Part 14 (1/2)

Antisocial Behavior Infidelity may just be one more manifestation of the deceit and manipulation for profit or pleasure that is characteristic of individuals with antisocial personality disorder. Antisocial personalities may have difficulty sustaining monogamy and may be exploitative in s.e.xual relations.h.i.+ps. They appear to have a faulty conscience and frequently deflect blame onto their spouses if their infidelity is disclosed.

Their disregard for others and failure to accept social standards and legal restrictions probably began before adulthood. They are frequently impulsive and irresponsible, but their superficial charm and winning ways with words can endear them to others. Their lack of empathy can be perceived in their cynicism and contempt over the suffering of others. They often have problems with authority that cause them to lose their jobs or fail to pay their taxes. Unscrupulous business deals, reckless driving, aggressiveness, or substance abuse may lead to getting in trouble with the law.

Chronic Lying Lying can either represent a stable personality trait or be a situational artifact of the infidelity. Liars cheat on their taxes, make promises they don't keep, and blame other people for their mistakes. Pathological liars can tell such exaggerated versions of their exploits and accomplishments that they begin to believe their own stories. The chronic liar who cheats on a loving partner has no difficulty inventing ploys to escape detection and has no guilt about the betrayal.

Hope for Change You can change att.i.tudes, you can change behaviors, but you can't change character. The betrayed partner can determine whether the infidelity is a magnification of lying and cheating that is widespread. Exposing infidelity can put other disturbing patterns into clearer focus.

To heal a marriage disrupted by infidelity, unfaithful partners have to empathize with the pain they've caused and take responsibility for their actions. If they have characterological flaws, such as the ones I've just mentioned, taking these two steps may seem beyond their capacity. Lack of empathy for others and unscrupulous behaviors are consistent traits in character disorders. Infidelity may reflect a pattern of deceit and selfishness that is persistent throughout their lives and is unlikely to change.

Individual values and att.i.tudes are influenced by our friends and colleagues, work environment, and ethnic background. In the next chapter we will explore how these outside influences create additional vulnerabilities for infidelity.

11.

THE STORY OF OUTSIDE INFLUENCES.

Practically everyone I know has cheated at least once. I think that proves my point: Monogamy is unnatural.

MARRIAGES DON'T exist in isolation, and neither do affairs. The way we fall in love, commit our allegiance to another person, and break our commitments all happen within a larger social context. We are born male or female, thus automatically falling under certain expectations for our roles in life. Even when differences in s.e.x are accounted for, personal and social filters still lead people to see the world in different ways. Our moral and religious values are derived from the neighborhood and family we grew up in. We are influenced by what we learned in school. We formed expectations based on the cultural messages we received as children and now receive as adults. exist in isolation, and neither do affairs. The way we fall in love, commit our allegiance to another person, and break our commitments all happen within a larger social context. We are born male or female, thus automatically falling under certain expectations for our roles in life. Even when differences in s.e.x are accounted for, personal and social filters still lead people to see the world in different ways. Our moral and religious values are derived from the neighborhood and family we grew up in. We are influenced by what we learned in school. We formed expectations based on the cultural messages we received as children and now receive as adults.1 And, most important, we watch very closely what our friends and colleagues say and do. And, most important, we watch very closely what our friends and colleagues say and do.

These important but often overlooked outside influences can help explain why some spouses cross the line into infidelity and others do not. Along with individual and relations.h.i.+p vulnerabilities, social and cultural factors are the missing links. These factors account for why some people stay monogamous while others either seek opportunity or offer no resistance when opportunity knocks. Here is the irony: we live in a culture that professes to value monogamy but at the same time undercuts monogamy significantly by glamorizing illicit love affairs and commercializing s.e.xual t.i.tillation. This is a.n.a.logous to the way our society prizes thinness while it pushes junk food.

If you want to choose a mate who is likely to stay loyal, what would you look for? According to statistics, you should choose someone who devotedly attends religious services, has friends who support a monogamous lifestyle, lives in a small community, and has parents and grandparents who are straight arrows. Your potentially faithful partner would work alone, close to home, and wouldn't travel for business purposes.

If, on the other hand, you want to know whom to be wary of, statistics would steer you clear of someone who works in a condoning or encouraging occupational environment with attractive coworkers, travels with them to conferences, does not an end wors.h.i.+p services or have strong religious beliefs, comes from a s.e.xually liberal background, lives in a large metropolitan area, and has a history of parental infidelity.

None of these factors is a predictor of marital infidelity in any particular individual. But they do point to who is more likely to be unfaithful and who is more likely to be monogamous.

Many people who violate their vows begin marriage expecting to be faithful. It's just that over the years, inner convictions begin to erode. Acceptance of infidelity increases in response to personal problems, relations.h.i.+p disillusionment, and a tolerant social environment.

Quiz: Social Vulnerability Map There's no way to predict with certainty whether a specific individual is going to be unfaithful. Responding to the statements below will help identify the influence of your social environment. Rate these social-cultural influences that increase individual vulnerability to extramarital involvement.

Directions: Circle the appropriate letter to the left of each statement: A = Yes Yes, I agree. D = No No, I disagree. NA = Not applicable.

Scoring Key: Add up your points to calculate your social vulnerability score social vulnerability score.

Each Agree = 1, Disagree = 0, NA = 0.

Your score shows the influence of your social-cultural environment:0-2 = Clean air zone3-5 = Smog warning6-9 = Pollution alert10-12 = Toxic air zone Birds of a Feather Frolic Together One of our most important filters is the social screen. Our vision is sharpened or blurred by what we see and hear from the people around us. You are more likely to be unfaithful if you are surrounded by friends and professional colleagues who are also unfaithful. Friends and acquaintances serve as socialization agents who may make cheating seem alluring or, at the very least, normal.

When you hear exciting confessions and philosophical rationalizations often enough, you can justify almost anything. Your best friend is glowing as she tells you how her lover fulfills her in ways her husband never would or could. When your friends glorify their affairs, you might start to think that marriage is not only dull but a serious impediment to personal growth.

Opportunity and support of a male peer group were deciding factors in the extramarital s.e.x of 41 percent of the prominent men studied by sociologist Robert White hurst.2

Occupational Vulnerability Work settings and occupations can either foster opportunity for extramarital s.e.x or place strict prohibitions against it. For people working in the entertainment industry or in professional sports, infidelity is a common practice. For people working in religious or conservative educational inst.i.tutions, infidelity is an infraction of behavioral codes. Although workplace environments have become more sensitized to s.e.xual hara.s.sment issues, a number of them still overlook or accept flirting and romantic involvements between coworkers. U.S. military policies have been a prime example of mixed messages. Although adultery has been severely punished by demotion or expulsion, male service personnel on foreign a.s.signments have been supplied with prophylactics whether or not they were married.

Laurel Richardson found that married men who were involved with single women at work were not afraid that their affairs could become public knowledge. Their lack of concern was because of two factors: others seldom condemned them, and they were able to keep their wives away from their work setting.3 What we see depends on two things: what we are looking at, and who is doing the looking. This also holds true for how we view our opportunities for extramarital relations.h.i.+ps. It depends partly on the setting and partly on how we a.s.sess the scene.

The story of the attorney, Karl, ill.u.s.trates how widespread infidelity can be in some work settings. His wife, Karen, became suspicious when she went to Karl's office one day to take him out to lunch. While she was waiting for him, his paralegal, Britney, said to her, ”You shouldn't have come here. Don't you know he's too busy to go out for lunch?” The inappropriateness of this remark led to Karen's uncovering of Karl's affair with Britney.

When Karen and Karl entered therapy to repair their marriage, it became clear that recovery could not occur as long as Britney continued to work closely with Karl. He told Karen that he could not fire her because of the risk of a s.e.xual hara.s.sment suit. Karen suggested that he exchange paralegals with one of the other attorneys in his practice. Karl told her that was impossible because all the other attorneys in his office were having affairs with their paralegals and they would be opposed to making any changes in staffing.

Bram Buunk and Arnold Bakker found that people are more influenced by their perception that persons of equal status are willing to engage in infidelity than by the perception that others will disapprove.4

Sometimes it's hard to tell which comes first, the act of betrayal or the rationale that justifies it. If your social setting isn't filled with people committing adultery, then you might fill in the gap with your own projections, ascribing to others the same motives and desires that are attracting you. Conscious or not, the projection of your desires onto other people serves to support your own course of action.

You may remember Luther, a popular physician in a prestigious hospital whose wife, Lois, did everything for him. He had many one-nighters with nurses in the on-call room, which were never detected by Lois. However, one of his flings turned into an intense affair that he had difficulty ending, even after Lois discovered it. During marital therapy, he was clear that his wife had nothing at all to do with his long-term promiscuity or his recent love affair. He loved and admired Lois. He was explicit about their great companions.h.i.+p and satisfying s.e.x.

By way of explaining the apparent contradiction between his promiscuous behavior and his love for his wife, he talked about his early years as a resident. He explained how impressed he had been by the s.e.xual exploits of his medical mentors. He thought it was ”cool” to have all these different women at work and a wonderful wife at home.

After the pain and suffering he saw Lois endure, and after experiencing the tumultuous ending to his love affair, Luther had a major s.h.i.+ft in att.i.tude and perception. The physicians he came to respect were those with conservative ideals who valued monogamy and were unflinchingly devoted to their wives. Luther now saw the philanderers as immature and ”uncool.” He used to believe that practically everyone in his department ”fooled around,” but once he committed himself to fidelity, he noticed how many actually frowned on such antics.

Anthony Thompson reported that people who are unfaithful may justify their behavior by overestimating how prevalent infidelity is.5

Faithless Friends Lynne At.w.a.ter found that a woman's progression toward first extramarital s.e.x is greatly influenced by the faithlessness of other women. The steps are knowing someone who has engaged in extramarital s.e.x, talking to that person about it, and then thinking about it for an extended period of time after becoming aware of an opportunity. Nearly all of the women she interviewed said that they never intended to be unfaithful when they first got married.6 Before Cheryl betrayed her husband by having a two-year affair, her friend Sandy had started confiding in Cheryl that she was having an affair. Sandy went on and on about the special treatment she was enjoying. She told Cheryl that her lover bought her beautiful presents and treated her like a queen. Sensing that Sandy would be supportive about hearing a similar story from her, Cheryl told her about the exciting new man she was attracted to. The object of Cheryl's affection was the opposite of her husband; he reminded her of an old boyfriend who was quiet and outdoorsy. She told Sandy about her fantasies but also said she didn't want to do anything that would hurt her husband, Cliff.

Every time the two friends talked, Cheryl found herself thinking that a little romance on the side wouldn't be such a bad thing. It didn't have to mean anything. When Cheryl and her fantasy man finally got together, Sandy let them use her house as their private hideaway. When Cliff found out, his rage at Sandy was easy to understand. And he knew only the half of it. He knew that Sandy had loaned her house; he never realized what role Sandy's encouragement had played in his wife's predisposition for getting involved in the first place.

It is not unreasonable for worried partners to insist that their spouses terminate or limit friends.h.i.+ps that encourage infidelity. To make the marriage safe, it may be necessary to sacrifice friends of the same s.e.x who are not friends of the marriage.

When Vince was first married, he never looked at other women. He only had eyes for his wife, Viola. Every day he went to his desk job in a large utility, processed his paperwork, and was eager to come home to his beautiful wife. Five years down the road, he was tired of sitting around all day indoors and going home to sit some more, so he signed up to play in his company's softball league. He enjoyed the outdoor exercise and had fun with the guys (and the occasional athletic woman).

After a game Vince and his teammates would go to a favorite hangout, have a couple of beers, and shoot some pool. Over the course of several months, he got to know these guys well. The three who were still married were openly contemptuous of men who buckled under to their wives; the five others were either single or divorced. Vince's buddies began to tease him for being ”p.u.s.s.y whipped” and having to go home after the second beer. They pointed out to him a couple of attractive young women who seemed interested in him.

Soon Vince started to wonder whether s.e.xual freedom was the norm and monogamy the exception. He started to think that his marriage could be in jeopardy because his commitment to being faithful was starting to waver. Viola was angry and anxious about his nights out, and they started to fight. After months of dissension at home, Vince began to realize that his ”friends” were egging him on to destroy his marriage. He decided that he would continue to play softball but go home immediately after the games, without stopping for a beer with his buddies.

The Family Tree ”The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.” Like most popular sayings, this one has a large measure of truth in it. In the context of our discussion, it predicts a link between the characteristics of parents and their offspring. In fact, that is what therapists and researchers have observed as they've studied patterns of infidelity across generations within the same family.7 Nonmonogamous families seem to produce sons who betray their wives, as well as daughters who either accept their husbands' betrayals as normal or are unfaithful themselves. Nonmonogamous families seem to produce sons who betray their wives, as well as daughters who either accept their husbands' betrayals as normal or are unfaithful themselves.

Carol Ellison's research with over 2,000 women found a definite link between parental affairs and extramarital s.e.xual permissiveness. Of the affair-p.r.o.ne women she studied, 13 percent had five or more affairs. Many of them had grown up in a childhood environment where a parent or a parental figure had engaged in affairs.8 Multigenerational family trees often show consistent patterns of infidelity or monogamy. One study based on an a.n.a.lysis of twelve couples found that each family had a unique pattern, ranging from virtually no affairs in the entire family to multiple affairs in all three generations.9 In the nonmonogamous families, the affair partners were remarkably similar. For example, in the case of one couple, two generations of men had affairs with baby sitters; in that of another couple, a number of affairs in the family had involved coworkers. In the nonmonogamous families, the affair partners were remarkably similar. For example, in the case of one couple, two generations of men had affairs with baby sitters; in that of another couple, a number of affairs in the family had involved coworkers.

The Kennedy family presents us with a well-known example of multigenerational infidelity. The patriarch, Joseph Kennedy, provided the model for his sons, who followed in his footsteps, not only by getting involved in politics but by having affairs with many women, including famous actresses. President Bill Clinton's grandfather was a very well-liked, friendly man; however, his grandmother was frequently angry at his grandfather because he was ”too friendly” with other women.10 In trying to explain Clinton's philandering, the model of his beloved grandfather could be more significant than all of the public speculation about possible problems in his marriage. In trying to explain Clinton's philandering, the model of his beloved grandfather could be more significant than all of the public speculation about possible problems in his marriage.