and who's admitted it. (And yes, I realize what I'm responding to is more a dig on kevin than anything else.)

And I'd say "all other things being equal" re. the "more information" bit, but I suppose the "morality" varies depending on a million factors (i.e., the fragility of one's spouse, the effect on other family members, if any, and so forth).

I don't think anyone disputes that it's a "good defense," assuming it's true (but that, of course, is circular reasoning). What's being questioned is the credibility of that defense in this instance.

Who's questioning it? Nobody (except the Lord High Inquisitioner Kevin) accused Clemens of having sex with a 15 year old. The Daily News reported that they met when she was 15 and reported that they had some sort of affair lasting 10 years. From that, Kevin leapt to the conclusion that they had sex when she was 15. The article never made that accusation.

The next day, the News followed up by reporting that (1) she admitted that the facts in the first article were true, and (2) reporting that they did not have sex when they met, and that their relationship did not "become intimate" until sometime after she was 18.

In other words, there has been no allegation -- not even an anonymous one -- that he had sex with a 15 year old.

Who's questioning it? Nobody (except the Lord High Inquisitioner Kevin) accused Clemens of having sex with a 15 year old.

Nobody else (that I recall) has directly accused him of it, but others (see, e.g., Answer Guy in the post right before the one you responded to) have indeed questioned the credibility of the assertion that a 28-year-old guy struck up a platonic relationship with a 15-year-old girl without having it turn sexual for three years.

"Your way of phrasing suggests they cheat and then don't report. As scotto pointed out, this is the nature of social scientific evidence: self-reporting. True, there is the possibility of false self-reporting, but as he pointed out further, self-reporting in these types of studies is generally accurate. Aside from that, that's the only evidence we can have of these things, and if someone asks "Who cheats more?" we can either talk out of our asses or look to the social science."

To not suggest it as a possibility would be extremely disingenuous. Self-reporting falls down all the time when shame gets involved. Look at the consistent gap between the polled voter preferences for African-American politicians and the actual voting results, for example.

Personally, I think we'd be better off admitting that we don't know and can't know to any degree of certainty, rather than pretending that we know and acting on what is, in all likelihood, flawed data.

To not suggest it as a possibility would be extremely disingenuous. Self-reporting falls down all the time when shame gets involved. Look at the consistent gap between the polled voter preferences for African-American politicians and the actual voting results, for example.

Personally, I think we'd be better off admitting that we don't know and can't know to any degree of certainty, rather than pretending that we know and acting on what is, in all likelihood, flawed data.

It's not flawed data.

"It's not flawed data."

You have no way of knowing whether it's flawed or not. Which makes it flawed.

As scotto pointed out, this is the nature of social scientific evidence: self-reporting. True, there is the possibility of false self-reporting, but as he pointed out further, self-reporting in these types of studies is generally accurate. Aside from that, that's the only evidence we can have of these things, and if someone asks "Who cheats more?" we can either talk out of our asses or look to the social science.

Just to add to this point, if a researcher worries about social acceptability as a source of bias, they work around it. Modules regarding sexual behavior may not be asked in a face to face interview. The sample person is handed a paper questionnaire or answers via computer with no interviewer mediation, eliminating that as a concern. If the questions are to be asked in person, the demographic characteristics of the interviewer are chosen carefully.

In any event, there's been a ton of methodological research done to reduce all sources of bias. Is it completely eliminated? No, because that's the nature of survey research and/or polling. Bias creeps in but the extent of the bias can be estimated and you can generate reliable estimates assuming you haven't completely screwed things up with a poor design or execution.

Now, if your operating assumption is that religious people are more likely to lie about sexual matters for whatever reason than non-religious people then there's really nothing to discuss. But I think to deny the validity of data found in the GSS or APS or NIS or any number of other surveys is to take a flat earth approach to understanding human behavior. I guess my main point is that there's no point to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No research is perfect.

Peoples' mileage vary, of course.

Well, I suppose it's "flawed data" insofar as there's an inherent risk of false self-reporting, but as you point out, there's not really a good way around that, so the same criticism could be made of much social scientific research. And by that standard, no data is without "flaws;" that's just stating the obvious.

Personally, I think we'd be better off admitting that we don't know and can't know to any degree of certainty, rather than pretending that we know and acting on what is, in all likelihood, flawed data.

As I said, estimates are as precise as they can be given the fact that you're dealing with a sample, and bias and error can creep in from various sources. That's why so much attention is paid to reducing bias by various means and then focusing on variance estimation.

But what we're talking about here is whether the range of those who engage in the practice of their religion have significant difference in infidelity compared with those who don't measured with, most likely, a 95% confidence interval. The answer, found fairly consistently, is yes, that in the population this is likely a real difference.

Edited to add the italicized text for clarity.

DMN, how would you feel about your 15 year old daughter hanging around with a 28 year old married man?

And after you learned that they had sex after she turned 18, would you suspect they had sex before she turned 18, as well?

If you think that's credible, sure. I find it stretches the outer limits of plausibility, just because I don't see many 28-year old straight men forming platonic relationships with 15-year old girls.

I don't think it's that uncommon, or creepy. Where I do see things like this happening are when there's an shared activity in common, that both the 15-year-old and 28-year-old can participant as equals. The 13 year age difference is about right for "cool uncle" quasi-mentor relationship, there's something they can do together and enjoy other than [forget] -- and yes, most 28 year old guys aren't trolling for jailbait. Give us some credit (I'm 28). These days my main physical activity is rock climbing; among those folks, I see friendships among teenagers and 20/30 somethings all the day. Playing music is another. These cross-age activities are places where we get past the ridiculous mostly-American notion that you can only relate to and be understood by people your same age. That's a bunch of crap, actual communities are bigger than that.

Now, when the 15-year old and the 28-year old meet in a bar ... I agree that's a little creepy.

- 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.

BBC--

I agree your solution is better than cheating, but you did not ask why cheating is the best solution. You asked why men cheat, and I was trying to provide some speculative insight. Cheating is usually (one might even say always) the wrong solution. Even so, trying to understand why people do it seems more productive to me than just calling it wrong and turning away.

The 13 year age difference is about right for "cool uncle" quasi-mentor relationship, there's something they can do together and enjoy other than [forget] -- and yes, most 28 year old guys aren't trolling for jailbait. Give us some credit (I'm 28).

Perhaps most guys that age aren't trolling for jailbait, but there are enough of them that I think we're rightly suspicious of the ones who seek out girls of that particular age, particularly if they meet in a bar, and doubly, doubly if they do end up shagging later.

McCready's dad is now saying that nothing sexual happened between Roger and Mindy until 1998, at which point she was 22 years old.

As I said, estimates are as precise as they can be given the fact that you're dealing with a sample, and bias and error can creep in from various sources.

Yes. And in this case, as precise as they can be = not precise at all.

Scotto, you either have solid data or you don't. You can't just say "Well, this is the best we could do so you'll have to rely on these results." You have to say "The state of the art is such that reliable data can't be gathered so we still don't know.".

I already mentioned the problem the CDC had with Haitian AIDS patients being less than forthcoming about their sexual practices. And this was an instance where people's lives were at stake if the information given was inacccurate. They just wouldn't admit they were engaging in homosexual sex acts. So how are you going to get fundamentalist Christians to be honest about infidelity, if they think they'll burn in hell because of it?

And don't talk to me about confidence intervals. If the raw data is unreliable, the confidence intervals mean less than squat.

McCready's dad is now saying that nothing sexual happened between Roger and Mindy until 1998, at which point she was 22 years old.

Now there's an objective source.

McCready's dad is now saying that nothing sexual happened between Roger and Mindy until 1998, at which point she was 22 years old.

And he's got the video to prove it.

Bias creeps in but the extent of the bias can be estimated

How exactly do you do that, Scotto? I can't possibly imagine a reliable way of doing that which doesn't violate the constitutional rights of privacy.

A sample is always going to have uncertainty to it, kevin, even if you're looking to determine, say, quality of widget on a production line.

But you're clearly in a fundamentalist camp on this issue, and don't seem to fully grasp that it's neither black nor white and that perfection, while desirable, is unattainable.

Where I do see things like this happening are when there's an shared activity in common

And that activity would be what exactly...?

Wait, let me guess. Humping?

Now there's an objective source.

Sorry, didn't mean to stand in the way of baseless speculation. Carry on!

A sample is always going to have uncertainty to it, kevin, even if you're looking to determine, say, quality of widget on a production line.

Bull. If you're trying to count 10 oranges, you can accurately count 10 oranges. The error rate on that is so small as to be insignificant. If you think you made a mistake, you can just go back and count them again. Or you can have 3 different people count them 3 time each and use the mean.

What you're talking about is subjective data, where the deliverer of the data has a vested interest in being less than honest, in having a vested interest in delivering an underestimate of infidelity. You cannot conduct a worthwhile study using data that is that flawed.

And that activity would be what exactly...?

Wait, let me guess. Humping?

My dog claimed my leg was asking for it.

My vet claimed his nads were asking for it.

We lived happily ever after.

Best Regards

John

How exactly do you do that, Scotto? I can't possibly imagine a reliable way of doing that which doesn't violate the constitutional rights of privacy.

You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of what bias in a survey is. Per Groves, "(b)ias is the type of error that affects the statistic in all implementations of a survey design; in that sense it is a constant error (e.g. all possible surveys using the same design might overestimate the mean years of education per person in the population.) A variable error, measured by the variance of a statistic, arises because achieved values differ over the units (e.g. sampled persons, interviewers used, questions asked) that are the sources of the error. The concept of variable errors inherently requires the possibility of repeating the survey, with changes of units in the replications (e.g. different sample persons, different interviewers)."

W

Bull. If you're trying to count 10 oranges, you can accurately count 10 oranges. The error rate on that is so small as to be insignificant. If you think you made a mistake, you can just go back and count them again. Or you can have 3 different people count them 3 time each and use the mean.

With this statement, you have demonstrated such a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic being discussed simultaneously coupled with a lack of willingness to try to grasp what you so clearly don't understand that I'm concluding that I'm wasting my time. It's like arguing with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or an ideologue.