Author Gary Neuman asked cheating husbands why they cheated on their wives. The husbands faulted their wives, claiming their wives didn't meet their sexual and emotional needs...and so, felt no other choice but to get a mistress to meet those needs instead.
At first, the author says women shouldn't be blamed for their husband's infidelity...but then spends the rest of the book advising women to meet his needs from now on so he won't have to cheat on her. But if she's not to blame for the problem, why is the burden on her to fix it?
His solution is basically for wives to act more like the less complicated, less demanding, and totally accommodating mistresses these men are sneaking off to. The logic being, once she starts acting more like a mistress rather than a wife, then just like that...she'll have successfully "affair-proofed" her marriage and transformed a self-absorbed man into a considerate man who'd never cheat on her.
The author ignores many factors, though. For one, both the author and these men acted as if these men had no other choice but to get a mistress to solve problems, but these men DID have other choices. They could've:
1 -- Assertively asked their wives to meet their needs
If these men had unmet needs, it's up to THEM to vocalize those needs. It is unfair to ask a woman to read his mind and play detective.
2 -- Ask for a divorce
These husbands claimed they tried everything to make their marriages work, but no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't win. Well, if the situation were truly that hopeless -- if he assertively asked his wife to address his needs, but she coldly refused to -- then why stick around for that kind of abuse? Why string along someone you neither love nor feel loved by?
I'm thinking these men didn't try as hard as they claimed. These men came across as pretty passive and quick to throw in the towel...and then they went out in public behaving like single, unattached men. So, logically if they're going to BEHAVE like single, unattached men, then they should BE single, unattached men.
3 -- Ask for a separation
A separation would allow him to date other women without lying to his wife and also give him some space to figure out what he really wants. And his wife could do the same.
4 -- Ask for an open marriage
An open marriage also means he dates others without lying while also giving his wife the freedom to date others as well. If he didn't want to divorce because of financial reasons or because of the kids, this would be the route to go. However, I suspect the reason he doesn't choose this route is because although he's very comfortable allowing another woman to caress his naked body...he'd be furious if another man were allowed to caress his wife's naked body.
So as you can see, unless these mistresses put a gun to their heads, these men had a choice in the matter. They may claim they were overcome with emotion and couldn't help themselves, but haven't they ever been angry enough to kill, yet managed to control that impulse?
These men may also blame a broken marriage, but just like there are kids from broken homes who choose to rise above the situation, there are also people in broken marriages who choose to do the same...so that is not an excuse either.
Remember, there's a faithful spouse in this equation. If he was unhappy in the marriage, chances are, his wife was, too...and yet she chose not to cheat. He could've done the same, but since he didn't, he is 100% responsible and accountable for his decisions.
Also ignored in this book is a cheater's character. Character is who you are when no one is looking. When their wives weren't looking, these men intentionally broke mutually agreed upon rules regarding monogamy (without asking permission to do so or considering how their wife's feelings would be impacted).
So then, what does that say about their character? These men all said they'd never confess to their affairs -- not even if asked outright -- and my guess is, it's because they don't want their wives probing too deeply into their character. The author doesn't want wives probing too deeply either and so, distracts wives by having them focus on their own character instead.
However, if she did probe a little deeper, she'd realize it's not HER actions that caused his affairs, but HIS mindset.
In trying to redeem these men's character, the author claims they feel guilty about their affairs...however, the examples told a different story.
For example, one man described in detail how he invented business trips so his wife wouldn't suspect him of cheating. The way he described it made it seem like he was bragging about being able to pull one over on his wife.
When the author asked him if he felt guilty about all this scheming, the man replied, "I guess you feel guilty."
You guess??
See, I think these men claimed to feel guilty because they sensed that's what the author wanted to hear. After all, these men couldn't successfully pull off an affair if they weren't adept at lying.
Instead of feeling guilty, these men felt entitled to have an affair...and you can't both feel guilty about doing something and entitled to do it at the same time.
They had a Tit for Tat attitude...you didn't play nice, so I'm not playing nice either...though having an affair is far worse punishment than she could dish out.
They reminded me of a little boy getting in trouble for pulling his sister's hair and protesting, "Well, she started it!"
Instead of challenging their immature coping skills, the author validates it by giving advice to women that basically says, yeah, she did start it...and so, she needs to end it, too.
It was tiring reading all the self-pitying going on in this book. One man had the nerve to be annoyed that his wife didn't catch on to his affairs. He'd tell his wife he was going out golfing and because he didn't own golf clubs, he figured she should've known he was cheating instead.
I guess it never occurred to this guy (because he was so wrapped up in his own self-pity) that the reason his wife didn't suspect anything was because she TRUSTED him. She trusted that he'd never hurt her like that.
And I guess it also never occurred to him that since trust is something you earn, that trust his wife was giving him was trust he hadn't earned.
And this is the type of guy women should knock themselves out trying to keep in their life?
The type of man worth keeping is one with a strong conscience. A man who lets his conscience be his guide (rather than his impulses) won't cheat no matter how aroused.
It would be like trying to get intimate with someone covered in urine. No matter how sexually and/or emotionally aroused he was by this new woman, that smell (his conscience) would kill the mood.
But if that smell is weak or nonexistent, forget it. A woman could follow all the steps in this book to no avail because a man with a weak conscience will always invent new excuses to bend the rules in his favor. And a woman cannot take on the impossible task of being his conscience for him.
A man with good boundaries won't cheat either. Despite popular opinion, I don't believe affairs "just happen."
Boundaries don't get crossed without an invitation. Without him giving the green light to cross his marital boundaries, a potential mistress would grow bored of the chase or become too embarrassed by the continual rejection by him and would move on. Trying to seduce a married man is a very bold move. There's no way she'd be able to pull that off without his consent.
Another way to look at it would be to ask these men if they would've treated the other woman exactly the same if their wives were standing next to them the entire time. If the answer is No, then that's proof they were behaving in ways that guaranteed the affair would happen.
A man's conscience and his boundary limits are all things a woman cannot control...yet these are the very factors that determine whether a man will cheat or not.
So if these factors are really something the cheating man should get under control, then wouldn't focusing instead on the woman's character mean the author's aiming at the wrong target?
I understand, though, how women could be vulnerable to thinking otherwise. I mean, what woman alive hasn't tried to change a man? What woman hasn't excused bad behavior, believing the guy is just misunderstood and just needs the love of a good woman to change?
It's very flattering to the ego to see yourself as this man's savior...but it's also delusional. If a man's going to change, it's because his mindset no longer works for HIM. HE has to want it badly enough.
You can't change someone who doesn't want to change. We hear that a million times, yet it doesn't seem to stick...which is why books like this exist in the first place.
Women are also guilty of the "if only" thinking. They obsessively think "if only" they had been more loving, more nurturing, listened better, had more sex, been more whatever...then they wouldn't have been cheated on.
This thinking is very similar to a child thinking "if only" they hadn't been such a bad kid, then their parents wouldn't have divorced, drank so much, beat them, abandoned them, etc...
This kind of thinking, though, absolves adults from taking responsibility for their actions. It also gives you a false sense of power...like you were so powerful to control him into cheating that you'll also be able to control him out of cheating, too.
But it's delusional. Imagine you knew a woman whose husband just hit her. Would you tell her if only she had just been more nurturing, he wouldn't have hit her?
Read more ›
M. Gary Neuman is a Florida psychotherapist, rabbi, creator of the internationally recognized Sandcastles Programs for children of divorce, and author of 
