John(not his real name of course) has broken a lot of hearts that it had turned into a habit. He picked up this habit at quite an early age. He broke Jessica’s heart in kindergarten when she refused to share her lunch with him. The words, ‘I hate you’ was said with so much venom for a boy John’s age, poor Jessica was inconsolable. But that was ages ago when John had not groomed himself in the finer art of heart breaking. He would break many more hearts as he turned into a dashing young man. This had nothing to do with venomous words as was the case with Jessica. It wasn’t about what was said to these hapless women. It was about what was not said. His brazen acts of infidelity.
John is not the only man to be unfaithful. Gary Neuman a marriage counselor in his study which culminated in a book The Truth about Cheating explains that 1 in 2.7 men will cheat and most of their wives will never know about it. This is a little over 37%. Neuman studied 100 men who were unfaithful and 100 who were faithful in a bid to create the ultimate solution to the societal malaise of infidelity. For this ‘kind’ of research, 37% seems to be a whopping figure. Let me explain: the research seems to have assumed that the sexual orientation of the men studied was of a heterosexual kind. One can argue that the incidence of homosexuality in married men will account for just a minor percentage but the bigger flaw would be to assume that cheating men who are undiscovered will own up to cheating.
This fundamental flaw in Neuman’s research raises disturbing questions about whether a study of this nature should be left in the realms of social statistical analysis. No doubt, in Neuman’s outstanding career as a marriage counselor, he would have come face to face with men who cheat and whose behaviours have sent them to the good counselor’s couch. The real question will be how many men will agree in a social survey that they are unfaithful to their spouses judging that infidelity is considered a taboo in most societies. Neuman studied marriage disorders but not the sexuality of man.
Married men represent one side of the coin. Unmarried men on the other hand also show a high level of ‘infidelity’ to their partners. This cannot actually in the real sense be termed infidelity since there is no contract and men are allowed in these cases to sow their wild oats. Still unmarried men like John find themselves most of the time at daggers drawn with their partners for reasons of infidelity. A real statistic of single men who cheat on their partners is not attainable but one can safely say that the incidence is overwhelmingly high.
The 100 men who swore to Neuman that they had only eyes for their wives trigger more than a passing interest. No doubt, Neuman would have made some sort of definition of cheating. Would a peck that lasts a second longer than normal be classified as cheating? Perhaps a neck massage in the office to relieve tension. Looking into the eyes of your colleague long enough to know that they are irrepressible tools of sensual expression? A hug that lasts a bit too long? A touch that lingers… Is infidelity just blatant sexual penetration? Jesus Christ makes the most conclusive definition, ‘whoever looketh at a woman to lust after her…’
Is this the definition employed by Neuman? Did he ask about actual penetration? Did he check the level of guilt before and after the act?
My argument at this point is to prepare the reader for the central conclusion of Gary Neuman’s seminal work; that men cheat because they feel unappreciated by their women. In other words, they cheat because they want to feel good about themselves. If this finding is true, as I am in agreement that it is more or less; what major question does it raise for us. A female might ask the obvious question of why a man should cheat to feel good about himself. But in retrospect, one should ask, why do men derive a feeling of dominance and self worth when they cheat? The answer to this question might be found in unlikely places.
John has been the bane of the opposite sex from his days as a Popsicle sucking 5 year old. Most of the women who come across him know this as a matter of instinct but his irresistibility and charm are two forces that give them an excuse to hope that he would change one day. Still women are quick to denounce all ‘Johnlike’ tendencies in men comparing them somewhat to the unbridled manifestation of the wild. And for a good reason…
Scientists have spent a long time studying the mating behaviour of wild animals. The social mating behaviour of a lion for example is played out in his pride. Scientists therefore are almost unanimous about the dominant male theory in a pride of lions. In social mating behaviour therefore, the lion is mostly a polygamous animal.
The social mating behaviour of animals is more complex than the dominant male phenomenon. The female species does not play passive roles in this complex system. Chan Lee Peng gives a simple explanation of this process: “the mating process always involves the struggle of one sex (often the male) to win the mating.” In lay man terms, the males struggle amongst themselves in order to mate with the females. This struggle for hegemony among the males means that the female mates with the dominant male. The dominant male is the preferred male. The real McCoy! The struggle for dominance might not be a matter of brute strength in some cases as in the case of the peacock, the struggle is about comeliness. In the domesticated animal kingdom the Cock’s pecking order reflects this struggle for dominance and the somewhat polygamous nature of animals. I call this the Cock theory.
This kind of behaviour is not only noticeable in exotic species of the wild but also in the species which lay man term as domesticated animals. Man’s best friend for example has garnered over the years, a sexual behaviour simply described by many as bizarre. Perhaps because of their proximity to us, one would rather be called a lion than a dog or a bitch.
Constant and oft times derogatory comparison of animals and humans raise salient questions. Are we linked in some way in sexual behaviour with animals? Are societal ethics and norms perhaps mere veils to a more animalistic human side? And more poignantly, would the answers unlocked from these questions hold the key to why men cheat? Is John’s cheating tendency a matter of nature or a matter of a secondary social disconnection between him and his partners?
Let us look at the conclusion of the research by Gary Neuman one more time. As the good marriage counselor discovered, the central cause of infidelity of men is a feeling of non appreciation by their women. This means that it is in man’s nature to feel good about his manliness. It is man’s nature to feel dominant. Just like in the wild, the social behaviour of human beings are no less different. For the female, it is a calculated choice of the dominant male. The man needs to be the dominant male in the pride of many females. This is the way that John feels. In kindergarten, when John had broken Jessica’s heart he was just expressing an animalist need for dominance. Jessica as well as many other subsequent females who have fallen for the latent charm of the dashing Adonis was merely expressing a need to be in the pride.
The realization of the relationship between man and other animals in terms of sexual behaviour increases the understanding of Gary Neuman’s findings. This understanding will make the reformation of people like John (which is more or less most of men) a task attainable for marriage counselors like Neuman and the myriad of women whom John inadvertently has scorned. Understanding this relationship will also highlight the difference between man and animals. Apart from the obvious fact that man is an animal guided by complex societal realities; the words of Jesus Christ about the intention as against the act underscores the importance of spiritual grace and self control. Women should also learn how to work with and not against this reality. Perhaps a single woman in order to sustain the interest of her spouse needs to be a harem?
Nnamdi Okose
No comments:
Post a Comment