Final Paper!

Catherine Glass

Dr. Stiltner

April 17, 2012

Final Paper

Flirting Between a Rock and a Hard Place

            Why do people cheat? It’s a universal no-no, but still, it happens pretty frequently:  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, Tiger Woods and…ten other women. Since infidelity has been increasingly publicized, the public has become desensitized.  It has become less scandalous and more accepted.   We need only think of Bill Clinton as the poster boy for the concept that there is a public life after an infidelity.  Yet, as “People” magazine publishes a new affair every week, at some level, we publicly proclaim the notion that extramarital relationships are taboo.

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men and women’s sexual attitudes are a product of their ancestral past. In a 1998 study, researchers found that male reproductive success was based on spreading genes to as many partners as possible. It was necessary to produce offspring – the more sex, the more strong and burly male descendants would be available to contribute to the tribe. On the opposite end of the spectrum, women wanted to ensure the health and safety for their children. Female reproductive success was based on finding a male partner that could provide resources for the family. Has this tradition travelled with us all these years later? A man with wives and girlfriends – a young woman with an eighty-five year old wealthy husband – is all of this due to evolutionary drive?

Many modern theorists don’t buy the evolutionary philosophy. “A person's past sexual history, an individual's mate value (attractiveness), the degree of opportunity (time spent away from a spouse with other potential sexual partners), and a person's willingness to take risks all play an important role in infidelity.”  This explanation drills down to the individual reasons why extramarital affairs occur and suggests a personal accountability factor that is missing from the evolutionary theory.  It is also logically appealing. The formula is: opportunity + appetite for risk + minimum invested in the marital relationship (shared finances, children) = at risk for marital affair.[BS1]  Opportunity pertains to one’s physical attractiveness, social skills, and financial independence. The risk-taking component has to do with spouses who have a more adventurous nature. The investment factor relates to how many shared priorities a married couple has together. After reading all of the research and literature, this formula seems to be the soundest explanation as to why someone would enter into an extramarital affair. The common denominator underlying all of these variables is the lack of reverence in a marriage. For me, respect between the spouses defines the level of risk and is the thin line between a healthy and hopeless relationship.

Often this disrespect stems from one or both spouses not having trust. This may be due to the marriage, or may be a personal insecurity. Regardless, when there is a lack of trust, resentment often surfaces (warranted or unwarranted) – this is when disrespect comes into play. Instead of communicating with one’s partner, it is more common and temporarily easier to turn against them. The Bible says, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.” (John 4:18). In Catholic tradition fear, insecurity, and mistrust cannot exist in a marriage. So, since Catholic tradition weighs so heavily on marital “perfectness,” we would think that a faithful person would be less likely to cheat. Unsurprisingly, there is much research both supporting and resisting this notion.

 A psychology study done in 2006 claimed that people who attend religious services on a frequent basis are both more likely to disapprove of extramarital affairs and less likely to engage in them (Woodruff). So, faith and faithfulness go together. Also, separate research found that religious students were unlikely to engage in an affair. Faith was the main component for these students lack of engagement (Benson & Donahue).  The God factor injects a moral component that is not necessarily linked to respect for, or feeling for, the spouse or significant other.  It is more concerned with the actor’s own concern for his/her everlasting well being. “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” the Commandments command. 

            Thomas Rees, an Op-Ed columnist for Free Inquiry, writes that regular church goers are less likely to cheat because they tend to be more family oriented. People who attend a religious service weekly do so, generally, in company with their family. Rees “suspects that there would be similar findings for those people who commit to secular activities.”  The reason for fidelity, he argues, is the commitment to the sanctity of the family as evidenced by support for family activities.  Indeed, people who feel they are “close to God but don’t go to a religious service” are 25% more likely to cheat. According to this theory, religious faith doesn’t reduce infidelity, family centered life does. (Thomas Rees Blog)

            Rees, however, minimizes the significant impact God and religion has on many people’s lives and the moral compass both can provide. When the family is involved together in a social activity, whether secular or spiritual, powerful bonds are created and reinforced.  An affair that could cause ruination of the family unit may simply offer a very unattractive risk/reward ration and itself act as a deterrent.  Otherwise stated, why would they cheat and ruin that?  Still, Church, or any religious service for that matter, is not just a social gathering. It serves up lessons in morality, goodness, and fulfillment – all examples of pro-family behavior. Family bowling night is simply not the same thing as Sunday mass. In his blog Epiphenom, even Rees admits that the research may be faulty. The study surveyed “self-reported infidelity, something that people are likely to under-report, and attendance, which is often over-reported. And it's a cross-sectional analysis, like most of these sorts of things, so cause-and-effect are open to question.” A cross sectional analysis study’s a large ranging sample (i.e. different race, socioeconomic status etc.) at one time. Participants have different backgrounds influencing how they answer the survey. As for the flaws of self- reported studies, people tend to tone down their experience with cheating, and exaggerate how often they attend service. The reality is that people who have strong family bonds (however formed), and people who have deeply felt religious beliefs against extramarital affairs, are less likely to have those affairs because of the family bonds and the religious beliefs, respectively.  The data was issued in 2008.  It would be interesting to compare now, many highly public affairs later, to see if attitudes have changed.

            It has become pretty clear that over the years, our country has become a more secular society. And, in this secular society, infidelity is still seen as morally prohibited. So, it seems to me that while Church is an excellent representation of pro-family behavior, it isn’t necessarily crucial. I grew up attending Church, and personally want to take my children to Church. Service teaches us how to live a just and fulfilling life. Although sometimes too rigid, the Catholic Church has strong tradition that most people would seem to agree with – especially when it comes to extramarital affairs. However, my children can still gain a moral compass without going to mass. A religious service won’t transform a married couple into faithful and happy partners – if they have problems in their relationship, faith won’t work miracles. Whether it’s secular or spiritual, pro-family behavior is definitely the staple for a happier marriage. As long as a family is bonding and connecting with each other, the likelihood of an affair will be far less.

            But, after the infidelity occurs and there’s no going back, what are society’s thoughts and attitudes? Once an affair happens, especially in the public eye, it is more easily forgiven than we would think. Although we see affairs as taboo, we still tend to get away with having them. That is due to an ethic of self-fulfillment. Traditional concepts of right and wrong have been replaced by norms of “harmful” or “harmless” (Yankelovich, 1981a, p. 46). If one’s affair is damaging career or reputation wise if not forgiven, even if they are “wrong” from the perspective of traditional morality, they no longer meet much opposition. If a man cheats on his wife but lives in a hierarchal community, he’s typically forgiven. It’s better to have a cheating husband than to compromise status, right? If a movie star has an affair, it’s typically covered up and the actor doesn’t loose a dime. If you’re powerful enough, your affair is seen as more “harmful” if not forgiven – it is more “harmless” to allow the infidelity.

Beginning most famously with Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, there has been a sea change in the public perception of extramarital affairs.  Today, it is not a career killer. When caught, a heartfelt apology, a steady wife who stands by the adulterer’s side forgiving him, results in the adulterer’s career clicking on all cylinders in no time.  So, Governor Spitzer can have his career spectacularly flame out with a prostitute, and still wind up a successful TV personality and commentator – Bill Clinton can become a Nobel Prize nominee – and the golf world can breathlessly wait for Tiger’s anticipated comeback. While there are environments in which one is more likely to have an affair, and religion and morality definitely come into play, forgiveness of infidelity has undoubtedly skyrocketed. We live in a secular world where less people engage in family centered activity and sex tapes make you famous.

Work Cited

Atkins, D., & Kessel, D. (2008). Religiousness and Infidelity: Attendance, but not Faith and Prayer, Predict Marital Fidelity Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (2), 407-418

PL Benson, MJ Donahue - Journal of Adolescent Research, 1989

Rees, Thomas. "Religion and Marital Infidelity. “Epiphenom. PaperBlog, 17 Apr 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. <http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/search?

Woodruff, M. (2006). Marital infidelity and religion; unfaithful individuals and their religiosity. Retrieved from 

Yankelovich, D. (1981b). New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down. New York: Random House

---

A Few Drafts Later...

Flirting Between a Rock and a Hard Place

            Why do people cheat? It’s a universal no-no, but still, it happens pretty frequently:  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, Tiger Woods and…ten other women. Since infidelity has been increasingly publicized, the public has become desensitized.  It has become less scandalous and more accepted.   We need only think of Bill Clinton as the poster boy for the concept that there is a public life after an infidelity.  Yet, as “People” magazine publishes a new affair every week, at some level, we publicly proclaim the notion that extramarital relationships are taboo.

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men and women’s sexual attitudes are a product of their ancestral past. In a 1998 study, researchers found that male reproductive success was based on spreading genes to as many partners as possible. It was necessary to produce offspring – the more sex, the more strong and burly male descendants would be available to contribute to the tribe. On the opposite end of the spectrum, women wanted to ensure the health and safety for their children. Female reproductive success was based on finding a male partner that could provide resources for the family. Has this tradition travelled with us all these years later? A man with wives and girlfriends – a young woman with an eighty-five year old wealthy husband – is all of this due to evolutionary drive?

Many modern theorists don’t buy the evolutionary philosophy. “A person's past sexual history, an individual's mate value (attractiveness), the degree of opportunity (time spent away from a spouse with other potential sexual partners), and a person's willingness to take risks all play an important role in infidelity.”  This explanation drills down to the individual reasons why extramarital affairs occur and suggests a personal accountability factor which is missing from the evolutionary theory.  It is also logically appealing. The formula is: opportunity + appetite for risk + minimum invested in the marital relationship (shared finances, children) = at risk for marital affair. For me, respect between the spouses defines the level of risk and is the thin line between a healthy and hopeless relationship.

A psychology study done in 2006 argued that people who attend religious services on a frequent basis are both more likely to disapprove of extramarital affairs and less likely to engage in them (Woodruff). So, faith and faithfulness go together. Also, separate research found that religious students were unlikely to engage in an affair. Faith was the main component for these students lack of engagement (Benson & Donahue).  The God factor injects a moral component which is not necessarily linked to respect for, or feeling for, the spouse or significant other.  It is more concerned with the actor’s own concern for his/her everlasting well- being. “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” the Commandments command. 

            Thomas Rees, an Op-Ed columnist for Free Inquiry, writes that regular church goers are less likely to cheat because they tend to be more family oriented. People who attend a religious service weekly do so, generally, in company with their family. Rees “suspects that there would be similar findings for those people who commit to secular activities.”  The reason for fidelity, he argues, is the commitment to the sanctity of the family as evidenced by support for family activities.  Indeed, people who feel they are “close to God but don’t go to a religious service” are 25% more likely to cheat. According to this theory, religious faith doesn’t reduce infidelity, family centered life does. (Thomas Rees Blog)

            Rees, however, minimizes the significant impact God and religion have on many people’s lives and the moral compass both can provide. When the family is involved together in a social activity, whether secular or spiritual, powerful bonds are created and reinforced.  An affair which could cause ruination of the family unit may simply offer a very unattractive risk/reward ration and itself act as a deterrent.  Otherwise stated, why would they cheat and ruin that?  Still, Church, or any religious service for that matter, is not just a social gathering. It serves up lessons in morality, goodness, and fulfillment – all examples of pro-family behavior. Family bowling night is simply not the same thing as Sunday mass. In his blog Epiphenom, even Rees admits that the research may be faulty. The study surveyed “self-reported infidelity, something that people are likely to under-report, and attendance, which is often over-reported. And it's a cross-sectional analysis, like most of these sorts of things, so cause-and-effect are open to question.” A cross sectional analysis studies a large ranging sample (i.e. different race, socioeconomic status etc.) at one time. Participants have different backgrounds influencing how they answer the survey. As for the flaws of self- reported studies, people tend to tone down their experience with cheating, and exaggerate how often they attend service. The reality is that people who have strong family bonds (however formed), and people who have deeply felt religious beliefs against extramarital affairs, are less likely to have those affairs because of the family bonds and the religious beliefs, respectively.  The data was issued in 2008.  It would be interesting to compare now, many highly public affairs later, to see if attitudes have changed.

          I believe, beginning most famously with Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, there has been a sea change in the public perception of extramarital affairs.  Today, it is not a career killer.  A heartfelt apology, a steady wife who stands by the adulterer’s side forgiving him, and soon the adulterer’s career is back clicking on all cylinders.  So, a Governor Spitzer can have his career spectacularly flame out with a prostitute, and still wind up a successful TV personality and commentator. Bill Clinton can become a Nobel Prize nominee, and the golf world can breathlessly wait for Tiger’s anticipated comeback. It is a world in which sex tapes make you famous. Go figure.

My Paper So Far...

Catherine Glass

Dr. Stiltner

April 17, 2012

Final Paper

Flirting Between a Rock and a Hard Place

            Why do people cheat? It’s a universal no-no, but still, it happens pretty frequently. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, Tiger Woods and…ten other women. Since infidelity has been increasingly publicized, it’s only natural to think society would be more accepting. However, even though People magazine publishes a new affair every week, the American culture stands by the notion that extramarital relationships are taboo.

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men and women’s sexual attitudes are a product of their ancestral past. In a 1998 study, researchers found that male reproductive success was based on spreading genes to as many partners as possible. It was necessary to produce offspring – the more sex, the more strong and burly male descendants would be available to contribute to the tribe. On the opposite end of the spectrum, women wanted to ensure health and safety for their children. Female reproductive success was based on finding a partner that could provide resources for the family. Has this tradition travelled with us all these years later? When we see men with wives and girlfriends and young women with eighty-five year old wealthy husbands, can we credit our evolutionary drive?

More modern theory doesn’t buy the evolutionary philosophy. “A person's past sexual history, an individual's mate value (attractiveness), the degree of opportunity (time spent away from a spouse with other potential sexual partners), and a person's willingness to take risks all play an important role in infidelity.” This seems more believable. If you take an ordinary and extraordinary looking person, and the latter is used to having a lot of sex with a lot of opportunity, they are more likely to cheat on their spouse. Also, if they don’t have a lot invested in their relationship, what do they have to loose by cheating? To me, respect is the thin line between a healthy and hopeless relationship.

A psychology study done in 2001 claims that people who attend religious services on a frequent basis are both more likely to disapprove of extramarital affairs and less likely to engage in them. So, while this secular society holds so much animosity towards religion- we must admit that they do have some merit in their tradition. In 1989 Benson and Donahue CITE found that religious students were very unlikely to engage in infidelity and their faith was the main component for these students lack of engagement.  The Quran says “Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.” The Catholic Church says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Still, there are religious skeptics that don’t attribute faithfulness to scripture – they say there are outlying reasons. The faith, to them, is just a coincidence.

            Thomas Rees, and Op-ed columnist for Free Inquiry believes that regular church goers are less likely to cheat because they tend to be more family oriented. People who attend a religious service weekly do so with their family. Rees “suspects that there would be similar findings for those people who commit to secular activities.” At first glance Rees opinion seems farfetched. The reason for fidelity isn’t due to attendance; they it is due to beliefs. However, people who feel they are “close to God but don’t go to a religious service” are 25% more likely to cheat. Faith doesn’t reduce infidelity, going to service does. (Thomas Rees Blog)

           

My Project

My project is progressing pretty well thus far. Like Dr. Stiltner said, there are a lot of different aspects in extramarital relationships. I loved his idea on looking at both the research and religion. As of now, I think that I am going to try to halve the paper that way. My previous post about a blogger who is a religion skeptic definitely gives me a good deal of interesting information to work with. Also, researching the web has given me a wealth of information.

You Just Have to Laugh!

David Naster, a comedian, says that humor is the way to deal with change and setback. His philosophy is that, with hectic and chaotic lifestyles, people often forget to laugh. Laughter is the best way to relieve stress and handle life's problems. He performs all over the country trying to spread his theory. Here is a promotional video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnmXG_xtsPI

Tracy K. Smith

Today I was listening to NPR and Tracy K. Smith just won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for poetry. She read several poems and I, who does not typically read poetry, was transfixed after hearing her work. Smith is based out of Brooklyn and teaches creative writing at Princeton. She says that when writing a poem, she tries to find a topic that she doesn't know too much about and tell a story through another person's eyes. This "persona poetry" is becoming very popular, Smith says. NPR is even having a contest for it. The following is a poem from her winning book Life on Mars: (I love "Is God being or pure force? The wind/ Or what commands it?)


Is our universe “a house party,”, or a “primal scream,” as another would have it? “Is God being or pure force? The wind / Or what commands it?” Or might there be more than one God? “Maybe there is a pair of them, and they sit / Watching the cream disperse into their coffee // Like the A-bomb. This equals that, one says, / Arranging a swarm of coordinates // On a giant grid. They exchange smiles. / It’s so simple, they’ll be done by lunchtime.”

In Therapy Forever? Enough Already - NY TIMES

"In Therapy Forever? Enough Already" is a bold OpEd by psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert. Personally I completely agree with his philosophy that long term therapy is mundane, repetitive, and often unproductive. The other day I was talking to my boss, a family psychologist, about why people begin to hate therapy. Staying in counseling for too long is one of the main reasons. When people stay in counseling for an extended period of time they stop working on themselves and expect the therapist to "fix" them. Also as the article explains, there is a codependence. The therapist is dependent on the patient for money, the patient is dependent on the therapist for help. Unless there is a serious disorder like borderline personality, therapy really shouldn't extend longer than a year. Alpert says, "Therapy can — and should — focus on goals and outcomes, and people should be able to graduate from it." It is important to become a self actualized and competent individual. Unfortunately, many therapy professionals are aware that therapy sessions shouldn't be too long but don't apply it to their patients. 


Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/in-therapy-forever-enough-already.html?pagewanted=1