So many questions. A friend read that statistic where, exactly? Where do these bullshit statistics keep coming from? Why did this friend tell you the statistic in the first place? Did you ask or was it voluntary? And why would anyone base a relationship on statistics?

That last one always gets me. This is like the people who say they won't get married because half of marriages end in divorce. What the hell kind of difference does that make on a case by case basis? Humans possess the amazing ability to think critically, yet so many people look for the external locus of control that we hate around here. It's not your fault your marriage ended; half of them do, so the numbers were against you from the start (never mind all the red flags you ignored-- LW in the next column, don't let this happen to you). It's not your fault you cheated on your girlfriend; seventy percent of men in relationships cheat. You weren't complicit in picking a bad boyfriend; seventy percent of men in relationships cheat.

Amy is absolutely right: looking at character and behavior rather than unreliable (or reliable, for that matter) numbers will get you more reliable answers.

i read an article once that was talking about how people like to research their ancestry to discover that they're actually descended from kings.... anyway it said that on average, once every 10 generations, the guy you think was daddy wasn't. average, of course. they obviously didn't test my family because if they had, we would have jacked it up to about once every....um, yeah. once every generation.

And what has all that got to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing! Look, it doesn't matter who cheats on whom. The fact is, people cheat. Maybe not all of them, but some, perhaps most, do. Love's a crap shoot, man. You just have to go for it once in a while. But always, always trust your gut. Your heart will lie to you; so will your head sometimes, because no one likes to be wrong, even when the evidence is right in front of you. You can reason and justify as much as you want, but that doesn't change the facts, and there's no way to cheat-proof a relationship. You can't always count on people to be honorable. It's a nice fantasy, but it's not really practicle. We're only human, aftar all. We all make mistakes. The thing is, we're supposed to learn from them, and strive to be better. It's a process. But not one we should be beating ourselves up about. Seems to me that it all comes down to personal responsibility, really. And how strong (or not) your conscience is.

The 50% statistic on marriage is even more misleading than it appears. It's not an 10/90 rule (10% of whatever cause 90% of something), or even a 20/80 rule, but it's not that half of everybody gets divorced, but that some people get divorced repeatedly.

That's true, William. I remember learning in a sociology class about those statistics. A large number of those divorced people had been divorced more than once. I don't remember the number, but people who had been divorced at least once were far more likely to be divorced again. So it's really half of all marriages, not half of all people who get married. The numbers are skewed toward repeat offenders.

It's my understanding that the divorce rate for first marriages is about 40%. Also when you parse the statistics, looking at the characteristics of initial marriages that end in divorce, certain unsurprising patterns emerge. For instance divorces between young couples, under 25, are prominent. Divorces among couples near, and below, the poverty line are high as well.

I forget my source, but when I'd researched this subject once, the figure I remember coming to for your typical middle class marriage between people over 25 with children was about 25%. That is 25% of these unions ended in divorce. I remember the stat because it's much lower than I had assumed it would be.

I think I need to point out the one of the reasons that we live in a patriarchal inheritance society is because we normally assume that the child's father is the husband of the mother. Even when people cheat, they still live by the unspoken assumption that most times there will be no cheating involved in the parenting.

If we did not have the relationship involved, we would be in a matriarchal society. After all, only the mother has a witness that she gave birth to the child.

From a purely rational perspective, I sometimes wonder if cheating is really as horrific as most people make it out to be --- how much of our 'usual reactions' to it is based on instinct, how much is pure reason, and how much is cultural. In some parts of the world polygamy is totally and utterly a cultural norm, to the extent that wife number 1 helps *choose* wives numbers 2, 3 etc. because wife 1 'knows her husband's taste in women' ... and yes, it is perfectly normal and no these women are not "oppressed" or "unhappy", I know many of them. Yet on other sides of the world, a man so much as kisses another woman and his wife may act like the entire world has come to an end, a nightmarish hell on earth in which there is just no way they can ever go on and the whole family must be torn apart and bitter forever. Some amount of jealousy is obviously and naturally instinctual, but the degree that it's taken in Western societies? If viewed *truly* rationally, the majority of cheating is actually harmless: The primary harmfulness comes in as a *self-fulfilling prophecy* --- namely, it's harmful because we *decide* to tear families apart over it, not because there is something intrinsic in the act of cheating that is directly hurtful --- in fact, this cannot be, since 'merely' effective deception (i.e. covering it up well) usually results in no harm (excluding cases where lack of appropriate caution results in e.g. disease spreading). Maybe we hate cheating as much as we do mainly because it's our cultural norm to hate cheating as much as we do.

That said, I would absolutely hate if my girlfriend cheated. And yet, as a man, I would still (naturally) fantasize or think about or lust after other physically attractive women. That is surely hypocritical, but there you have it. I wouldn't cheat though, but if I am really honest about it, it's not because I'm noble; I'm just a terrible liar, I know I wouldn't be able to cover it up, and I am very happy in my relationship so I would not want to destroy that to satisfy some primal lust. So in fact purely selfish rational self-interest can prevent cheating, unintuitive as that may sound.

In some parts of the world polygamy is totally and utterly a cultural norm, to the extent that wife number 1 helps *choose* wives numbers 2, 3 etc.

You should read The 19th Wife by David Ebersole. Its modern story is really about a polygamous sect of the Mormons (alienated to the extent that the Mormons don't claim them as fellow Mormons), but the historical part focuses on the beginnings of the Mormon church. This is just the U.S., not other parts of the world where polygamy (not polyandry, mind you) is prevalent, but it does shed light on the process. Brigham Young came to these people and told them he had received revelation that the only path to paradise was through polygamy. He used the people's trust and faith against them so he could have sex with many women and not be thought a lout. He even went so far as to say that the husband couldn't marry again if his first wife didn't approve. She had to approve of all future wives, as well. So it seemed she had control, but she really didn't, because if she refused to let her husband marry, she wouldn't get into Heaven. (This is a novel, but the level of research is astounding. Much of the historical stuff was taken from actual records, and the 19th wife [she was actually more like the 37th, but she didn't recognize many of the other women as wives] is real and did tour the country giving talks about her apostasy.)

All that was to say that the women don't have as much control in polygamous societies as it would seem. I'd think it's even worse in the Middle East, because the law says the women have no control over anything, least of all if their husbands take other wives. I think polygamy in less industrialized parts of the world is due more to pragmatism than any sense of being less jealous.

it's harmful because we *decide* to tear families apart over it, not because there is something intrinsic in the act of cheating that is directly hurtful

That's a very good point, and one that I wish more divorcing parents took into account. It goes beyond just cheating, too. It's not an inevitable eventuality that a divorce will be acrimonious and therefore harmful to the children more than anyone. It's only that way because they make it that way. Thinking of celebrity parents here (Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards, the godawful Gosselins) and how it is not necessary to go to the press with accusations about your soon-to-be ex, even if they're true. How do they think it makes their small children feel to hear about that stuff. And you know they're hearing about it, or they will later. One of those kids is going to Google Kate Gosselin at some point a few years down the road and see just what mommy and daddy were saying about each other to complete strangers for the sake of media attention.

"So it seemed she had control, but she really didn't"

Sorry NumberSix, but I'm afraid you're really looking through Western-coloured glasses at this one ... I actually live in Africa and have *very* close friends who are married into polygamous cultures in places like Uganda, and I promise you, there is no oppression whatsoever, the women really do have control, and are perfectly happy --- it is just 'perfectly normal', no negativity, no 'force', nothing -- it is all in very positive spirits. Hard as it might be for you to believe. My one friend's (first - for now) wife will even makes jokes about it if they see an attractive woman.

Western writers on the topic distort the issue for their own agendas, or just project their own values because it's so hard to believe that this is possible from the Western viewpoint. But one of the other distortions the 'West' often makes, a big detail that they often leave out, is that it is *high-status men* who 'earn' the ability to have multiple wives. Generally only rich men have numerous wives, so when a woman enters such a marriage it is usually with a *high-status male*, which from her point of view is *desirable*. The president of South Africa has five wives (so far), two fiancees, and 20 children, and I guarantee you those women are all *most* happy to be in such a high status polygamous marriage, are there fully by choice, and there are many more women lining up around the block to be additional future wives. Polygamy is normal in Nguni cultures.

The cultures in Africa are really so different in just about every respect imaginable that you can't even begin to understand them unless you live amongst them ... there are many other differences in which these behaviours, oddities from our perspective, slowly start to make sense.

Sorry NumberSix, but I'm afraid you're really looking through Western-coloured glasses at this one

I did actually say that up there, Lobster.

Western writers on the topic distort the issue for their own agendas, or just project their own values because it's so hard to believe that this is possible from the Western viewpoint.

That's a ludicrous statement to make, Lobster, because propaganda comes from both sides. It's especially dangerous to say that "Western writers- full stop" do anything, because it's not true. There is no unifying collection of Western writings on the subject. People have opinions; people write about those opinions; some people do more research than others; some people portray that research more accurately; some people throw accuracy out the window for the sake of sensationalism. "Western writers" are all over the map on any subject you can think of.

Despite what you seem to think of me, I harbor no illusions about the nature of love and relationships. Monogamy is as much a choice as polygamy, and anyone entering into it must make clear his standards. To assume anything when it comes to relationships is near-sighted.

I likewise harbor no illusions about polygamy. I might not be the most informed person to ever speak on the subject, but nor do I automatically think it's horrible and evil. I don't think there's anything inherently bad in having more than one wife, just like I wouldn't think a man in America was inherently bad for having a wife and girlfriends at every port. As long as everyone's clear on the situation, then have at it. I put a lot of weight on the term "consenting adults." It's the motives behind the polygamy and the effects of it that carry the negativity.

I don't think that every woman in a polygamous relationship is forced to be there. I never said that. I said that was what happened with the early Mormons, which are the only major group of people in the country known to have practiced polygamy. As far as the African tribes and polygamy, that's what I was getting at when I mentioned pragmatism before. Those women aren't marrying the man because they have higher-evolved senses of what love is. They're marrying him for the status. You said it yourself: the right to take more than one wife is an achieved status, so the women are seeking that status by proxy. They're lining up around the block for that guy because of what that life would afford them, much like the stereotypical trophy wife in these parts. What is the trend on that, by the way? Is the first wife usually for love, or the first and second, or what? At what point does it become all about status? Or is it like with the early Mormons and there was a mixture of both? A man would actually love some of his wives rather than just lust after them, but if he marries them all, the outcome is the same for him. How do the later wives actually feel about the man? These are all serious questions, because I'm curious about the nature of the polygamy where you are. Although you did say that it was about status, so does love enter into it at all?

If you say your friends are happy, then I don't doubt you. That's their life, that's what they know, and that's the norm where they are. And it's their choice, I hope, ultimately. But you can't argue their way is better just because it's normal there and works for them. The same argument would have to be made for those women in the Middle East that are forced into polygamous marriages, or the women who are stoned to death because they had the gall to let themselves get raped. Just because something is the norm somewhere doesn't make it better or worse than anywhere else. Something that works for the much less industrialized tribes in Uganda probably wouldn't work in a country based on industry and service. Legal rights to money and property are a big issue here. Having multiple legal partners all clamoring for their share of the estate would likely cause chaos in a country where not even any two people can be bound together in a legal union, never mind three or more.

All this is to say, Lobster, don't assume you know my attitude about the issue based on your attitude toward those "Western writers." I would hope my other posts on this site show that I'm actually quite adept at critical thinking, so there's no need to patronize.

"But you can't argue their way is better"

I don't believe I made any such argument. (??)

"Those women aren't marrying the man because they have higher-evolved senses of what love is. They're marrying him for the status"

Love, status, why do you assume it's either/or? That's real black and white thinking there. Just like, gee, every other marriage on the planet, love/status motives are dual and intertwined, in fact inseparable.

"Just because something is the norm somewhere doesn't make it better or worse than anywhere else."

No shit, I never said that. At all. I am definitely NOT a cultural relativist. You seem to be making a lot of pure assumptions about where I was coming from.

Claiming that general Western cultural viewpoints don't exist is ridiculous, of course they do.

Just to return you to the launching point of my viewpoint, it was this QUESTION: "how much of our 'usual reactions' to it is based on instinct, how much is pure reason, and how much is cultural" ... it was honestly a question, with essentially an appeal to look at the issue purely rationally - ignoring all preconceived notions and ingrained ideas about how bad cheating is - and try consider how bad it 'really' is, using reason. You somehow didn't read this properly at all and assumed I was making a cultural relativism argument. To equate my statements with rape, and imply/accuse that I might somehow accept rape too, is so far beyond ridiculous that I'm afraid we're too far off the road of reason and rationality to be having a sensible discussion anymore :/

Love, status, why do you assume it's either/or?

I don't, and I never said that. You were the one who brought status marriages into the discussion. Your argument that the women were most happy in polygamous marriages included that they were happy to be in a high-status marriage. You mention nothing about love in relation to those marriages. I actually did ask you how much weight each of those concepts holds in those polygamous marriages. I wasn't attacking, I was asking does love enter into the equation, or is it all about status? I'm not saying you made this argument (or if it reads that way, I didn't intend it), but many people that are pro-polygamy or pro-extramarital affairs say that they have a more evolved concept of the nature of relationships. This is almost definitely a Western concept, since polygamy in the African tribes and in the Middle East isn't based on being free of jealousy.

Claiming that general Western cultural viewpoints don't exist is ridiculous, of course they do.

Where did I say that? What I said was that there is no one unified Western opinion on the subject, or really any subject. How can you argue otherwise? We are a culture of free ideas where any idiot can have a free website on which to post his crackpot ideas. I was pointing that out; you were the one who painted "Western writers" with one, singular opinion.

In some parts of the world polygamy is totally and utterly a cultural norm, to the extent that wife number 1 helps *choose* wives numbers 2, 3 etc. because wife 1 'knows her husband's taste in women' ... and yes, it is perfectly normal and no these women are not "oppressed" or "unhappy", I know many of them.

This statement, coupled with the ones below it railing on Western ideas of jealousy, was where I inferred that you, on some level, believe that polygamy is a better, more rational way for some. I apologize if my statement read like I was saying you believed this for all. That was not what I intended, and it looks like I did get a bit carried away with that point. What I meant was that just because it works there doesn't mean it's best for everywhere, culturally speaking. And just because it works where you are doesn't mean that it's even best there. It's just the norm.

To equate my statements with rape, and imply/accuse that I might somehow accept rape too, is so far beyond ridiculous that I'm afraid we're too far off the road of reason and rationality to be having a sensible discussion anymore

Whoa, buddy. That is not what I said. I didn't equate your statements about polygamy with rape. I said that a woman in the Middle East who gets raped is often cast out of her family and/or stoned to death. That's the norm in places. This goes along with my point that just because something is the norm doesn't meant it's the best way. Status quo does not necessarily a good policy make. Again, I apologize if I muddied my point, but I do believe you leaped to some conclusions on that part, since I never said it was like rape, or that you accept rape. I said that accepting norms as the best way for that culture means that you'd have to accept other norms as well. And there are norms out there that are pretty awful.

I would like to apologize again for implying the cultural relativism. I got a bit lost on the point I was trying to make when I was typing. I do not think that you'd like to institute polygamy here in the U.S. But I do tend to get angry when people accuse me of being a lazy thinker. You also read things into my posts that weren't there, especially my original one when I talked about the book. I wasn't saying that polygamy is inherently evil and all women who enter into it are forced. But that was how it started in this country, at least on a major scale (who knows what all those mountain folk were up to).

And I still agree with you that people have a tendency to create drama when it comes to cheating, especially when they start tearing their families apart. Like you, I'd hate for a boyfriend to cheat on me, but I like to think I'd be rational enough not to go completely batshit crazy like some people do.

I think it'd be hard to separate out the weights that instinct, reason, and culture have on our approach to cheating in relationships. I guess it's sort of a Catch-22 situation: if I was being really rational, I would be able to figure out my responses, even though I likely wouldn't have the screeching harpy response that many women do. However, if I weren't a rational person, I wouldn't be able to separate out the instinct from the cultural grooming.

On a purely evolutionary level I'd have to say the cheating is worse on the women. It ups the likelihood that they'll be left with offspring but no one to help care for them. Amy's said before that women evolved to be choosy because sex is costlier for us, so I think it stands to reason that extra-relationship (on both parts)sex is costlier for us as well. So some of our reactions must be instinctual on that level. Cultural coaching would definitely intensify the reactions for those prone to it. And I think that jealousy would be instinctual in any relationship that was based on more that the desire to share property and finances. When the hormones get involved, we can't act in a purely rational manner.

When I was growing up in Utah the folk just behind me were polygamists. Most of the homes around Salt Lake buit in the early 80s were two story split level. You'd open the fornt door directly onto a stair.

Wife one got the upstaris wife two the downstaris.

They seemed to get along I guess, never heard any fights. According to my dad the guy apparently had a third wife that he kept in another house entirly. Dont know if she had any kids but they had 8 or 9 kids running round the backyard all the time

According to the book I read (again, a novel, but intricately researched), that was common practice for those early polygamists, too. Which is just practical, I guess. The husband would have two or three wives in the one house (with all their children) and others set up in other houses with their children. On the other side, some of them did have huge houses packed to the rafters with bodies. A handful of wives and an average of eight to ten children apiece will take up tons of space. The big dogs would live more like this. Brigham Young had tons of wives (over fifty, but some of them were secret and therefore it's hard to get a good count) in several houses. He'd visit each house in turn, sitting down to dinner at each. The wives would be seated in order of succession, too.

The modern narrator talks about how, when he grew up in the polygamist cult, nothing was specifically for any one child. They bulk-bought clothes and shoes and the kids would just wear whichever was the closest fit. He talks about finally getting clothes that were his own after he was kicked out as a teenager. Also, they tended to be unadventurous with naming the kids, so it wouldn't be unusual to be called Sarah 5 because there were four other Sarahs in the family. It was really interesting to read about what their lives were like, especially in comparison to the early Mormons versus today's Mormons.

Weird side note: I found out while reading that I'm related to one of Brigham Young's wives. I looked her up online, and she actually existed- Martha Bowker from New Jersey. Not a handsome woman. I don't take after her, thank Grabthar.

Speaking of books-- Lobster, is there anything good you can point me toward about polygamy in Africa? I'm interested in knowing the genesis of the practice in other parts of the world. There's a lot of stuff about the polygamist Mormons in this country, because it's a relatively recent phenomenon, but polygamy in other cultures is much older. You've gotten me interested in learning more about it.