Men, Women, Monogamy and "Cheating"

Em and Lo of Daily Bedpost have a nice Q&A feature where they ask three different men, usually a single straight man, a single straight man, and a committed gay man, for their take on a question. Their take on the question "Do you think guys cheat more than women?" was pretty interesting.

The straight single respondent, "Max," said men are just lousier than women. Also, succumbing the dominant women as the "no-sex" class ideology, he adds

A girl, on the other hand, is more likely to be satisfied with the attention and flirtation alone. She doesn't NEED the physical confirmation to get an ego boost.

Read all about it here.

"Matt," the straight married respondent, also bashes men, blaming what he sees as more cheating as a result of poor impulse control. He also says "variety is a more constant drive" for men. Also, without considering, say, this point by Audacia Ray he says (emphasis mine)

They would sleep with someone different every day--maybe even several times a day. I just don't believe that would be appealing to most women over the long term. (I'm not talking about on occasion here, I mean different partners every day, for years. If you offered women the choice between that and a daily massage, they'd take the massage.)

And, getting closer to what I think the real answer might be, adds

This inherent desire for variety is a constantly suppressed impulse for pretty much every guy I know--even the ones who would never, ever stray.

Hmm... really? Wonder if anyone besides men has to spend time suppressing impulses?

Finally, though, "Terrence," the gay committed man, brings up the most interesting points. (Emphasis also mine.)

Do men cheat more than women? My intuition is screaming yes. But I also think our perception of men as cheaters feeds their cheating behavior -- which is another column entirely.

...

[I]f we've got to look at it in absolutes, then I believe yes, technically, men cheat more than women. But with life's continuous chaos and change, I'd rather stick with a partner who may have some random shags here and there if he's consistently emotionally monogamous with me.

Actually I'm with Terrence on the cheating question. Sure, men cheat at... rates only a little bit higher than the rates women cheat.

What's the difference then? Why do men (at least Euro/Anglo men) get the label? I think Terence touches on that but doesn't land square.

There are any number of kinds of intimate relationships where sex isn't involved at all. Think lifelong platonic friendships, family ties, and partnerships in intensely competitive and/or adventurous environments. Conversely, sad to say, in many monogamous relationships the partners themselves can be quite distant from each other.

What (heterosexual) monogamy *does* have going for it is a guarantee that men's family's property will be inherited by the "right" person's offspring. For most of the history of marriage, in virtually all history-leaving cultures, that's been the biggest consideration behind virginity, abstinence, fidelity, and monogamy. (Compare the meanings of the words "adultery" and "adulterated" for instance.)

Anyway, in cultures where men and their families have tended to control economics, and where it matters to their families that offspring really is "theirs," and where women have been kept completely economically and even legally dependent on men (even here their fathers "give them away" to their husbands at wedding, remember, a vestige of what used to be cold, hard, Common-Law legal truth) the deck has been substantially stacked against *women* who cheat (stoning, anyone?) and... stacked pretty flipping indifferently against men who do.

Anyway, since the rules of monogamy were initially created to protect men's interest in women as their *property* ("thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife... no his house nor *cattle* nor any *thing* that is thy neighbor's!) you'd sort of expect to see two things: first, that men wouldn't see much wrong with collecting a little extra "property," or even that they'd judge each other's status by how much "property" they could accumulate (unless, of course, they were married to that "property" in which case it would be "theft.") And second that as the metaphorical, and sometimes *real* property even when women did cheat they'd have to be a lot more circumspect -- the consequences, at least of being *caught,* (stoning, divorced, faced with raising children on their own) have tended to be way, way, way higher for them.

Anyway, I think all that adds up to explain why men have the greater reputation for cheating... and the statistically significant but not *that* much higher actual *rate* of cheating than women. A difference, by the way, that's therefore more cultural and not nearly as "natural" as Matt and Max suggest. Take away those cultural different consequences, and throw in more legal and economic parity, and I'm pretty sure the statistical difference largely disappears, with men not feeling sex with multiple partners is a *status* builder, and women not seeing fewer partners as a survival mechanism.

I happen to think, by the way, that if we could get closer to real economic, social, and legal parity we'd wind up with Terence's position: perhaps a little more sexual "cheating" (which might not even be considered *cheating*) but a lot more room for intimate and *emotionally* monogamous *partnerships* inside relationships.