(no subject)
'Today we begin with a hypothetical scenario, that -on its surface- may seem to have a straight forward, obvious,undiable answer. However, the question raises a larger popint about everything we pretend to understand about relationships, and particularly what we assume we understand about monogamy (and where monogamy technically begins). So while your answer to this question might seem unambiguous, the criteria you use to reach the conclusion are generally more important. In other words, what you say doesn't matter as much as why you chose to say it.
The scenario is called "The Jack and Jane Hypothetical", and is as follows:
Let's say you have two friends named Jack and Jane. They have been romantically involved for two years, and the relationship has always been good. Suddenly, Jack calls you on the phone and sadly mutters, "Jane just broke up with me." You ask why this happened. Jack says, "She thinks I cheated on her." You ask, "Well, did you?" Jack says, "I'm not sure. Something strange happened."
This is what Jack proceeds to tell you:
"There is this woman in my apartment building who I barely know," He begins. "I've seen her in the hallway a few times, and we'd just sort of nodded our hellos. She is very normal looking, neither attractive nor unattractive. Last week, I came home from the bar very drunk, and -while I was getting my mail- I ran into her at the mailboxes. She was also intoxicated. Just to be neighborly, we decided to go to her place to have one more beer. But because we were drunk, the conversation was very loose and slightly flirtatious. And then this woman suddenly tells me she has a bizarre sexual quirk: she can only have an orgasm if a man watches her mastubate. This struck me as fascinating, so I started asking questions about why this was. And then -somehow- it just sort of happened. I never touched her and I never kissed her, but I ended up watching this woman masturbate. And then I went home and went to bed. And I told Jane about this a few days later, mostly because it was all so weird. But Jane went fucking insane when I told her this, and she angrily said our relationship was over. Now she wont even return my calls."
Whose side do you take, Jack's or Jane's?
I have posed this question to myriad people, and the reactions are all vaguely similar. Women almost always think Jane's rage is completely valid; men generally inquire about the availability of housing in Jack's hypothetical building. Women usually agree that this offense warrants a breakup, while many men think it merely warrants a tenure in the doghouse. But what's noteworthy is that -while almost everyone agrees that Jack did something wrong- everyone uses a staunchly different, weirdly personal argument to justify what makes it so bad. It raises innumerable questions. I mean, how different is this than watching porn? How different is this than getting a lap dance? Is this situation worse than if Jack had drunkenly kissed his neighbor? Would it make any difference if the neighbor had been behind a glass partition? Many people point to the "intimacy" of the exchange -but if that's the case, the conversation preceding the episode seems as troublesome as the masturbation itself. And if Jack honestly saw this encounter as "weird" (as opposed to "erotic"), shouldn't he be forgiven completely? Isn't he just being penalized for being curious?
This is why the "Jack & Jane" scenario is such a good hypothetical. The core question really isn't, "Whose side do you take?" The true question is, "Where, exactly, does cheating begin?"
I just watched a documentary on Cinemax called Love & Cheating, and it mainly consists of average couples talking about the complexity of their sex lives. The crux of the program asks if monogamy is still relevant, and the answer is (essentially) "maybe not". One of the statistics cited in Love & Cheating is that in the year 1900, the average life expectancy was forty-seven years and the average marriage lasted twelve years; in 2000, the average life expectancy was seventy-seven years, but the average marriage lasted only seven. To some "sexperts", this indicates that monogamy cant compete with the modern lifespan' perhaps we simply live too long to realistically anticipate staying with any one individual. And maybe this is true. Maybe it would be easier to remain faithful to your spouse if you both assumed you'd get typhoid before turning fifty. But this is reverse engineering; in fact, this kind of logic is probably why so many people have affairs (and why the modern marriage lasts only seven years). What this argument indicates is that it's mathematically unreasonable to be monogamous. And that, I think, is probably where cheating begins. It's not about physical contact or emotional intimacy; it begins the moment anyone decides that it's unreasonable to be sexually commited to one person. Once a man or woman comes to that conclusion, it doesn't matter what they do (or dont do). If they are a reasonable person -and if they truly think remaining monogamous is inherently unreasonable- you have to assume the only reason they're not sleeping with other people is because (a) they cant find anyone else to sleep with, or (b) they're afraid they'll get caught. And these are -without question- the two main hurdles that stop people from being unfaithful.
I recall drinking brandy with a friend who was in the early stages of dating an absolutely gorgeous nurse. She was a hardworking blonde who loved to throw back tequila shots, dance to Trick Daddy, and bake cookies on the weekend; we agreed that she was close to ideal. Yet my friend was certain that this romance was never going to work out, and I couldn't understand why. "What singular quality would this woman need to make this relationship a success?" I asked. He answered immediately: "The ability to be nine other women." This struck me as dangerously self-aware. My friend just didn't think it was reasonable to stay with any one person, regardless of her merit. When people cheat, it has almost nothing to do with who they're with and who they potentially want; it just had to do with they view their fidelity as a realistic way to exist. It is easy to be ethical when you're single, but much harder when you are not.
When I was in my early twenties, I figured something out: if you are a weird-looking dude (which I am) and you want to date exclusively beautiful women (which I did), the key is to pursue beautiful women who are already in relationships. Let's say you live in Omaha, and you meet a really hot single woman who is actively dating lots of different guys. In order to win her affection, you have to be more desirable that every other single guy in Omaha. It's you against everybody. However, let's say you meet a hot woman who is dating Kenneth, a hard-working Nebraskan haberdasher. This situation is way, way easier; now you merely have to be more desirable than Kenneth. It's you against him. However, what I've slowly come to realize is that I was not convincing these women to like me, which is what I thought at the time; I was merely convincing them that staying faithful to Kenneth (or any one person) was unreasonable. I wasn't seducing them in any real context. I was simply eroding their morality.
Well we all have our regrets, I suppose.
But here is the bottom line: motivation is everything. Wanting to cheat on someone and failing is no different than actually doing so; and the reason something happens is way more important than the action itself. This is why watching your neighbor masturbate is not necessarily a reason to break up, particularly if you were drunk and merely trying to get your mail. And if you disagree with this, you're just being unreasonable.'
-Chuck Klosterman