In today’s America, the majority of non-elderly adults are having sex with multiple people every year. Moreover, little seems to be stopping those who are having sex with one person on a regular basis from proceeding to have sex with others.
Upon inquiry by the New York Daily News, Dr. Lawrence Balter, a professor of applied psychology at New York University, says “men and women who are as blatant about affairs as [Roger] Clemens has an ”oversized sense of entitlement. They believe if it makes them feel good, it’s justified.
Importantly, this mentality is not limited to people of Roger Clemens’ status; it is employed by practically anyone who thinks they can get away with it. Even more troublesome, people are no longer cheating only because they are unhappy, but simply for the challenge and adventure of having sex with someone new.
Today, both genders justify keeping their sexual options open no matter whom they currently have in their life. Said differently, many males and females are entertaining alternative partner prospects even when they are currently having sex with someone on a regular basis.
Opposite-sex companionship is clearly an individual freedom for both genders. But once two people start sharing company time and sex with each other on a regular basis, a bond is formed. Whether spoken or not, it is a bond that can lead to a monogamous-type understanding on both sides. However, justifications for having sex outside of one’s regular partner are running rampant. Welcome to hormonification.
hormonification 1. the hormonal related state or condition, of being blameless for having sex with others 2. a person justifying or being justified to partake in a sexual encounter, including a sex act, even though regularly having sex with others
The growing field of evolutionary psychology offers a theory on how the sex drive is genetically programmed. As reported by Philip Weiss in New York magazine, “One of the leaders in the field, David Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire and a professor at the University of Texas, says that men’s genes program them to seek many mates and to attempt to monopolize the reproductive lives of those mates. But women are also programmed for infidelity, Buss says. They have a drive to monopolize the economic resources of their mate, according to the theory, but also to keep a man or two in reserve, because men die earlier than women, and men go off, and women need protection.”
Independent of this evolutionary psychological reasoning, one can split the ways that the monogamy promise is being murdered: Either the monogamy promise is not being made because of all of the sexual fun and temptation out there, or it is being made only to control the other partner. In the latter case, the partner initiating the promise has no intention of avoiding temptation, and likely no intentions of telling anyone once confronted. Welcome to biased dishonesty.
biased dishonesty 1. to cause to have a bias; influence; prejudice regarding a dishonest sex act or pursuit 2. fraud, lie, deception, etc. committed when having sex with others and not telling ongoing sex partners, most often driven by selfishness
With so much to deal with and explain if caught cheating, and with fewer and fewer partnerships being truly monogamous, biased dishonesty practices are ever more prevalent in America. While males and females date each other to share company time and sex, they are leaving their options open when without each other—or are at least testing whether they still have what it takes to sexually attract third party opposite-sex people—all while using biased dishonesty to cover their tracks. This dynamic makes the monogamy promise practically meaningless in modern America. Think about it.