My response to the infidelity article

So, here's my spin. I was waiting for comments so folks wouldn't comment on my comments without reading the article first.

First. Screw Christianity just for a minute (metaphorically, of course). It has a strong cultural influence, sure, even on non-Christians, but in this context I'll call it irrelevant to the larger issue: people of every theological stripe and color still have some percentage of infidelity, and so will be counted as "fellow humans" in this discussion. :)

Second. I found it odd that the tone of the article (and maybe of the human psyche) seemed to be, "Infidelity is probably wrong, but I wish it wasn't, or at least I wish I didn't feel bad about it." Anyone else pick up on that?

Third. There is some irony in the claim that lofty marriage standards are a cause of infidelity--("In the ideal American marriage today, we are told to look to one person for everything—sexual, spiritual, financial, intellectual, emotional—we need.")--when the opposite could also be argued. A broken sense of self-worth could just as easily lead someone to a false expectation of what marriage should be. Broken people are broken people. Neither depending on one person for fulfillment nor spreading that expectation around will make a person whole if they aren't.

Fourth. This numbering system is stupid. Let's continue without it.

Which leads me to this: screwing around because you get off on the chase of the "prey" and/or the high of being wanted and desirable. Maybe reliving the burning, flirtatious excitement of the early times of a now tired relationship. Check this out:

Cheating broke up one of her longest and most important relationships, but the power of taking something that doesn't belong to her still enthralls. "Both people feel that, and they're desperate and animalistic and somehow strangely honest," she says. Lily compares infidelity to drugs, where there's a thrilling ride but an emptiness at the end. "If you win that man you're cheating with, and you both make each other the primary person, you've lost the sense of danger, you've lost everything that fueled the experience."

It's my opinion that this is really what drives us to cheat, no matter what else we believe about the institution of fidelity, in or out of marriage. Just because some people can do it seemingly without feeling guilty doesn't mean they're doing it for some right reason. They're still doing it to get a sense of self-fulfillment (even if it's just instant-gratification pleasure). Maybe they wouldn't count themselves among the "broken" sort of cheaters, but there's certainly still evidence they know it's wrong.

As Tariq said to me: "No one is caught if he doesn't want to be caught." Henri (the French guy who showed his wedding ring before cheating) will know that what he did wasn't entirely right, but he won't thrash his soul, believing that what he did was entirely wrong.

Break that down into a philosophical argument about moral reasoning, and it could be argued that these guys don't have an issue with it because they are actively hiding their behavior from the people that will be affected by the behavior and offer them "negative feedback". This line of moral reasoning is similar to anti-social reasoning: the morality of the behavior is only relevant if I get caught. I'm suggesting that this rationale for cheating smacks more of stage 2 than the stage 5 we might otherwise want to put it in. Cheating becomes instant gratification of my current want, without regard for the other people my behavior might affect.

Toooooooo concluuuuuuude. We cheat because we are broken. Even if we think we're fixed (maybe because we're married, or Christian, or a married Christian married to a Christian), we're broken if we're seeking fulfillment or completion from other people, particularly if we are not able to be honest and open about our needs and wants and behaviors with the ones we claim to love.