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.
