A Way Out of My Adultery Assertion

[David Sklansky]

I'm surprised no one has thought to write the following rebuttal to my assertion that one of the reasons unconfessed adultery is wrong is because no one has the right to deprive a spouse of information that might make them want to end the marriage.

But there is a rebuttal to that specific assertion (not to the wrongness of adultery in general) that is valid. And since no one else has posted it, I thought I'd better do it myself, if only to save some of you guys some angush. And I say "guys" because the rebuttal applies only to men. And it is a bit sexist. And it requires that you believe in evolution. But it is valid.

To agree with this rebuttal you must stipulate to two things:

1. It is OK to withhold information from someone you care about, knowing it might make them do something they wouldn't otherwise do, if you know that the person has misconceptions about the information. So in the example that Andy Fox gave about not telling your wife that you contributed to Bill Frist's campaign because that might make her want to divorce you, I say he is wrong UNLESS she is mistaken about something, and you can't correct it. For instance she thinks Bill Frist is a child molestor. If it is clear that her asking for a divorce is based on this wrong information, I believe it is ethical to not tell her about your contribution.

2. Because humans have inherited traits from those most likely to have passed on their genes, men (but not women) have inherited a mild compulsion to have sex with women they don't particularly care about or may even actively dislike. Of course they would prefer to like her, but for men that is just icing on the cake. Men who felt otherwise a million years ago are much less likely to have ancestors today. And of course the assumption is made that this horndog trait is inherited.

Women on the other hand have no evolutionery advantage to having a similiar compulsion. They may have desires for a hot guy who they don't particularly like, but repressing those desires is less difficult for them because it has not reached the point of mild compulsion through evolutionary pressure. Because of this woman in even moderately happy marriages won't consider cheating on their husbands with an airhead hunk given the downsides. When they do cheat in a moderately happy marriage it is almost always with someone who not only physically attracts them but who they also CARE ABOUT or feel friendly or intimate with. That's much tougher for them to resist.

But since most women aren't well versed in evolution they ascribe to their husband's cheating similar feelings to those they know they would have to have to cheat on him. Especially if they considered the marriage good. Of course they sort of realize that men tend to be a bit more promiscuous but most don't realize the large difference between sexes in the drive to screw a merely sexy "object". A difference caused by evolutionary pressures.

This is not to say that men's compulsion to screw pretty women is uncontrollable. It is just that the effort to control it is much greater than the effort required by a woman under similar circumstances. And very few woman realize this.

The bottom line is that in the case of a contrite husband who messed with an irrelvant bimbo for a short period of time, it is probably OK to keep that from a wife if he can honestly say that her posssible non forgiveness would be because she wouldn't fully realize the meaningless of it, and she WOULD undoubtedly forgive if she did.

Hope that gets some of you off the hook.

[purnell]

OK, if it makes you feel better. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Evolution as an excuse for husbands cheating? Gimme a break. Evolution is an ok excuse for a dog trying to hump your leg (which I've never really considered before), but I don't see any women buying this unless their husband merely tried to hump some bimbo's leg. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Hope that gets ME off the hook after Yom Kippur.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I don't see how making an urge moderately harder to control changes an act from being immoral to moral. It only makes it excusable.

You claimed that the only out was that they didn't understand and would make an incorrect decision due to incompetence or lack of knowledge. This doesn't apply unless you had sex for the intended purpose of procreation, like getting your sister's lesbian partner pregnant so they could raise a child.

Your way out doesn't qualify unless the man would have sex with the woman when he didn't enjoy it. I think this reason is fuzzy thinking.

[tolbiny]

"and she WOULD undoubtedly forgive if she did."

And the ending is brilliant- for now we have to be psychic to be able to use this loophole- which isn't even a loophole. By your logic any man who didn't know this would be forced to forgive his wife's transgressions, himself knowing how hard it is to be monogomous.

[benkahuna]

I often have some mild disagreement with your posts in this section, but in this case I have none. You make a strong argument and I think you've made a correct observation about a difference between men and women.

It seems to me that the people replying to this post thus far haven't considered that you're not saying this situation applies to all situations involving adultery.

[andyfox]

"I don't see how making an urge moderately harder to control changes an act from being immoral to moral. It only makes it excusable."

I don't see how it makes it excusable. Maybe it makes it more understandable than it otherwise would be, but not, to me, excusable.

[chezlaw]

What about if you are aware of how strong the pressure is on you to be adulterous and how little she will understand that pressure, when you make the promise not to cheat?

she might want to leave you not because she doesn't understand these things but because she understands that you do (and did when you made the promise).

BTW I think you underestimate the evolutionary presure on women to have children from more than one male and to set up a competition between the sperm of different males.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
By your logic any man who didn't know this would be forced to forgive his wife's transgressions, himself knowing how hard it is to be monogomous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it completely backwards. Using his logic a man probably wouldn't be able to forgive his wife, since Sklansky claims that women don't have that mild compulsion that men do.

Sklansky, what are your thoughts on nymphomaniacs and adultery? I'm assuming that they get off the hook, as they have more than just a mild compulsion.

[andyfox]

"Hope that gets some of you off the hook."

Do you really? Many men don't tell their wives about what they see as irrelevant dalliances with insignificant bimbi because they rationalize that their wives wouldn't understand the meaningless of it. After all, they're genetically predisposed to do it, their wives would never understand it's not their fault, it's in his genes/jeans.

But, in reality, those men understand that their wives would be upset precisely because they would understand that the affair was exactly what the man claimed it was: an insignificant mistake because men are predisposed to horndoggedness. They could understand doing something hurtful to them if it meant something to the guy, but to be only as faithful as his options allowed is, I think, even less acceptable to many women.

So while I understand your point, I don't think it has much relevance to reality, at least in terms of adultery.

"Women on the other hand have no evolutionery advantage to having a similiar compulsion."

Do you think it's an advantage, or just a difference between men and women?

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]


Hope that gets some of you off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are quite mad! I think you really believe you have the capability to put anyone on a moral hook in the _first_ place. Mind_ boggling arrogance.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your logic any man who didn't know this would be forced to forgive his wife's transgressions, himself knowing how hard it is to be monogomous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it completely backwards. Using his logic a man probably wouldn't be able to forgive his wife, since Sklansky claims that women don't have that mild compulsion that men do.

Sklansky, what are your thoughts on nymphomaniacs and adultery? I'm assuming that they get off the hook, as they have more than just a mild compulsion.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW I think you underestimate the evolutionary presure on women to have children from more than one male and to set up a competition between the sperm of different males.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little evidence of this in human evolution (ie from the time we split with the last common ancestor ~6 mya). Ensuring that their partner had incentive to help raise the child has been much more important to women in human evolution.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I think you underestimate the evolutionary presure on women to have children from more than one male and to set up a competition between the sperm of different males.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little evidence of this in human evolution (ie from the time we split with the last common ancestor ~6 mya). Ensuring that their partner had incentive to help raise the child has been much more important to women in human evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two are not contradictory. There is evidence (so I'm told I'm no expert) that it is common for one or more children to be from different fathers but passed off as the partners offspring.

I can't recall the figure but it was suprisingly high. Anyone out there got some data?

chez

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I think you underestimate the evolutionary presure on women to have children from more than one male and to set up a competition between the sperm of different males.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little evidence of this in human evolution (ie from the time we split with the last common ancestor ~6 mya). Ensuring that their partner had incentive to help raise the child has been much more important to women in human evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two are not contradictory. There is evidence (so I'm told I'm no expert) that it is common for one or more children to be from different fathers but passed off as the partners offspring.

I can't recall the figure but it was suprisingly high. Anyone out there got some data?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I saw studies in UK put it at 10% but I haven't looked for backup sources.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I think you underestimate the evolutionary presure on women to have children from more than one male and to set up a competition between the sperm of different males.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little evidence of this in human evolution (ie from the time we split with the last common ancestor ~6 mya). Ensuring that their partner had incentive to help raise the child has been much more important to women in human evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are two ( at least?) competing pressures for women. Physically fit young men who appearance indicates "good" genes (not marally good!) are favoured for offspring but they are more likey to "wander" beacause they can. The other side for survival of offspring is a stable family setting where the male stays around and supports the family. hence the situation where it becomes favourable to the selective process for the female genes to form a family with a stable good provider yet have an natural attraction to have on the side sex with a good gene provider. (I see the typos and they are staying!)

[David Sklansky]

"You really are quite mad! I think you really believe you have the capability to put anyone on a moral hook in the _first_ place. Mind_ boggling arrogance."

Another guy with less than 200 posts. Get with the program please.

[David Sklansky]

You have been around here long enough to understand that in many cases, the things I write about are not the things I care about. Rather they are about subjects where I feel that a point has been missed. In this case it was my own previous post.

[andyfox]

"So while I understand your point, I don't think it has much relevance to reality, at least in terms of adultery."

Ah yes, I had it completely backwards /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Happens from time to time

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
"You really are quite mad! I think you really believe you have the capability to put anyone on a moral hook in the _first_ place. Mind_ boggling arrogance."

Another guy with less than 200 posts. Get with the program please.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an earth has my number of previous posts got to do with anything? What on earth does your second sentence mean?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I think you underestimate the evolutionary presure on women to have children from more than one male and to set up a competition between the sperm of different males.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little evidence of this in human evolution (ie from the time we split with the last common ancestor ~6 mya). Ensuring that their partner had incentive to help raise the child has been much more important to women in human evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two are not contradictory. There is evidence (so I'm told I'm no expert) that it is common for one or more children to be from different fathers but passed off as the partners offspring.

I can't recall the figure but it was suprisingly high. Anyone out there got some data?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok- i was interpreting your statement along the lines of sperm competition amoung chimpanzees- where one female will mate with many males within a short period of time while ovulating (there are many benefits for the female in this beyond getting her own website). Females mating with males and tricking someone else into helping them raise the offspring is different from what i understand "sperm competition" to mean.

According to a study from the 40's (the only i i know off) 10% of children were born with blood groups that prevented the person claiming to be the father from actually being so. REality must be higher as some blood groups were not known at the time, and presumably some men could have the same blood type as that of the one who impregnated his wife.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I think you underestimate the evolutionary presure on women to have children from more than one male and to set up a competition between the sperm of different males.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little evidence of this in human evolution (ie from the time we split with the last common ancestor ~6 mya). Ensuring that their partner had incentive to help raise the child has been much more important to women in human evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two are not contradictory. There is evidence (so I'm told I'm no expert) that it is common for one or more children to be from different fathers but passed off as the partners offspring.

I can't recall the figure but it was suprisingly high. Anyone out there got some data?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok- i was interpreting your statement along the lines of sperm competition amoung chimpanzees- where one female will mate with many males within a short period of time while ovulating (there are many benefits for the female in this beyond getting her own website). Females mating with males and tricking someone else into helping them raise the offspring is different from what i understand "sperm competition" to mean.

According to a study from the 40's (the only i i know off) 10% of children were born with blood groups that prevented the person claiming to be the father from actually being so. REality must be higher as some blood groups were not known at the time, and presumably some men could have the same blood type as that of the one who impregnated his wife.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a program on tv (so it must be true) that investigated the relationship between how revealing womens clothing is and her fertility. They claimed a high correlation between the two. Can't recall which program but it was good.

Anyway, If women have the same 'mild compulsion' as men, just not as frequently, then they should still understand how hard it is to resist which is a second reason why this is not the out DS promised us.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't see how making an urge moderately harder to control changes an act from being immoral to moral. It only makes it excusable."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it makes it excusable. Maybe it makes it more understandable than it otherwise would be, but not, to me, excusable.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I am sure you realize, andy - Nor does David S. say the act of adultery is excusable. Only the non-confessing part is excusable under this rationale.

[RJT]

I think the question that needs to be answered is this (and really this is just a different way of asking the original question) : Is it enough to forgive oneself? Can an offense (adultery) committed against someone else (the spouse) be wiped clean by the adulterer alone? Doesn’t Alcoholics Anonymous suggest that this isn’t enough to recovery? One of the steps is to go back and ask forgiveness for past transgressions, I think. I do know that my Church say it is not enough - we need God’s forgiveness for sure (the spouse’s? not sure how far we take things like this).

If it is enough that one forgives oneself then this scenario might hold. If it is not enough to forgive oneself then I don’t think any scenario holds.

Now, if it is enough to forgive oneself then I think we have discovered the atheist's answer to Catholic Confession (we now call it the Sacrament of Reconciliation). The atheist now has an out for just about any transgression, I think.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the question that needs to be answered is this (and really this is just a different way of asking the original question) : Is it enough to forgive oneself? Can an offense (adultery) committed against someone else (the spouse) be wiped clean by the adulterer alone? Doesn’t Alcoholics Anonymous suggest that this isn’t enough to recovery? One of the steps is to go back and ask forgiveness for past transgressions, I think. I do know that my Church say it is not enough - we need God’s forgiveness for sure (the spouse’s? not sure how far we take things like this).

If it is enough that one forgives oneself then this scenario might hold. If it is not enough to forgive oneself then I don’t think any scenario holds.

Now, if it is enough to forgive oneself then I think we have discovered the atheist's answer to Catholic Confession (we now call it the Sacrament of Reconciliation). The atheist now has an out for just about any transgression, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]This is well reasoned post. It may be important to note that in both cases, transgressions can not be reconciled until action has changed.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
But, in reality, those men understand that their wives would be upset precisely because they would understand that the affair was exactly what the man claimed it was: an insignificant mistake because men are predisposed to horndoggedness. They could understand doing something hurtful to them if it meant something to the guy, but to be only as faithful as his options allowed is, I think, even less acceptable to many women.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I really follow what you are saying, andy. Can you rephrase this? If what you are saying is what I think then I disagree. But, it is probably me not correctly comprehending your point.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
This is well reasoned post. It may be important to note that in both cases, transgressions can not be reconciled until action has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I can non-chalantly take the opportunity to try convert some folk here. I can market the idea of Confession to the atheist. We always have Confession to fall back on when we transgress again. But, that would only demean the value (I see) in my Religion while at the same time not help the transgressor.

So, instead I will simply thank you for the compliment, Doug.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I can non-chalantly take the opportunity to try convert some folk here. I can market the idea of Confession to the atheist.

[/ QUOTE ] Please don't. Although if you wanted to do a don't throw the baby out with the bathwater type post on religion, I'd be interested

[ QUOTE ]
I can market the idea of Confession to the atheist.

[/ QUOTE ] This is a brilliant idea, many rich people have tried to buy their way into heaven before. A new angle on it and you could be more rich too, not to assume that you are not already.

[ QUOTE ]
But, that would only demean the value (I see) in my Religion while at the same time not help the transgressor.

[/ QUOTE ] Personaly, I think clarifing the real benefits, and the placebo effects of religion could lead to some insights into the philosophies and actions of man.


Of course I have a different 'conclusion' on god and religion than you do.

[ QUOTE ]
So, instead I will simply thank you for the compliment, Doug.

[/ QUOTE ] YW.

I think I want to bring up some other aspects of your post. It assumes that transgression is nessesary to live a full life. As if ones life is not complete until his transgressions are reconciled.

And it assumes that there can be transgression without god. Something that i agree with, but seems to have sparked some debate around here.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I want to bring up some other aspects of your post. It assumes that transgression is nessesary to live a full life. As if ones life is not complete until his transgressions are reconciled.

And it assumes that there can be transgression without god. Something that i agree with, but seems to have sparked some debate around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comments were based on the assumptions and the hypotheticals of the OP (if not explicit then implied, is how understood it). Also, I didn’t mean to extend it to “live(ing) a full life”, only relative to the “forgiveness” (my word, not the OP) asked about. But, I think what is relevant to the OP should be relevant to “living a full life”, now that you mention it.