Well, you’re right about believing what we want to believe.
However, provide some actual logic and/or evidence, and we’ll discuss it, OK?
American
Married
Female
**
Not true. Men are only as faithful as their conscience will allow them to be. If they have no conscience, no sense of right and wrong, don’t give a shit who they hurt… they’ll cheat. Doesn’t matter if they’re good looking or beaten with an ugly stick. It all comes down to character and self-esteem.
Well said, Kiki.
Surreal, I could not have possibly said it better myself if I tried.
As to whether the contrary proposition is a product of a prevailing social construct of values… Of course it is. We’re humans. Social animals. w/o social constructs life – plain old material here-and-now earthly life, we’re not talking any religious trascendence here – is lonely, nasty, brutish, and short. We tend to care about how to best deal with others of our kind, and for very many of us part of that process includes being faithful OR at least being truthful about with whom else we’re involved (polygamy, swinger’s lifestyle, socially recognized mistresses come under that).
BTW, in polygamous societies throughout history you could still get pieces of you hacked off if you messed with someone who was not one of your legal wives/concubines (or whom you did not intend to make one) so even those societies have a concept of fidelity.
The evidence does not support the absolute statement “Men are…” It supports the statement “MANY Men are…” or “Men are OFTEN…” “Men” by itself implies either absolute inclusion or an overwhelming majority so great that exceptions are extraordinary, and there’s enough evidence in controversy with this thatit cannot be asserted as fact. I’ve yet to see where “logic” and “common sense” support taking the evidence to form an absolute conclusion – unless the OP somewhow “wants to believe” that HIS gut feelings ARE the standard of logic and common sense.
Y’know, something in this thread reminds me of the religious people who argue that if it weren’t for religious precepts, everyone would descend into absolute debauchery and violence as there would be no morals whatsoever. It’s just as fallacious.
JRDelirious- "unless the OP somewhow “wants to believe” that HIS gut feelings ARE the standard of logic and common sense.
Thank you for the psychoanalysis. I’m so glad you were able to judge what my inner feelings and relationship situation is based on something you read on a message board.
Now explain to me the logic of why infidelity in ALWAYS wrong. What if a man is away on a business trip, he hooks up with a woman whom he has never met before and will never see again. He has sex with her, using a condom. He recognizes that there is no logic to the belief that this is wrong, so he feels no shame, guilt, remorse, etc. His SO never finds out, and she is not treated any differently by him afterward. Who is harmed? Why is this ‘wrong’?
Says the person who took a quote from Chris Rock and extrapolated it to half the population? :rolleyes:
Nobody has stated that infidelity is always wrong.
Infidelity in the context of polygamy or an open marriage is not wrong. If two people have agreed that they will be faithful to each other, then infidelity is wrong. It doesn’t matter that she’ll never find out; it doesn’t matter that he won’t contract an STD; it doesn’t matter that he feels no shame. He made a vow to his wife and he broke it. If he didn’t feel that he could keep that vow, then he shouldn’t have made it in the first place.
Wait a minute…I thought we were discussing whether men, in general, will cheat. No one said that infidelity is ALWAYS wrong
for everyone. I think we were taking issue with your assertion that infidelity is always right, or will/should always occur.
You are going to clarify what you mean, because at this point your argument is no longer making sense, or following the OP, IMO.
Also, please explain what you mean by
In your value system, that may be so.
If, in this hypothetical example, you are using a man who does not believe that cheating is wrong, then yes, you are absolutely right (fallibility of condoms issue notwithstanding).
However, how does this example extend to all men?
Once again, you are failing to see or prove how fidelity is illogical across the board.
Sorry-
should have been "once again, you are failing to see the big picture, or prove…
Surreal is this, by chance, an attempt to alleviate your own concearns over a past transgression?
Not to offend, even though the OP offended me, just wondering.
Anyway, allow for an allagory:
Nation A signs a pact with Nation B to sell them a certain product. Unbeknownst to Nation B, Nation A has brokered a deal with Nation C for that product, and sends said product directly from one to the other.
Nation A is hence making money off both B and C while performing no labor. They are selling foreighn products to B by way of a partner with no real vested interest in the relations of Nations A and B.
Diplomatically speaking, this is political and economic infidelity and is a breech of both contractual and diplomatic obligations.
Nation B is in effect being cheated out of an alliance. Nation A obviously has little to no respect for B in that it will not vest it’s own political (read: emotional) stake in it.
Should truth come to light, other nations would not want to deal with the selfish and disrespectful A, including C, since who says they won’t get stiffed next?
Yeah, this is convoluted. But so are human relationships. Once a pact is broken, it loses whatever credibility it might have had to everyone involved. Including the breaker.
This is actually kind of comical. Surreal, you have been confronted in this thread with a number of married men - myself included - who have said: “I’ve had options, I’ve never cheated.” Does that mean anything to you at all, or are you so stubborn that you are unable to even consider evidence that argues against your original point?
- Frank
Surreal, perhaps this thread, perhaps MY “most ill conceived” thread EVER ("Aren’t ALL ejaculations premature), can provide a lesson.
Note the similarities–
- I post an off the wall opinion based on my own opinion, and essentially no knowledge or facts at all. And on it’s surface, MY HO STILL sounds reasonable to me.
- Others respond. With some small amount of offense, and information to counter my claim.
Note the differencess–
- I discover I am wrong, apologize, and SHUT MY IGNORANT MOUTH about it.
I also apologize to any members here who are offended by MY thread above. I would never mention it again, but for the possibility of it doing some good as an example.
I have one more exemplar thread, one the my BETTER ones, IMO, that show, sadly, that you are not alone in your unswerving certainty, even on the SDMB. The thread is entitled, "What might you be wrong about? A poll". I had real hopes of some interesting exchanges, but it went nowhere.
Apparently, most of us ARE just as sure of ourselves as you. If I were you, I wouldn’t console myself over that.
Comical? Perhaps in the sense of tragic comedy. “Prick us, do we not bleed?”
Look, Surreal, if I asked the loaded question, “Are Women Only As Faithful As Their Options?” or “Are [members of an ethnic group] Only As Trustworthy As Their Options?” don’t you think I’d be ripped a new one, and rightfully so? The position you seem to be taking is blatantly sexist, and if you can’t see that, you need to take a good, long look at your assumptions about men in general and ask yourself exactly why you believe that all or even most men behave in a certain way. Anecdotal evidence is not legitimate. For every unfaithful man story, one can find at least one other faithful man story.
Just because you apparently don’t understand how or why a man would be faithful under truly tempting conditions doesn’t mean he will necessarily cheat when facing them. Individuals don’t always conform to distorted generalizations of reality, and the world has quite a few very different individuals last time I checked.
If he is married, it is wrong. He made a vow to remain faithful to his wife, which likely included language to the effect of “share your bed with none but her”.
If he is in a relationship which is either implied or stated to be exclusive, it is wrong. While he has not directly harmed anyone, nor has he made a promise of fidelity, he has still either stated or implied that he will be true to his SO.
Only if the relationship has been established to permit such liasons is it not wrong. His SO has agreed to allow him to fool around, and she has the same freedom.
Arguing that an act is not wrong if no-one finds out is a poor defense, to say the least.
Straight up, yojimboguy
Your “HO” should sound reasonable to you.
Gotta keep yo beyatch in line!
Action wise my conscience wouldn’t let me give truth to this statement. But desire wise, I think it’s true. If given more opportunities, I would mentally struggle with remaining faithful. I tend to judge myself harshly though, and wouldn’t be able to deal with the guilt at hurting somone else so much. So I’d remain faithful and not really want to.
Probably best I stay single.
Purd Werfect, doing what you feel is the right thing even though you’re not enjoying it still is doing the right thing. Being tempted is not cheating if it goes no further. And deciding that it may be better to stay uncommited, because you could not keep up your end of the bargain IS deciding you’d rather not cheat.
In any case, it was Surreal who first brought up that “logic and common sense” support his position. This puts the burden of proof upon him. I challenged that he could claim “logic and common sense” proves the OP – no claim was made that they prove the opposite in an absolute manner. (and, made no comment on his personal relationship situation… where the heck did he get that?) But, I guess everyone wants to believe what they want to believe, right?
I agree with that JRDelirious, and I don’t think I’m a bad person or anything like that. I just feel that it’s kind of shallow of me to only not want to cheat because I would feel guilty about it. Perhaps if I ever truly fell in love, I would have what I consider more noble feelings for staying true. I don’t lose sleep about it or anything. 
It’s not that you provided a cite - it’s that you provided a cite which proved absolutely nothing except that you probably popped “infidelity men” into a search engine and found something that supported your case.
As my above post shows, one can “prove” any point this way. In order to really support your point you’ll have to provide a worthwhile cite.
sidle is correct in his/her critique of your cite. It’s a worthless cite, plain and simple.
Well, I didn’t want to say it …
I’m offended about the OP as well, and this post is in no way defending it, but I have to put my two cents on the following:
Isn’t this what is usually done anyways? I would posit that the majority of debates on the StraightDope contain links to websites found on google, and then bantied about as fact. I’m sure the majority of us are guilty of this. If you want cites of this, see my second comment below.
**
So then asking for cites is rendered obsolete since nothing can really persuade a person to acknowledge what is a “worthwhile” cite and what isn’t? If I told you that Desmond Morris wrote in his book “The Naked Ape” that humans are essentially adulterers, you would then retort that Desmond Morris is a quack, because it doesn’t prove your point. In my opinion, this is a very dangerous trend.