Big Men, Loose Zippers
Dumb post from May by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on "Why Powerful Men Can't Keep Their Pants On" at Huff Po. His notion:
The biggest mistake we make in determining why powerful men cheat is to believe they're looking for sex. If it's sex they're after they have wives who can cater to their needs. No, these men are looking for something else entirely: validation. Men cheat not out of a sense of entitlement but out of a sense of insecurity. And the bigger they are the harder they fall, not of arrogance but out of fear and weakness.What makes men slowly climb the ladder of success is a desire to prove they're a somebody. They want to be and feel important. They seek to rise from the poverty of namelessness and the penury of anonymity. It is not the promise of their potential that drives them, but the fear of being a nonentity. They absorb the noxious lie of a culture bereft of values that only money and power will rescue them from being a nobody. Therefore, even as they ascend the ladder of 'success,' they do so with a gaping hole in their center. And whatever accomplishments they will shove into that hole -- money, fame, power -- it goes in one end and comes out the other. They never feel good about themselves. They are never content. They are defined by insatiability and characterized by voraciousness, which explains why Wall Street bankers who were earning tens of millions of dollars a year still felt it was not enough and cut corners to make even more.
The first rule of success is that there is nothing on the outside that can compensate for a feeling of failure on the inside. External accouterments of success -- from armored limousines to an army of personal bodyguards -- can never protect you from the din of demons who whisper to you that for all you have achieved you are still are a big zero.
And that's why these men turn to women to make them feel good about themselves. They want to feel desirable. They seek to silence the inner voices that taunt them as to their own insignificance. Because of its power, sex has a unique capacity to make insecure men feel -- however fleetingly -- like they're special. Having women desire them makes them feel desirable.
Oh, please. They take sex because it's there, in variety, because they can. Because it would be fun to have a little strange, and the little strange is right there bending over sweeping up a broken glass, and seems willing, and Maria is nowhere to be seen.
It's like the silly notion that gay men are promiscuous. Men are promiscuous. Gay men are promiscuous because they're into partners who will participate.
Regarding the evolved male preference for sexual variety, as the late Margo Wilson and her husband and partner Martin Daly pointed out: Sperm are cheap; eggs are expensive.
And while the Big, Important and Presumptuous Rabbi doesn't get it, the commenter on top when I saw the story did. RalphKenolEsq wrote:
"A man is as faithful as his options." --Chris Rock. Powerful men have more options.No need for psychological analysis. No need to make it complicated. As to the blather about it not being about sex, well, former MLB player David Justice answered that pretty bluntly.
And Icecube answered him (sans spell-check):
Oppurtunity?
From NPR, Power May Increase Promiscuity by SHANKAR VEDANTAM
Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger — men behaving badly, right? It may be more complex than that. Research shows power causes men and women to take risks and imagine themselves as more attractive. New survey research shows that, given power, women are as likely as men to stray.
We see men cheating, because by and large, there are many more men than women in positions of power. But thats's changing and studies show that in similar positions, women cheat as well.
""A person is as faithful as his options." Chris Rock Powerful people have more options.
No need for psych"
jerry at July 6, 2011 1:59 AM
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/574801/wealthy_men_and_infidelity_are_wealthy_pg4.html?cat=41
I don't know how accurate the poll they refer to is, but let us assume it is true.
Apparently 32% of rich men cheat, vs 21% of poor men. I'd say it's because they can.
But I'd like to point out, apparently 64% of rich men DON'T cheat, which means rich or not, most men are not assholes.
Fidelity doesn't make for good headlines, though.
NicoleK at July 6, 2011 3:56 AM
er 68%. Typo.
NicoleK at July 6, 2011 3:56 AM
I think this is a true analysis. There is a psychological component. My ex was rich and good-looking, so he had lots of opportunities to cheat, but he what he was mainly looking for was validation. The last girl he "cheated" with was purely emotional, no sex. She stroked his ego, which is a greater high than having sex. There was simply never enough validation no matter how much he got from his family or the world.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 5:51 AM
>>Oh, please. They take sex because it's there, in variety, because they can.
That's true mostly when you are Later in life a realization kicks in that sex is quite boring.
So, I would say that even if the psych analysis given above is not universally true, psychological reasons should be considered seriously.
>>Sperm are cheap; eggs are expensive.
BS. It is like saying "wine is cheap, cognac is expensive". There is cheap wine and there is very expensive. Same goes for sperm, ladies and goddesses. It is all a balance of supply and demand.
Mere Mortal at July 6, 2011 6:13 AM
That's true mostly when you are younger than 25.
(sorry, the sentence got clipped)
Mere Mortal at July 6, 2011 6:16 AM
Anything in abundance becomes boring. If you could have ice cream every day, you'd get bored, no matter how many different flavors.
So, what happens with these guys is that they must make it all the more challenging - a game of wits. It's not enough, for instance, to screw hot actresses on movie sets any more...try to screw the maid in your wife's own bed!!! Now, that's a challenge! To get away with it becomes the thrill, often much more than the sex itself.
This is why women who put up with carousing (as Maria Shriver must've for years) ultimately bail because these guys won't keep it at the same level. It's like drug use. It will escalate.
If it were just about the variety of partners, that wouldn't happen. The psychological component is such that they must prove how smart, powerful, and irresistable they are all the time.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 6:22 AM
There's a kernel of truth in it; a fair number of famous people are insecure. However, it's most likely that the ones who are insecure are so because they've had fame dumped into their laps. This is true of a lot of Hollywood types; they can look around at their cohort and see many people who have worked just as hard or harder, but didn't get the big break because they didn't have an uncle in the business or whatever. In business and politics, that doesn't happen as often.
And it's rather ironic that Schumley probably wrote all this in reference to the IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn, considering how the criminal case against him has fallen apart. The frank truth is that Schumley is probably projecting here. Whatever fame he has, he owes to a combination of virulent misandry and a chance meeting with Michael Jackson.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2011 6:23 AM
Yeah, stupid author.
They're analyzing men as if they were women.
News flash: Men are not women.
We don't get sluts to cock dance for us because we feel bad. We do it because it is so f'king fun.
We're not looking for "validation", we're looking for a good time.
Wives at home...sure, variety at home, not so much.
This idiotic author should sit down and watch ONE episode of South Park (entitled, "Sexual Healing") and stop being a stupid ass stereotype themselves, and maybe realize that the things that drive men are NOT the same things that drive women.
Robert at July 6, 2011 7:16 AM
Robert, that may be true for most men, but this is an evaluation of these high-powered types who could easily have sluts dance for them discreetly without jeopardizing so much.
Shwarzenagger is the perfect example. This guy could chase and bed women all over town - all over the world - and apparently did, yet that wasn't enough. He had to screw the ugly maid in his wife's bed.
Clearly, there is a psychological component to that behavior which goes beyond just the ability to get laid. It's not just about sex.
In fact, Pelicano, the detective, did a secret evaluation of Shwarzenagger (for his political backers) and the report said that he would purposely turn down the more attractive women who came on to him in favor of less attractive women because those women tended to fawn more over his body.
This is a guy who could've had any number of beautiful women, but he needed the fawning and ego stroke more than the hotness factor.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 7:32 AM
Advice Goddess---
I think Rabbi Boteach is groping towards something that The Last Psychiatrist explained somewhat better:
Hubbard at July 6, 2011 7:33 AM
"In other words, there must be some other benefit beyond the sex act itself."
There is a fundamental insecurity. I can just use my ex as an example. He was never sure he was good enough in bed or good-looking enough.
Truth is, he wasn't very good in bed. I mean, technically, he was ok, but there was an element of connection that he could never quite master as a lover, and I think he knew that, deep down. He wasn't very well-endowed either, which was a huge (pardon the pun) part of the insecurity.
Women could lie and tell him the sex was great, but he knew (or feared) it was a lie, so he was always chasing after women to get that affirmation.
Men who are truly good lovers and secure in this ability, with a healthy sense of self, don't NEED to cheat. They may cheat if the opportunity presents itself, but this is a very different type of cheating than the hungry, reckless cheating that we see so many of these powerful types engaging in.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 7:50 AM
sex is quite boring.
Posted by: Mere Mortal
I think you are doing it wrong
lujlp at July 6, 2011 7:51 AM
> Later in life a realization kicks in
> that sex is quite boring.
How much later? Roaring into the sixth decade here....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 6, 2011 7:52 AM
I think there's a lot of truth here - first off, Nicole nails it when she points out that the majority of men don't cheat. Maybe some of the don't have the opportunity, but many make the consicous choice not to. To paint all men with the same promiscious brush is wrong.
On opportunity vs. insecurity, I think you have to make a distinction between who's doing the cheating. Younger men, maybe cheating on their college girlfriend after a party or hooking up with someone at work - they're doing it because they can and want the excitement and the "strange."
When it's people like Spitzer, Sandford, Edwards, Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Wiener, et al, I think it's much more about self-esteem and insecurity and the feeling of power, the exact same motivations that drive these types of men to seek office in the first place.
JDThompson at July 6, 2011 8:14 AM
@lujlp
>>I think you are doing it wrong
Could be.
Sex could be addictive, tension-releasing, but
truly entertaining?
Mother Nature clouds our minds so we do not see how boring it is. It is this boredom that causes men to seek variety in something that became a necessity.
@Crid
>>How much later?
After 25.
Mere Mortal at July 6, 2011 8:18 AM
"When it's people like Spitzer, Sandford, Edwards, Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Wiener, et al, I think it's much more about self-esteem and insecurity and the feeling of power, the exact same motivations that drive these types of men to seek office in the first place."
Yes, exactly. Look at someone like Weiner, or that ugly toad, DSK. These are guys that would never get women if not for being powerful. Deep down, they know that, but they get hung up on proving to themselves it's not true. Sex is the one area of life where they haven't excelled, which eats at them.
Weiner, for instance, wanted the validation that his "package" had such appeal. He had to send photos of it to strange women all over the internet. He wasn't even having sex with them! That's purely a need for validation.
Again, a man who is genuinely secure in himself doesn't need to cheat. He may become attracted to someone other than his wife, or he may be presented with an irresistable set of circumstances, but most of the time, he will objectively weigh the consequences of following through on these temptations and resist. Plenty of wealthy and/or good-looking guys don't cheat, despite having many opportunities.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 8:33 AM
The irony is that the more successful these guys are, the more impossible it is for them to receive the validation they crave. They want to believe that women are truly and genuinely attracted to them. Few guy wants to think, "This woman is only screwing me because I'm rich and powerful," but, at their level, that's always in the equation, so, no matter how many women they screw, they can never feel validated.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 8:45 AM
Sex is boring? Did someone actually write that?
I want sex to get validated?
You mean, like dancing,or swimming in the ocean, hiking in beautiful deserts, telling jokes to friends, or any number of other activities?
I am bored dancing to really good music, or seeking validation?
People, get over it: Sex is really fun, especially with good-looking women. Just like dancing to really good music. It is very fulfilling. It is never boring.
Validating is what happens to parking stubs.
I concede that sex in monogamous marriage after 10 years might get boring. Especially for guys.
What is, is.
BOTU at July 6, 2011 9:18 AM
It's like the silly notion that gay men are promiscuous. Men are promiscuous. Gay men are promiscuous because they're into partners who will participate.
Amy, I hadn't thought about it that way before. But it seems exactly spot on right. Thanks for the perspective.
BlogDog at July 6, 2011 9:19 AM
CRID!!! Missed you!
Pirate Jo at July 6, 2011 9:30 AM
Spot on post as ever, Amy, eviscerating nonsense with ease.
OT: Boteach truly is an idiot. When Hitchens debated him and boxed him into a corner, Boteach's responses were literally breathtakingly stupid, all the while flappling his arms and shrieking histrionically like an amateur.
Primateus at July 6, 2011 9:37 AM
"Sex is really fun, especially with good-looking women."
But Weiner is married to a jaw-droppingly hot woman. Spitzer's wife is fairly attractive. Maria Shriver isn't bad either.
alittlesense at July 6, 2011 9:49 AM
Correleation is not causation, right?
Insecurity? Right, because normal people aren't insecure?
Validation is a prissy way of saying winning the competition. How d'ya think these guys got to the top, by not taking chances? There is no one reason to point to that say, "oh, such a sad boy, that must be why he did it, he was just feeling bad about himself." Bull. Paddies.
It may well be true that NOTHING is ever enough for such guys, and they have surely lived their lives that way, always on a climb. They are no less a melange of doubt and strngth and insecurity, and desire, and power than anyone else, but the balance may be different. Everyone is an individual. The traits that allow you, or DRIVE you to the top, are not the same mix that drive boring old Mr. Normal, but it's not THAt different.
The main difference is that these guys won't stop pushing. Why would it be different in the bedroom? Remember the shock in France that the IMF guy would be held for cornering the maid? Ahnold comes from that culture where there is significantly more winking about such things.
That doesn't make any of it right, cheating is bad. I often wonder why these guys even get married. Why lock in to one option? Clooney is smart about that, at least. And apparently just lost the last girlfriend because she thought she could change him.
OTOH, the thing about these guys having hot wives? Yeah, so? Just becasue she's hot, you don't think she has her headaches. Imagine how much easier bedroom politics are when you havesomeone who is accepting, for whatever reason.
Also? For the mistresses that were not coerced? They obviously don't care, or are accepting the infidelity, yet, how often do they get mad when the guys move on from them? I've known plenty of other women who thought that once the guy ditched his wife, they would marry him and he would be theirs, and then were supposedly surprised when he moved on to someone new.
Let me play even more provacateur...
you want to know why guys cheat?
give me a good reason why they shouldn't...
a good reason that isn't ONLY of benefit to the woman.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2011 10:17 AM
Yes, you're missing the point that these men are not just having sex with good-looking women (in Shwarzeneger's case, not even that!). They are engaging in extremely reckless behavior. It's ego-driven, not just for fun. They need something beyond the sex.
Validation may seem like a parking stub to you, but that's probably because you're secure. Men who are insecure crave validation more than sex, and it's also true that men with these insecurities are often driven to become more powerful. That provides protection and control, whereas when they were children, they may have felt powerless and controlled.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 10:18 AM
Elin Woods is very pretty. But she's not a Bad Girl. And sex with slutty women is what Tiger needed to recharge his batteries. Look what's happened to his golf game since he stopped getting it.
Martin at July 6, 2011 10:21 AM
I've known plenty of other women who thought that once the guy ditched his wife, they would marry him and he would be theirs, and then were supposedly surprised when he moved on to someone new.
Well, those women aren't convinced about the old adage "if they do it with ya, they'll do it to ya!".
Remember, cheatahs can't change their spots!
Flynne at July 6, 2011 10:26 AM
"Let me play even more provacateur...
you want to know why guys cheat?
give me a good reason why they shouldn't..."
Beyond the unplanned pregnancies and STDs, there aren't a whole lot of superficial reasons why any of us shouldn't cheat...or lie...or kill...or do whatever we want for our own pleasure and well-being.
But, at a deeper level, it's more complex. Self-respect is built upon having the ethics and restraint not to do whatever we want whenever we want, especially when it hurts people.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 10:28 AM
"Elin Woods is very pretty. But she's not a Bad Girl. And sex with slutty women is what Tiger needed to recharge his batteries. Look what's happened to his golf game since he stopped getting it."
Why isn't he getting it? He's single now. Can he only enjoy slutty sex when he's married? Could be...again, that's part of the pysch component. Getting away with it and sneaking around is part of the thrill.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 10:31 AM
@lovelysoul
>>Getting away with it and sneaking around is part of the thrill.
Here, here is some truth!
"Christianity has done a great deal for love by making a sin of it." — Anatole France
Mere Mortal at July 6, 2011 10:36 AM
"Self-respect is built upon having the ethics and restraint not to do whatever we want whenever we want, especially when it hurts people." LS
Why do you believe that? What if those aren't the values you respect? Saying that self respect is that is telling what self-respect should be.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2011 10:51 AM
He wasn't very well-endowed either - LS
Given the average size of dick in america is only 4 or 5 inches, how small is "not well-endowed"?
lujlp at July 6, 2011 10:56 AM
Well, average is not well-endowed. And, at any rate, it may not even be a rational insecurity. If he's comparing himself to porn stars and thinking he's not big enough, it may become something he needs validated, just as women compare themselves to stick thin models and believe they're not pretty enough. It doesn't have to be rational to lead to destructive behavior.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 11:01 AM
"Why do you believe that? What if those aren't the values you respect? Saying that self respect is that is telling what self-respect should be."
Society defines those values, and I suspect, for most of us at least, being considered ethical is entwined with self-respect. Obviously, not everyone, but, in general, it's hard to respect yourself and therefore be genuinely content if you're consistently lying, cheating, and murdering. Narcissists and sociopaths can do this, but for anyone with a conscience it tends to lead to self-loathing.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 11:06 AM
"In other words, there must be some other benefit beyond the sex act itself."
Not necessarily. They're narcissists; in their minds, their desires are self-justifying. There needs be no motivation beyond "I want it". We often make the mistake of thinking that narcissists have the same thought processes that we have, and then trying to figure out some kind of rational motivation for the behavior. And while we're doing that, the narcissists are laughing at us.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2011 11:23 AM
"I suspect, for most of us at least, being considered ethical is entwined with self-respect." LS
Being considered ethical is different from BEING ethical. And we aren't talking about MOST, we are talking about the very powerful. Warren Buffett doesn't chase skirts that I've heard, but he does things which skirt ethical at times. Most very powerful people do. How many people in government seem to think that taxes and laws are for the little people? How often do starlets get out of speeding tickets by showing some skin, how many more people like Martha Stewart dodge laws?
their behavior is repugnant to me, but I don't think they care. I'm SURE The Donald respects himself, but he's still a bastard.
Plenty of people give themselves respect, but you don't have to earn that. The respect of others is a whole other thing. THAT is what society dictates.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2011 11:23 AM
I have met "the Donald", and know a little about him through business, and I don't think he's a bad or unethical person. He's made a lot of money, and so has Buffet, but being wealthy and unethical are not the same. There are times when taxes and laws are unfair, and I have no problem with people skirting them in those cases. In fact, it's very hard anymore to be successful without dodging the government's unreasonable laws.
You made the point well. Buffett is not a skirt chaser. There is nothing inherent about being well-off that will make someone a cheater. From my observations, the same men who cheat while rich would cheat while poor. They just have more opportunity to cheat. But the same underlying psychological factors - insecurities and need for validation/attention - are still in play.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 11:33 AM
"There are times when taxes and laws are unfair, and I have no problem with people skirting them in those cases. In fact, it's very hard anymore to be successful without dodging the government's unreasonable laws." LS
That entire statement is unetheical. You don't get to pick and choose which laws are fair and which are not, and remain ethical. You have to abide by them all. Once you start to shade them, you've left the moral high ground. You can work to repeal an unfair law, but ignoring means you don't think it should apply to your, just 'cuz.
I don;t claim the high ground there either, I drive 10 over too... but I wouldn't break into soemone's house. But, once you've made all that situational, then why do you assume that YOUR situation trumps anyone eleses, or that you're are more correct?
"But the same underlying psychological factors - insecurities and need for validation/attention - are still in play." L/S
But, these are in play WITH EVERYONE. regardless of if they cheat.
What drives people to cheat is never the same thing, it is not one thing. It does not have to be compensation for a perceived lack, anymore than conquering an empire would be ...
Sometimes you eat ice cream because you need a comfort food, and other times, you really just want ice cream.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2011 11:57 AM
"What drives people to cheat is never the same thing, it is not one thing. It does not have to be compensation for a perceived lack, anymore than conquering an empire would be ..."
Of course not. Sometimes, people fall in love and cheat, or find themselves in extremely enticing situations and cheat in a moment of weakness, but we are talking about SERIAL cheaters. Men who consistently lie and sneak around. The psychology of that is very different from someone who bends to a moment of weakness.
And I didn't say I habitually break laws. There are ethical ways to skirt around laws - setting up other corporations, etc. Almost no one in business can avoid it.
Plus, going 10 over is not the same as consistently deceiving someone and putting them at risk for STDs, etc. A person who serial cheats is either a narcissist or very insecure in search of validation. It's not simply about having the opportunity because most people will NOT cheat just because the opportunity presents itself.
There is definately a psychology behind the wealthy, powerful person, who could stay single and enjoy numerous sexual escapades, but who instead marries another person with the intent to keep on enjoying those escapades by cheating.
Weiner, for instance, was married less than a year! How can anyone dispute that he has an excessive need for validation? Even if he is a narcissist, which he seems to be, he still is acting from a need to be validated...to have women look at his bulge and go, "Wow!"
Shwarzenegger could've had any number of affairs with women on set or on location, yet he chooses an ugly maid in his own home. Why? Because she is in a position where she must cater to him and be attentive to his ego.
For serial cheaters, this is usually ego-driven, not just a result of more opportunities.
If Gregg, for instance, suddenly became a millionaire, would he cheat on Amy? Based on what I know of Gregg's character, it doesn't sound like it. Maybe he would break up with her and date someone hotter (which would be hard to find), but I can't see him sneaking around behind her back and cheating. The money and increased opportunities wouldn't make him a cheater. Money and increased opportunities just make it easier for a cheat to cheat. It doesn't change the essential character of a person.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 12:27 PM
That entire statement is unetheical. You don't get to pick and choose which laws are fair and which are not, and remain ethical
So, if congress passed a law tomorow declaring every white american must kill at least one non white person a week, you would do it SwisArmyD?
lujlp at July 6, 2011 12:30 PM
An interesting call, Luj, but such a law would be superceeded by many others, and wouldn't go through, unless you removed the others... and? At a certain level, revolutions happen. Besides, I already claimed not to be on that high ground... who would claim to be there? it forcloses your options... but you can't then claim that everything you do is ethical. In any case, the relativeism is up to the individual, at least until it crosses with a law that has prosecutorial possibility.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2011 2:14 PM
"How can anyone dispute that he has an excessive need for validation?" LS... how do you decide when rubbing a stranger's nose in your bulge is a need for validation versus a need to show who is king? Does everything spring from insecurity? Does even superiority spring from insecurity?
When Don Corleone makes you an offer you can't refuse, is he insecure?
These ideas are very intertwined... But why does the manager have a BJ in the stairwell with someone, where the potential to be caught is high? You seem to think this stems from insecurity and need for validation, but I would think it is really the opposite. People who are TOO validated, that believe their own hype, who are always superior in their own mind. They don't believe the consequence will touch them. John Edwards for example, or Gore. or Strauss-Kahn. They don't particularly care about rules, so they aren't worried about being caught. How is that insecure... more than "I'm going to prove I can do this." That is slightly different than: "I'm going to prove this, or no-one will love me."
Money and increased opportunity don't induce cheating, but the traits that allow you to gather money and power may make it more likely that you will be interested, and those traits are a different mix, than some dominoe's guy that has a wife, and several strumpets on the side.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2011 2:30 PM
> >>How much later?
> After 25.
You're doing it wrong.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 6, 2011 4:08 PM
These comments are funny and I don't want to seem mean but you it is really hard to analyze why a man would cheat because each man has different motivation to cheat
Spatch at July 6, 2011 8:19 PM
My point SwissArmyD is that just because something is legal doent make it ethical, and just because something is illegal doesnt make it unethical.
I dont think many people consider the founding fathers to be unethical and they had slaves and commited treason against a legal government
lujlp at July 6, 2011 8:55 PM
[Hi Peej]
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 6, 2011 9:47 PM
"... how do you decide when rubbing a stranger's nose in your bulge is a need for validation versus a need to show who is king? Does everything spring from insecurity? Does even superiority spring from insecurity?"
How can sending obscene photos to strange women show him to be "king" of anything? It made him look absolutely pathetic and needy of validation.
I agree with you that men who reach that level of power are a different personality mix, but, for some, the need for attention and validation is a part of that mix.
Of course, many contend that it's their "drive" that gets them there, and that is true. They have more energy than the average man, which definately spills over into sex drive. But having a higher sex drive is not, in itself, what causes a man to serially cheat. He may use this as an excuse, but if you look deeper, there is almost always a need besides sex that he's trying to meet.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2011 4:45 AM
Comment threads like these always leave me surprised at how little women actually understand men, and how much their view of men is driven by the assumption that, deep down, men are just slightly hairier women, with a slightly higher sex drive.
Spartee at July 7, 2011 5:59 AM
Comments like these always leave me suprised at how little guys understand their fellow man. You give someone like Weiner a pass and fail to evaluate what truly makes a guy act like this.
I suspect it's because of the titillation and envy involved. Here is a guy in a position of power who can seduce lots of women, and most guys think that's how they would behave too if they suddenly had lots of money, power, and opportunity.
And maybe you would - for the first year or so - send photos of your junk to any woman who'd act impressed, and cheat on your wife with as many women as you could - but my bet is that most of you wouldn't. It's a nice fantasy, but, in reality, you have too much conscience and decency to actually behave that way, even if you inherited a billion dollars.
So, forget the fantasy and think about the type of guy who really does this. It's not just about the sex. If it was, these guys could stay single and have all the sex they wanted.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2011 6:37 AM
"You don't get to pick and choose which laws are fair and which are not, and remain ethical"
Baloney. The vast majority of people drive at a safe speed regardless of the posted limit. I don't outsource my reasoning to our Legislatures.
Laws are not morals - if you disagree, defend Kelo. That was theft by government by my moral code.
MarkD at July 7, 2011 7:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/06/big_men_loose_z.html#comment-2334153">comment from MarkDThe vast majority of people drive at a safe speed regardless of the posted limit.
Correct. Mostly, a police officer isn't going to catch you speeding. I drive especially carefully in my neighborhood or any neighborhood, because a dog or cat or somebody who's not paying attention might step into traffic and I don't want to hurt anything or anybody.
Amy Alkon at July 7, 2011 7:08 AM
"Comments like these always leave me suprised at how little guys understand their fellow man. You give someone like Weiner a pass and fail to evaluate what truly makes a guy act like this."
I'm sure as hell not giving him a pass. Both men and women have certain mating behaviors that evolved on the savannah, but aren't helpful or appropriate in the civilized world. Ev psych is useful in understanding why people act like they do in sexual matters, but it is not intended to be a ready-made excuse.
LS, I think the only place where I disagree with you here is that you attribute the underlying motivation to insecurity. I think it's the opposite: a sense of inherent superiority and privilege. However, it's possible for both of those things to go off the ends of the spectrum, wrap around and meet in the back.
Cousin Dave at July 7, 2011 7:59 AM
What do Weiner, Spitzer, Schwarzenegger, Leona Helmsley and Tim Geithner have in common? A sense that they are a species apart; not bound by the laws and moral customs of "the little people".
Spitzer in particular. A great deal of his fame came from prosecuting escort services. So what does he do? Hire escorts (hookers). In a sane world this would be recognized for what it was; running a protection racket. You can bet that the services providing his favorite girls weren't getting busted.
Hypocrisy - it's not just for skirt-chasers anymore.
alittlesense at July 7, 2011 10:25 AM
Yea, but the 'civilized' world has existed for less than 2 or 3 hunndered yrs, depending on how you want to define civilized - and even less than that, all the way down to non existant in some parts of the world.
Species wide change takes time, you can force it just becuase some relitivly new way of thinking makes some people find your sexual behavior disteful.
Take saguaros cati for example, it takes them almost 8 decade to grow the first arm, they can live as long as 200 yrs. they survive on just a couple of gallons of water a year. Their water retetion cells expand like a sponge.
So what happens when morons from the east coast and the midwest and pasific northwest move out here to Phx? They water the cactus in their yard several times a week, and just cant comprehend why it dies. They never stop to consider that a plant three times older them them with hunndereds of thousands of years of evolution programing it to survive on less water every year than most humans drink in a single day wont react well to reciveing several hunnderd times the amount of water it was bred for.
So as far as human interaction goes, our neolithic insticts may not mesh with the social constraints of modern scociety, but we need to do more to strike a resoanble balance rather then just dismiss all such behvior as 'bad'.
I know I had a more cognizant, elloquent point, but I lost hold of it, havet slept in three daysd, it will come back to me I' sure
lujlp at July 7, 2011 10:47 AM
"LS, I think the only place where I disagree with you here is that you attribute the underlying motivation to insecurity. I think it's the opposite: a sense of inherent superiority and privilege. However, it's possible for both of those things to go off the ends of the spectrum, wrap around and meet in the back."
I totally agree with that, Dave. I didn't say it was always insecurity, just that there is usually some underlying psychological dysfunction, whether it's insecurity or narcissim, or, actually, both.
It would probably suprise most people just how insecure guys who appear to be arrogant and superior can really be. My ex is one who always seems like the model of confidence, and in many areas - the ones where he excels - he is extremely confident, if not outright obnoxious. No one enteracting with him would probably ever describe him as "insecure".
It's often the women who are most intimate with these guys that see the neediness, depression, and childhood scars that their blustery exterior conceals to the rest of the world.
However, you are right. They often feel a sense of entitlement that others don't. "Working through their issues" by crossing boundaries others wouldn't is allowable because, even when messed up emotionally, they are still "special".
I can just imagine the emotional roller coaster ride Weiner has given his wife behind closed doors. I'd almost guarantee he's been on the floor in tears, alternately admitting what a pathetic, needy loser he is with declarations that he'll get better...must get better...because he has so much to offer the world. And that while these aflictions would destroy a lesser man, he can overcome them because he is so special.
You hit the nail on the head. It's hard to believe that supreme self-confidence can co-exist alongside extreme self-doubt, but they can.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2011 12:17 PM
"So as far as human interaction goes, our neolithic insticts may not mesh with the social constraints of modern scociety, but we need to do more to strike a resoanble balance rather then just dismiss all such behvior as 'bad'."
Tell me more. I'm open to ideas at this point.
Cousin Dave at July 7, 2011 7:09 PM
And how shall we rearrange things? To say that it's ok to lie to your spouse...or do away with marriage altogether...or to have open marriages where both parties can pursue as much sex as they want?
Wanting sex is not "bad". It's natural. The problem emerges when that desire is at odds with other commitments one makes - which is a social construct, yes, but men and women having no commitments to each other doesn't sound good for society, and families, in particular.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2011 5:39 AM
I dont thin its ok to lie and cheat(assuming your spouse is not withholding or lying or cheating themselves)
I do think its ridiculas that Weiner lost his job, not over the blatant lies told after being caught, but for such tame crotch shots.
If people were more aware of the real differences between male and female sex drives, perhaps a culture not so critical of male uges could emerge.
Because currently a guy asking his wife to wear hooker heels and a wig can be justifiable shot in the back while he sleeps.
lujlp at July 8, 2011 10:28 AM
"If people were more aware of the real differences between male and female sex drives, perhaps a culture not so critical of male uges could emerge."
Do you honestly believe that most women are not aware of the disparity in sex drives? Being aware of something and knowing what to do about it are two different things.
For guys, the answer is more stilettos and heels, and, for women, it's "why can't he be more understanding when I'm not in the mood?"
Couples have been wrestling with this for ages, so it's not a lack of awareness. The only solution is that somebody has to bend (and, believe it or not, that can be the woman, as in my case - stilettos and handcuffs for years!).
But if a guy gets married, it's likely to assume that his sex drive and urges won't be as satisfied as if he stayed single. That is the main criticism in our society. If a guy has such strong urges, he shouldn't get married. Nobody cares if a wealthy, single guy screws around with a bevy of women.
So, it's like guys want it both ways. They want the security/stability of marriage and family, but when they choose this, willingly, they want understanding and credit for all they've given up.
That's a tough balancing act for the wife too. How is she supposed to credit him for doing something he pledged to do? Stilletos and wigs notwithstanding, she can't really give him back the variety that he's missing. Not that it isn't helpful to try. But, ultimately, no amount of spicing things up" can make a married guy feel single again.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2011 11:23 AM
I suppose I should have used a different word then aware, I meant aware as in understanding of, as opposed to haveing knowledge of.
Ofcourse women have knowlegde of the difference in male sex drive, but thanks to the last 30yrs, their understanding of that knowledge is that men are wrong for having such a sex drive.
Most guys I know dont have a problem that their wives are occasionally not in the mood. They do have a problem when the 'not in the mood' mood streches into weeks and months and years of not being in the mood.
And maybe their wives arent in the mood because the guy is no good at getting them off.
I wonder really how many sex problems boil down to lack of communication.
People go on dates and find out where people went to school and how many pets they had, but why the requiste number of orgasams expected per week is a verboten subject is, quite frankly, beyond me
lujlp at July 8, 2011 3:02 PM
I agree, Luj. It should be discussed and demonstrated long before marriage.
lovelysoul at July 9, 2011 6:02 AM
The foolish Rabbi has never heard of the Coolidge Effect.
Maybe if he spent less time on self-promotion and more time on self-education....
pst314 at July 9, 2011 8:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/06/big_men_loose_z.html#comment-2341165">comment from pst314Great point, pst314.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 8:45 AM
Leave a comment