I'm amused by the assumptions in the comments that the women in question are 'trophy wives' and 'are therefore hotter and more likely to be desire by other men.'

Or, you know, it could be that women like to have sex.

Right. The only factor in how likely a woman is to be having sex is how desirable she is to men. Her motivations and interests simply don't enter into it.

I'm having one of those days where everything I write is cripplingly obvious, including this post. But the study was funny.

Holy crap! Last semester, I found myself making something up while lecturing, and now it turns out to be true! I said, "Chastity is a middle-class virtue, y'all. Novels about women preserving their virginity crop up like mad in the 18th century because that's when the middle class explodes on the scene. Rich people and poor people have not much to gain or lose by keeping their legs together, but the association of sexual virtue with class mobility is a great motivator of the middle class."

My students thought, at the time, that this was a brilliant idea that reflected their experience of the world. We all congratulated me on my genius. At the time, I felt like a charlatan, but now, retroactively, I am happy with it.

Who knows what's driving this. I seem to recall reading in college that moral rules about sexuality were distinctly middle class. That might be explained by economics, or it might be explained by culture. On the plus side, it might suggest women are sluttier than men, and that there's a lot of excess adultery capacity out there being unused. Viva societal optimization!

Pwn'd.

Last semester, I found myself making something up while lecturing, and now it turns out to be true!

This is how most of my discipline works....

I get the feeling LB is looking for some play.

7: except for the turning out ot be true part.

Apo, you think *everyone* is looking for some play.

8: It doesn't work if you don't include "Aww, yeaahh..." at the beginning.

mile-high-club

So far, that approach has worked for me, handsome.

10: often as not it turns out to be true.

For you, Apo? Any time.

Yayyy!

9:meh, well, we'll worry about that once we figure out what 'true' is.

Nothing like that sweet, sweet, imaginary Internet play, isn't there.

A little to the left, LB.

I didn't think I could get any further left.

Careful, you might crash the server.

Your summary doesn't mention that the women don't just have more than the female population at large, but have more period than the men of the same class, or any class. I would have thought the rates would converge due to the enabling factors you mention, not that they would surpass.

22: We a horny half of the species.

That was odd, and I don't have an offhanded explanation for it.

Back in the veldt, the men used up all their hormones chasing down tigers, whereas women stayed home and only used some of their hormones to chase down the more sedentary berries. The men with less hormones tired more easily, and so came home sooner, where they were pounced upon by the horniest of the horny women, thus ensuring the social order we know today.

Seems to me we were talking 'bout this pouncing just about this time yesterday.

Is it really that confusing? If you think of two friends, one male and one female, who are equally interested in (say) casual sex, is it that surprising when the woman puts up much bigger numbers?

an offhanded explanation

To prowl is in a cougar's very nature.

27: But that's not the difference -- the study doesn't report women having had more adulterous partners, it reports more women having had adulterous partners.

29: Right, but that's just the difference between women having more adulterous partners (1+) than men (0).

This is the post where LB forgets to mention that she makes a lot more than her husband, right?

And does less childcare. But seriously, folks...

LB: If your claim is right, then that means that a large portion of average-wealth women are sitting around wishing they could cheat, and thus that 75% is the "optimal" proportion of cheating women -- i.e., that given the freedom to do so, 3/4 of women will cheat.

Since men have always had the economic freedom to do so, that also means that the 50% of men who cheat (according to the study) is also the "optimal" proportion.

So: why do women want to cheat more than men?

Tim's explanation makes sense to me. Also explains why prostitutes for men vastly outnumber prostitutes for women. Buyer vs. seller markets.

Clarification for precision: "why do more women than men want to cheat?"

I don't think "want to" is the proper variable here. "Are able to" fits better.

I think 33 is answered by 30.

Of the friends I've known in open--or negotiatedly so-- relationships, it's usually been the female partner who really acts on the liberty. Maybe it's to prove to themselves and their partners that they can?

So the higher percentage of adulterers among women who feel economically free to cheat is explained by the lower percentage among women generally?

(Or, of course, there's nothing that needs to be explained -- the study is too small and goofy to need an explanation.)

36: I think "are able to" explains the difference in numbers between average and wealthy women, as LB explains. But once both genders are closer to equality of "ability," what explains the gap other than "want?"

Or maybe 27 also answers 38...

But once both genders are closer to equality of "ability," what explains the gap other than "want?"

You're weirdly hopeful about how much work cash does in getting you laid.

I think "are able to" explains the difference in numbers between average and wealthy women, as LB explains. But once both genders are closer to equality of "ability," what explains the gap other than "want?"

Perhaps, all else being equal, a woman is more likely to find someone who wants to have sex with her than a man is.

42: By "ability" I meant LB's idea of "able to risk the relationship," not "able to buy sex."

But: maybe you mean it's just easier for women to get laid than men?

44: Yup.

maybe you mean it's just easier for women to get laid than men?

I would think this is an uncontroversial statement.

43: Sort of implies lower standards on womankind's part, though.

No, it implies the exact opposite.

40 - Rousseau: a thought experiment, if you will. A professional man and a professional woman, both married persons with high income and net worth, and therefore equal "economic freedom" to cheat, walk into a bar. We'll posit that both are rated "8.0" on hot-or-not.com. Each approaches ten single individuals of the opposite sex, offers politely to buy a drink, and says "I'd like to go somewhere and have sex with you now." How do you think their respective success rates will compare? Does this help explain the "gap"?

45, 46, 49: You mean to tell me that 25% of all married men in this country want to cheat but can't find a single women to sleep with them? They found one once; why can't they find just one more? I don't buy it.

49: Presumably the success gap is explained by a relative shortage of professional, high-worth female 8s and associated increased demand for same. Can we expect the gap to decrease as women achieve better economic parity with men, do you think, or are there other factors in play? And will the closure of the gap be expressed by the women becoming less successful at hitting on people in bars, or by the men becoming more successful at it?

Assuming that this study is a real result that needs explanation (which, I know I posted it, but I'm not taking it all that seriously), and assuming that the differences between the sexes are circumstantial rather than innate, I think Tim's 27 explains it. Say, 75% of people are, in theory, open to having an affair if they find an appropriate partner and aren't afraid of risking their current relationship. No men are afraid of risking their current relationship (look, I'm just doing a ballpark illustrative calculation here, not making claims about human nature), but 75% of women are, meaning that a large number of men who are, in theory, open to having an affair are unable to find suitable partners.

If all the bullshit assumptions I made are the case, then women not restrained by fear for their current relationships would be much more likely to have affairs because there would be more possible interested partners available to them.

Gibbon, in his stately way, mourned that of the twelve Caesars only Claudius was sexually "regular."... It would be wrong, however, to dismiss ... the wide variety of Caesarian sexuality as simply the viciousness of twelve abnormal men. They were, after all, a fairly representative lot. They differed from us -- and their contemporaries -- only in the fact of power, which made it possible for each to act out his most recondite sexual fantasies.

Even assuming that women can get play more easily than men, I still can't fathom why it's a credible explanation to suggest that 7 *million* men are trying to get laid and simply can't.

Perhaps success is correlated with an above average sex drive in women. Both could be caused by high testosterone levels for example. Then wealthier women would have more sex but not because of their wealth.

As for the differences between wealthy men and women perhaps there is a fraction of both that does not seek out affairs but is willing to be seduced.

54: Maybe they aren't looking for hot, successful, sexually available women.

Also the environment in which wealthy business people live is predominantly male (in terms of affairs between people of equal status).

So the real question is why there aren't more gay wealthy, sexually available businessmen. Even frogs will change genders.

There are oh so many reasons I am a socialist and feminist.

The women surveyed were the "financial principles" for their own (gargantuan) wealth, indicating that they might not be entirely representative.

I found it interesting that, the other day on AOL's front page (don't mock me; it's an interim patch situation) there was a 10-point list of things to watch out for to know if your partner is cheating.

Nine of them said, "Men often...," as in "Men often change their habits of dress when they meet a woman at work" or "Men often eat less when they are thinking about starting an affair." That is, they assumed the cheater was male and predicted male cheating behavior along pretty sexist lines.

That is, all except #6, which said, "Women actually cheat even more than men, and are more likely to get away with it, too. Women are better at avoiding predictable behaviors."

I guess what you're supposed to take from this is that women are more likely to be looking for info on male infidelity, that men are predictable and easy-to-catch, and women are, alas, both evil and a mystery.

Thanks, AOL!

uh, s/b "easy to catch." I'm hyphen-happy today.

, I still can't fathom why it's a credible explanation to suggest that 7 *million* men are trying to get laid and simply can't.

You need to get out more. There's a reason why there are "Ladies Nights" and not "Mens Nights," and that the easiest way into a club is to go with v. attractive women.

52: Maybe less a matter of men looking but being unsuccessful at finding partners than less likely to look, no? If finding a willing partner is easier for men than women, you'd expect fewer men to make the effort.

61:Is my core conviction that women are smarter and more fun somehow a bad thing?

If finding a willing partner is easier for men than women, you'd expect fewer men to make the effort.

This, I'm not following.

65: Naw, you're right, of course. I just don't like the stereotype that men are all sitcom dads whose attempts at dissimulation are laughably ineffective, and women are so random and secretive that no one has any idea what they're doing. It just doesn't match my experience of the sexes.

And I actually liked Cala's 25. Upper-class men either work too much to have time to have affairs, or feel inadequate and inferior relative to other men, so seek security.

Watched Metropolitan again last night, and trying to apply the obervations in that movie to this post.

66: Possibly because it's exactly the opposite of what I meant to say, which was "if finding a willing partner is easier for women than men...." Damn work interrupted me mid-comment and made me mess it all up.

58: I saw a newspaper piece once on a gay suburban cruising spot. An awful lot of the men who went there for sex were dads in heterosexual marriages, often in their minivans with children's seats and toys in the back. Their explanation for going there was simply that it was easier to get gay casual sex. With all the pressures of work and family, they simply didn't have the time to find female partners.

Kipnis' "the female thing" has as an interesting section on sex that mainly talks about the male/female "orgasm gap". The orgasm gap might be a reason why wealthy women would stray more than wealthy men.

Rob helpy chalk has a bunch of posts on female orgasm. (including the number two google hit for alcock and female orgasm)

http://helpychalk.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Case%20of%20The%20Female%20Orgasm

"gay casual sex" s/b "blowjobs"

70- seems possible they just didn't want to admit to being gay, no?

70: That sounds suspiciously like an explanation of the 'i'm-not-gay-i-just-tripped-and-fell-on-his-cock' variety, but otherwise plausible. Why bother with an affair when you just have to drive down to the park?

"It wasn't an affair, honey -- don't be silly! It was just a drive down to the park for a few meaningless blowjobs! Honest!"

It sounds like a weird variant on "it's not gay aboard a ship or in prison".

Of course I thought of the "why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock" explanation, too, but:

1. The reporter raised and dismissed this explanation

2. Dammit, I know how much time a job and small children can consume, and it just makes sense to me. I know for sure the only affair I would have time for (if I wanted it) would be a roadside blowjob. Honestly I don't understand how people like B manage to keep up their schedules.

I'm mildly willing to believe the fathers, in part b/c I'm not sure that anyone is clearly hetero or homo. No one doubts (I think) that people in prison have gay relationships that they wouldn't have on the outside because they are constrained; these guys are constrained by time.

Brock, you have kids, don't you? Doesn't this make sense to you?

Certainly I am not the only liberal straight man who though that being gay would really save a lot of time and effort.

I've thought that being a gay male would save a lot of effort.

I'd think that one could peruse the newspaper for "massage" services just as easily as one could head down to the park, and at a monetary cost that should be comparable to the social/psychic cost of engaging in "gay" sex while "straight".

One more vote for "why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?"

I think the social/psychic cost of visiting a prostitute balances out the social/psychic cost of engaging in gay sex while identifying as straight. So we are left with paying for convenient sex, or getting it for free.

Certainly I am not the only liberal straight man who though that being gay would really save a lot of time and effort.

If I were searching around for an affair, sure...

And yes, the explanation makes sense to me, but dammit, how badly does a straight man have to want to just have an affair, any old affair, before he thinks "dammit, finding a woman would just take too long... where do the gays congregate, again?" I mean, once the element of sexual attraction is removed, the "affair" hardly seems worth the hassle, even if it *is* just a drive down the park. Couldn't you just break out some masturbatory aids or something, and save the hassle and risk?

81: I think you can go down to the park as many times as you want for free. I don't know what a prostitute would cost, but it seems like if it were more than every once in a while, it could run into real cash.

It would help, I know, if I had a clue where I read the story, but I'm not even going to bother to google it. Speculating is just as fun.

Also, isn't this what co-workers are for? If you're too busy to have a proper affair outside the office you are supposed to bang an equally time-strapped coworker. You're both there at the office working late anyway. None of this strolling to the park for gay sex nonsense.

Unless you're acually gay, in which case...

how badly does a straight man have to want to just have an affair, any old affair, before he thinks "dammit, finding a woman would just take too long... where do the gays congregate, again?" I mean, once the element of sexual attraction is removed, the "affair" hardly seems worth the hassle, even if it *is* just a drive down the park.

For this to be true, you'd have to assume that the men involved are more 'kinda bi' than 'straight'. This doesn't seem all that unlikely, given that in our generally not all that gay-friendly society, you'd expect a man who was straight enough to be happy having sex with women, but not in principle averse to same-sex sex, to identify simply as straight rather than cope with the difficulty of being publicly bi.

88- Like I said: G-A-Y.

82: Really? Do you actually believe that? In the repressed, homophobic, good old U.S. of A.? The same one where huge number of gay people are tragically closeted out of fear of ostracism by their friends, neighbors, and family?

What's that joke about the hunter and the bear again?

Didn't Dan Savage prove that bisexual men don't exist, or something?

Perhaps the funniest bestiality/anal rape joke there is.

91: Nah, he's just mentioned repeatedly that a lot of currently "bisexual" people are gay but semi-closeted while a lot of currently "straight" people probably would be bi or gay in a better world.

Also, he'll often describe someone who claims to be straight but blows guys or declares love when drunk/high/sleepy/not-seen-by-girlfriends as probably full-out gay but deeply in denial.

I like the explanation in 88. I mean, surely some of these husbands are Jim McGreevies, gay as a summer's day, but there's got to be a decent-sized population of people who really don't mind who's sucking their cocks but find heterosexual living easier.

I think the social/psychic cost of visiting a prostitute balances out the social/psychic cost of engaging in gay sex while identifying as straight.

Admittedly, the Army is a separate social group (and the ban on gays etc.), but I have heard lots and lots of men talk frankly about going to a prostitute (particularly overseas), but none suggest that they might go down to the local truck stop for a blow job. I'm thinking the latter is mostly guys who are in denial about being (to some greater or less extent) gay.

But let's change the subject, lest I talk about the long months I spent in the desert surrounded by nothing than strapping young soldiers . . .

93- well, 91 was sort of a joke, but he actually did link (several times, I think) to some real research suggesting that.

The parts of the sexuality literature that I am familiar with generally take the "everyone is a little bit bisexual" approach. This is perhaps why I find explanations like 88 pretty natural.

the long months I spent in the desert surrounded by nothing than strapping young soldiers . . .

The real question is why you were strapping the young soldiers -- don't they frown on that sort of thing?

I want to hear about strapping young soldiers in the desert!

90: I did believe it when I said it, but now that I think about it, I'm sure it is not at all true for some populations (soldiers, as Idealist points out.)

100: Yes, but for the upper-middle-class dads with hectic jobs and a home in the suburbs, I'd say that prostitution is pretty frowned upon.

Now I'm wondering if the property values are higher near the parks with good gay blowjobs.

The story I'm remembering. It's behind the paywall, so I'll go look for it on lexis.

I want to hear about strapping young soldiers in the desert!

Sorry, what happens in the desert stays in the desert.

from the article:

The parking lot in Queens seems to be especially popular with men who lead ostensibly heterosexual lives but show up for sex because it is quick, easy to get and secretive, regulars say. The lot, along Hollis Hills Terrace just south of 73rd Avenue in Queens Village, is close to several major parkways, and its location helps make it popular with men who commute between New York City and the suburbs, where they often have a house, a mortgage, a wife and children.

''The vast majority of men who come here are married,'' said one longtime parking lot user, who like the other men interviewed there recently would not tell his name because of concerns ranging from embarrassment to fears of gay-bashing.

''I can't tell you how many guys I've had here who were wearing wedding bands, with baby seats in the car and all kinds of kids' toys on the floor. It's on their way home and they don't have to get involved in a relationship or any gay lifestyle or social circles. They don't even have to buy anyone a drink or be seen in a gay bar. They just tell the wife, 'Honey, I'll be home an hour late tonight.'''

Regulars say that the married men enjoy the risk and recklessness of semipublic sex, which usually means receiving oral sex in their cars or having other sexual encounters in the woods nearby.

''Some aren't getting it at home,'' the man added. ''Some say, 'I'm not even gay. I'm just bored.'''

Reading it again, I see that the reporter does not actually question the men's self assessment, but takes it at face value.

It is also now clear that what happened is that the reporter went to a cruise site with some gay friends, listened to his friends snark things up, and then made a story of it.

One recent evening, a half-dozen mothers stood chatting, waiting for their children to finish soccer. A stone's throw away, a group of gay men stood narrating the attempt of a man trolling the lot in a tan sedan to woo the cute man parked in the black S.U.V. with tinted windows backed into a spot.

''The guy in the brown car's a dog, he's always here,'' the man narrating said. ''I've never seen the black car before. But watch, here he'll pull right up to him and see what happens.'' Within moments, the man in the tan sedan hopped into the S.U.V. and the windows closed.

''Woop, there he goes,'' the narrator said. ''You go, girl.''

Fuck you all. Now I've got Meatloaf wailing "Yes I would do an-y-thing for love, but I won't do that. Oh no I won't do that." on repeat in my brain. And I can't turn him off.

In my, anecdotal experience -- from watching friends' relationships, talking to girlfriends, platonic male and female friends, etc -- going all the way back to my mid-teens (so nearly 20 years) women *are* much more likely to cheat than men. Perhaps that experience is atypical, but I think not.

The really promiscuous serial cheaters I've known -- people who cheat on pretty much every partner they ever have, repeatedly -- have mostly been guys. But where friends' relationships have had difficulties because of one or other partner's cheating, more often than not, it's the female partner that's strayed.

As Rousseau and other have already said, I just don't buy the 'availability' argument. It's not that hard to find someone to cheat with, whether you're male or female. Some of the unfoggedariat seem to think most, rather than merely some, guys are dorky geeks who struggled to get laid.

I have absolutely no explanation for why this disparity is there. Or at least, I have no well-thought out explanation.

104- I've previously read that same article. Those men are gay.

101: UMC dads with hectic jobs can find a way to work call-girls into their daily routine if they really want to. Sex workers here, for instance, report doing much of their business before the office workday starts -- from suits who make like they're hitting the office early in order to have some extra time for a litte "relief." I'd be surprised if that wasn't true of other cities as well.

Someone should work out a counterpart to the Kinsey Scale that measures levels of denial rather than variants of sexuality. They could call it the Doctor Diablo scale.

107: Yeah, it looks that way now. I guess I was just projecting onto an imperfect memory.

Nothing wrong with remembering stories as they should have been rather than as they were. Life's more interesting that way.

106

"... But where friends' relationships have had difficulties because of one or other partner's cheating, more often than not, it's the female partner that's strayed."

I suspect the relationship difficulties precede the cheating.

re: 111

Sure, although I'm not particularly interested in the direction of causation. It could go either way.

My observations line up exactly with the first two paragraphs of 106.

most, rather than merely some, guys are dorky geeks who struggled to get laid.

A lot of married guys who try to get laid come off as smarmy and faintly abusive. I'm sure you all are dorky geeks rather than smarmy abusers, though.

Aren't 106 and 113 explained quite easily by a model in which ability to attract a partner with which to cheat is very unevenly distributed among males (with portions of the male unfoggedetariat being either humble or clueless about where they fall on such a scale), but more evenly distributed among females? I.e. all of your female friends are cheating occasionally with the one or two male serial cheaters?

Part of being a dorky geek is being so scared of coming across as a smarmy abuser that it's hard enough communicating interest and desire to one woman. If you've succeeded at that, why push your luck?

106: My mid-teens are only about fifteen years distant, but I'd have to say my anecdotal experience among "average" men and women is completely different from this. If anything, the edge in cheating goes slightly to the males -- maybe more than slightly.

I think men and women get taught different things about getting involved with someone already in a relationship.

Women get taught: He's never going to leave his wife. Sleeping with a married man is betraying the sisterhood. He's making a fool out of her and whore out of you. You're wasting your valuable child-bearing years with someone unserious. Etcetera.

Men, I'm uncharitably guessing, get taught something between "all's fair in love and war" and "score! hott crazy-person sex!"

women *are* much more likely to cheat than men

But where friends' relationships have had difficulties because of one or other partner's cheating, more often than not, it's the female partner that's strayed.

While not saying that your observation about who cheats more is necessarily wrong as a general matter, insofar as it is a conclusion drawn from the fact reported about relationship problems, isn't your observation about relationship problems just as well explained by the obvious double standard traditionally applied to cheating spouses. Men expect to be forgiven; women expect to be thrown out of the house.

I'm pretty skeptical that men get taught anything about getting involved with someone already in a relationship.

116 gets it exactly right. I can't even imagine having an affair; it just seems like so much work.

Men expect to be forgiven; women expect to be thrown out of the house.

Perhaps the cheating women want to be thrown out of the house, to do something unforgivable and irrevocable, to have circumstances make the decision for them to end the dissolving relationship.

120.--Not even by the, er, cultural imaginary? Mrs. Robinson as lesson one?

I'm pretty skeptical that men get taught anything about getting involved with someone already in a relationship.

The entire history of the idea of romantic/chivalric love in Western Europe is predicated on getting involved with someone already in a relationship. Do Lancelot and Guenevere mean nothing to you? (Alternatively, this is a reason to avoid romantic/chivalric behavior assiduously.)

Part of being a dorky geek is being so scared of coming across as a smarmy abuser

This seems so obviously true that I wonder if there is any sociological data backing it up.

Alternatively, this is a reason to avoid romantic/chivalric behavior assiduously

Remind me to let you pick up the check.

123, 124: Hmmm, maybe you're right. That stuff's always been background noise to me, but it could well be more influential for other men.

Perhaps the cheating women want to be thrown out of the house, to do something unforgivable and irrevocable, to have circumstances make the decision for them to end the dissolving relationship.

Certainly possible. But I was thinking more along the lines that if the indicator one used to measure cheating is relationship problems, it would be an inaccurate indicator because the differning consequences of getting caught (generally, descriptive not normative statement, do not shoot the messenger) lead to a skewed distribution of problems resulting from cheating by women giving a false impression that it is more frequent.

this is a reason to avoid romantic/chivalric behavior assiduously.)

Well, you know a lot more about literature than I, but might the point *not* be that getting involved with someone already in a relationship is good in itself, but rather that the measure of truly great love is that it drives you to break even the most sacrosanct rules (the movie The End of the Affair being a stark example of this). Only in a context where there are rules to be broken can this be demonstrated.

NOTE: Yes, there is more to it than this; gender roles; patriarchy etc. But I'm just saying.

Idealist, you've provided the perfect segue: I'm looking for a good book on the early human history. Most interested in the period roughly between the mastery of fire (80ish thousand years ago) to the beginning of the patriarchy (a.k.a. the beginning of agriculture, 10ish thousand years ago). Something like this, I guess, only, not for kids and actually good/worth reading. Any suggestions?

Men expect to be forgiven; women expect to be thrown out of the house.

Is this true? My impression would be closer to the opposite, but I don't have much basis for it.

Whatever else it teaches, chivalric romance is pretty definitely not about praising the virtues of having sexual relations with married women. It idealizes either unrequited love or doomed romance -- basically it's about loving the "virgin" half of the virgin/whore complex.

OTOH it's questionable to what extent chivalric love influences the attitudes of contemporary males. If we take film as the primary teacher (which probably isn't too far from the truth), the most common message basically boils down to some version of "love and war are a package deal."

My snap reaction (and I don't know much about the field at all, so don't rely on me) is that I'd be surprised if there was a broad, reliable book for lay audiences covering that period -- the absence of written history or much surviving archeologically means that the relevant work is going to be highly technical and contested.

130: I'm not sure what Idealist prefers, but I'd recommend Fagan's People of the Earth.

re: 128

Actually, the major indicator I'm using is one or other (or both) of the partners involved told me. Using 'relationship problems' was the wrong phrase. It implied that my knowledge was through the relationship problems. That's not the case and I didn't mean it that way.

Usually the reason I know that X has cheated on her boyfriend or husband (now or in some past relationship) is because X has told me. Although, as it happens, most (but not all) couples where one or other of the people involved is unfaithful do have problems: in contemporary Western society it's still largely the case (rightly or wrongly) that infidelity is seen as a pretty big deal.

Again, I don't buy the asymmetry of expectations vis a vis cheating thing. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I am saying that I don't think it skews my perception (which i am fairly sure is accurate) of relatively likelihood of cheating.*

* within a certain age group and location, at least. Most of the people I am talking about are in their twenties or early to mid 30s now. It may also be the case that the UK is different from the US, although apostropher's 113 suggests others have a similar experience.

The book in 134 is probably as good as any; Fagan seems to be pretty well-respected as authors of popular archaeology books go. There's plenty of more scholarly stuff, of course, but it's not easy reading.

Huh. You know, I had an unexamined impression that men are more likely to cheat, but on going over stories I know, I'm coming up tied.

If you think Apostropher is saying that it's equally easy for men and women to find someone to sleep with in the US, then I suspect you're misreading him. It's not clear to me that your examples are contra, either. If it's easier for women to find someone to sleep with, then you'd expect women to end up doing more of the non-serial cheating--during a bad period, a man and a woman look around their circle of acquaintance for someone to sleep with, and the woman comes up with someone.

134- great, tahnks.

In my, anecdotal experience -- from watching friends' relationships, talking to girlfriends, platonic male and female friends, etc -- going all the way back to my mid-teens (so nearly 20 years) women *are* much more likely to cheat than men. Perhaps that experience is atypical, but I think not.

Often I've been inclined to think this, sometimes not. (current age 24)

It makes a lot of sense to me, because it seems like there are more instances when a husband/boyfriend does something to grossly offend/disappoint his girlfriend/wife than there are instances of the opposite phenomenon occurring -- and this leads not just to a greater likelihood that women will seek out other women for commisserrattion, but that women will be more likely to have moments in which they feel justified in taking advantage of their constant access to men who want to sleep with them (as wisely described in 138).

Meanwhile, a man's propensity to cheat is less likely to be particularly strong at a given moment, because he's less likely to do it out of spite or feeling wronged. The male cheating is more likely to be a man who thinks, pretty much all the time, "I love my wife and there's not any trouble between us, but if I could have my wife, AND a mistress, that would be even better."

(I have here presented all characters in as flattering a light as possible)

135

"Actually, the major indicator I'm using is one or other (or both) of the partners involved told me. ..."

I think women are more likely to tell.

I've heard, from a few women, that men cheat because they can (they're SOBs), women cheat because they must (they're married to SOBs).

It might be true. I know of very few friends who have cheated. (Though one was something out of David Lodge's books.) But simple statements that reinforce sexual roles make me supsicious.

But simple statements that reinforce sexual roles make me supsicious.

But simple statements (cheating is all about men being SOB's) that reinforce other stereotypes are OK?

107: You misspelled "bisexual".

107: You misspelled "bisexual".

I read md's comment as applying to both stereotypes.

In my limited experience, the women cheat more often than the men, though as Shearer points out, this may just mean that they're more willing to talk about it. Most of my friends are holy fools when it comes to romance, though, so I expect they're sort of atypical.

143. I mustn't have been clear. I don't trust either side of that statement. I don't think men cheat just because they can get away with it and I don't think women cheat because they must. That sets up men and women to fulfill stereoptyped roles. I'm sure that happens, but I want more proof for it before I'll accept it as a general rule.

OT, I just saw on QVC the most amazing item: a motorized pedal exerciser. So you don't even have to pedal. The motor will move your feet in a pedaling motion. Sometimes flipping channels can be fun.

I think you're right to be suspicious. This is awfully hard stuff to get an informal sense of, because most people's samples are small, and what you hear and how you interpret it is going to be so confounded by your sense of gender roles and that of the people talking to you. I've got enough competing narratives going on that I could probably explain any result in terms of gender expectations.

I've got enough competing narratives going on that I could probably explain any result in terms of gender expectations.

This is one of the rare times when I am more likely to attribute outcomes to gender roles than most of the other people here. I would expect (for my generation) that there would be many more men who cheat than women (and fewer women who would talk about it, even to friends) because of unequal expectations of fidelity. It's not OK to cheat, but for men the general expectation is that it happens (the woman at the bar on a long business trip) and it's bad like cheating on your taxes is bad (wink wink). For women, it's bad like committing murder; grounds for divorce, certainly, and posibly grounds for getting beaten or shot.

NOTE: I am describing my view of gender expectations in my generation, not saying that they are anything other than unfair and fucked up because of (at least) the different expectations between the sexes. And obviously generalizations about sex roles, not explanations of any particular person's motivations. And not (completely at least) describing my own views.

I second LB's statistical point--we're all of us working with not merely small, but ridiculously non-random samples, with all kinds of selection effects in what anecdotes we're exposed to. Let us all take a moment to search the peer-reviewed literature instead.

Okay, that's a lot of work. Nevermind, carry on.

Although my reaction to "Most of my friends are holy fools when it comes to romance, though, so I expect they're sort of atypical" was surprise - most of my friends are holy fools when it comes to romance, which I assume is completely typical.

How about this: given the pursuer/pursuee dynamic in male/female system as constituted, if a man and woman are starting a relationship, there's a lot more planning/plotting of foward movement on the man's part, and a lot more symbolic 'brakes' (saying 'wait, you know we're not going to have sex, right?', etc.) the woman does. The former is more likely to be forced to think about what they're about to do, and the latter can give themself plausible deniability, ie the 'oh well its ok we're just frieneds'. So the man will start feeling guilty long before the woman, and more likely before its too late. And this woudl occur generally, except the 'if i get caught i'd be raising 3 kids on a part time job' dynamic overwells otherwise. Actually that sounds a lot like com. 55.

I like some of the other theories better like the dads/cads or 'women need some liking of the person'.

Did no one make a S+M joke in response to 137? Really? I'm disappointed.

Wow, you're right. How could we have missed such low-hanging fruit?

4: Rich people and poor people have not much to gain or lose by keeping their legs together

Hmm. I wonder what Anne Boleyn would have to say about that?