We have been sold a dangerous myth: the idea that a "happy" marriage is an impenetrable fortress. We are told that as long as we are compatible and fulfilled, our relationships are immune to the contagion of unfaithfulness. But happiness, it turns out, is not a vaccine.

In reality, the modern workplace has become a laboratory for a subtle phenomenon: the "Infidelity Drift." While we focus on career advancement, the primordial good of the household is being quietly dismantled by a lack of boundaries and the inescapable dynamics of human biology. To protect the vocation of marriage, we must move beyond the happiness myth and look at the hard facts of sexual selection, mating psychology, and the natural law framework that defines human flourishing.

The Foundation of Family Life and the Flourishing of Children

To understand the threat of infidelity, one must first recognize that heterosexual marriage is the foundation of the household and the bedrock of civilization. The family household is the natural context that both masculinity and femininity were designed for

Sexual differences are at the heart of family life. The real differences between a male and female which manifest in parenting as father and mother are both necessary for a child’s fulfillment and flourishing. Children were created with the need (necessary for their fulfillment and flourishing) for a masculine male father and a feminine female mother working together in one household. Anything that would affect the stability of the marriage union threatens the wellbeing and flourishing of the children in that household.

Research has shown that the privation of that good (being raised in a household with a father and mother) has detrimental effects on the outcome of children.

Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur say that “children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background.”[i]

The Statistical Impact of Family Breakdown

1. Children who go through a divorce as a statistical aggregate are more likely to experience the following:[ii]
2. Diminishing the frequency of religious worship
3. Diminishing a child’s learning capacity and educational attainment
4. Diminishing household income
5. Increasing crime rates
6. Increasing substance use
7. Increasing sexual experimentation by minors
8. Increasing emotional and mental health risks including suicide

Research also shows that high-parental-conflict homes are associated with children’s poor academic achievement, increased substance use, and early family formation and dissolution. Though high-conflict marriage households are statistically not associated with the levels of poor outcome that single-parent or step-family households have, on several indicators of well-being the outcome is actually the same.

“We conclude that while children do better, on average, living with two biological married parents, the advantages of two-parent families are not shared equally by all.”[iii]

Those “advantages not shared equally by all” refers to those high-conflict marriages. For children to benefit fully from a two-parent household, that household must be a virtuous household. Proper conflict resolution skills are an essential ingredient to having a healthy and nurturing family life. To have emotionally mature conflict resolution skills, one must have the habits or dispositions (virtues) that contribute to navigating through relational conflict well.[iv] Children need a well-functioning two-parent household—not only a masculine male father and a feminine female mother but also a home that is virtuous and nurturing, not emotionally destructive.

The Landscape of Infidelity

The absence of intact and healthy functioning marriages is clearly a threat to society and destructive of the common good. Researchers have found that 31% of all those divorced have cited infidelity as the cause.[v] Furthermore, infidelity in a marriage increases the chances of divorce to 65%![vi] Infidelity, then, seems to be one of the primary causes of the breakdown of family units.

How Rampant is Infidelity?

A research study involving 90,000 men and women found that 78.6% of men and 91.6% of women admitted to having an emotional affair in their relationship (either committed or married).[vii]

Helen Fisher reported in her research that, “Reports in the 1920s indicated that 28% of American men and 24% of women were adulterous [sexual infidelity] at some point after wedding (Lawrence, 1989). Data collected in the 1980s suggest that 72% of men and 54% of women were unfaithful at some point during marriage.”[viii]

Shirley Glass in her research study showed that about 60% of marriages deal with either emotional or physical infidelity at least once in their marriage.[ix] In addition, another research study showed that 45–55% of married women and 50–60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship.[x] The most recent trend shows infidelity rising the most among young women.[xi]

The Myth of the Happy Marriage Vaccine

People often try and guard their marriage against divorce using faulty information, specifically the idea that a happy marriage is a vaccine against infidelity.[xii]

James Wiggins and Doris Lederer in their research surprisingly discovered that coworkers who were having an affair “considered themselves to be happily married and highly compatible with their spouses.”[xiii]

56% of the men and 34% of the women who had extramarital intercourse said that their marriage was happy.[xiv] So if a happy marriage isn’t a protection against infidelity what is? According to research, a lack of boundaries combined with opportunity for interaction with the opposite sex was the primary reason for infidelity. The lack of boundaries leads to vulnerability, and when combined with opportunity, the likelihood of an affair skyrockets.[xv]

Shirley Glass says, “Among couples I have treated, friends or neighbors were partners in the cases of 16 percent of unfaithful husbands and 29 percent of unfaithful wives.[xvi] In 82% affairs, they occurred with someone who was at first “just a friend”[xvii]

Emotional Attraction: Infidelity & The Workplace

Jordan Peterson, in an interview with VICE, provocatively asked the question “Can men and women work together?”[xxi] Given the fallout of the #MeToo movement and the fact that 60% of affairs originate in the workplace, what guidelines should govern men and women in professional settings?

Research shows that the workplace provides the most likely place for the intersection of lack of boundaries and opportunity. Workplace “collegial relationships” provide the opportunity to “share common interests and mutual admiration” at a level that is hard to achieve even in a long-term marriage.[xxii]

Every individual has their own unique personality and set of experiences. When you mix that with another individual, you each will inevitably bring out a different side of each other that no one else has. While a person may really enjoy their spouse and share multiple interests, someone else can come along that will have a different set of shared interests. The dynamic will be different and intriguing, causing you to open up a part of yourself that your spouse or partner hasn’t. This is why being “happy in a marriage” doesn’t by itself protect one from infidelity. Relationships are dynamic and not static; they continue to move forward and progress in levels of intimacy and vulnerability.

When men and women interact, they do not stop being male or female, and so given enough conversation and engagement, hardwired mating dynamics automatically kick in where slowly but surely they become emotionally involved, even if not explicitly.

Shirley Glass states: “It’s easy to have values in the abstract. Many people find, though, that being face-to-face with someone who is captivating and available makes fidelity seem less critical (and perhaps less appealing) than it once did. In the absence of clearly stated, consistently reinforced boundaries, they succumb to their romantic fantasies and the misery that ultimately comes from an affair.”[xxiii]

As stated earlier, with today’s work environments being the most fertile ground for infidelity, it’s not surprising that researchers have seen a statistical increase in female infidelity directly proportional to females occupying more places in the workplace.[xxiv]

Shirley Glass elaborates: “Very few activities are more captivating than working hard together to achieve common goals. Inspired by teamwork and shared accomplishments, the tension and excitement of working closely together for long hours on demanding projects can charge the sexual chemistry between two people. My research and the research of others point to opportunity as a primary factor in the occurrence of extramarital involvements.”[xxv]

In the last several decades, women have found themselves in professions that were previously dominated by men. Attractions are inescapable when you have males and females working side-by-side in office environments “where shared coffee breaks and lunches are commonplace and where daily interactions around business projects are the norm.”[xxvi]

Shirley Glass observes: “We are so used to this camaraderie that we hardly notice how habit-forming it can become. But to get another perspective, imagine what you would think if your best friend called your spouse every night on the way home just to talk or if your spouse went with your next-door neighbor to share a latte at the neighborhood Starbucks every morning. You would undoubtedly worry and wonder.”[xxvii]

By and large, people who get involved with coworkers don’t set out to turn their friendships into romances. Colleagues and coworkers who drift into affairs are blind to the red flags that mark their progression. They are so energized by the unreserved acceptance and the support for each other’s ideas, skills, and goals that they don’t notice how their relationship is changing. In summary, the constant proximity and emotional bonding combine to create a powerful aphrodisiac[xxviii] to where 73% of unfaithful men and 57% of unfaithful women cheat with someone they met at work.[xxix]

Why Can’t We Just Be Friends?

Research has consistently and overwhelmingly showed as an aggregate that men and women are unable to consistently remain as platonic friends.[xxx-xliii] Furthermore, one-on-one opposite-sex friendships are a modern phenomenon. [xliv][xlv] Gender research strongly proposes that “women’s and men’s experiences in one-on-one opposite-sex friendships are swayed by their advanced coupling tactics.”[xlvi]

The phrase “advanced coupling tactics” is a synonym for what many researchers refer to as “mating strategies.” Both terms refer to the biological substrate that exists to drive a set of behaviors (often unconscious) that will attract a mate.

Zach Carter states: “Both women’s and men’s coupling tactics are prompted when women and men interact with individuals of the opposite sex who, over time historically, would have been prospective partners. Accordingly, coupling tactics may encourage an individual’s participation in one-on-one opposite-sex friendships while inadvertently attaching them emotionally and/or sexually, when their actual initial intent was simply for platonic friendship.”[xlvii]

One is hard-pressed to find ample evidence or research that does not concur with the overwhelming consensus that attraction is a consistent component of opposite-sex friendship.[xlviii] Many scholars have explained the “biological, psychological and physiological ingredients for why the relational connections of emotions and sex are unavoidable in opposite-sex friendships.”[xlix] Therefore, emotional and/or sexual attraction is likely to occur for at least one of the parties within a 1-on-1 opposite sex friendship. (One-on-one friendships between opposite-sex siblings is an obvious exception given the neurologically hardwired biological aversion to any sibling sexual attraction.[l])

In an article by the Scientific American entitled, “Men and Women Can’t Be ‘Just Friends,’” Adrian F. Ward makes the point: “These studies suggest that men and women have vastly different views of what it means to be ‘just friends’—and that these differing views have the potential to lead to trouble. Taken together, men seem unable to turn off their desire for something more.”[li]

This is not simply a socio-cultural phenomenon. Male neurological hardwiring for a stronger sexual desire makes it objectively less likely they can see an attractive female in platonic terms.[lii] After reviewing more than 200 studies, researchers found that men consistently and universally have a higher sex drive than women. “Men are more motivated by sex than women.”[lv] While women can start off more genuine in their desire to keep the relationship platonic, after the subtle but consistent pursuit of a male, her female mating strategy can kick in.

Doug Wilson states: “A person can be in big time trouble long before he starts thinking about actual ‘pursuit’ of someone romantically.”[lvii]

For attraction to be illicit and dangerous, it does not need to be overtly romantic or sexual at all.[lviii] The human mating strategy is a progression; therefore non-sexual interactions are frequently still a part of the human mating progression.

Analysis: Men, Humor, and Attraction

For millennia, virtually all mammals have reflected a mating dance where the males have initiated and the females have responded. Though humans are made uniquely in the image of God, we are biologically still classified as mammals. So, it is not surprising that we see the same pattern of males initiating and females responding among humans. [lx] Studies have shown that laughter is a powerful measurement of the level of attraction between a male and a female.

The Power of Laughter

• The Attraction Connection: Karl Grammer and Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt found that a female’s level of laughter accurately predicted her attraction to a male. While females laugh a great deal when attracted, males are conversely drawn to women who laugh at their humor, signaling interest.
   
• The Selector Preference: Eric R. Bressler and Sigal Balshine showed that women consistently chose funnier men as potential dates, while men showed no preference for funny women.
   
• The Gender Reversal: Robert Provine observed that while speakers generally laugh more than their audience in same-sex groups, this is turned on its head in opposite-sex interactions. When a man talks to a woman, the woman laughs double the amount than when she is listening to other women.

This shows there is a sexual mating instinct at play. Women signal interest as the sexual selector by unconsciously signaling interest and enjoyment through their laughter. In mixed settings, even though both genders are equally funny "head to head," the fact that women laugh more at men proves this dynamic is rooted in mating instincts.

Psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman believes that sexual selection may explain why humor is so important in attracting a mate: “Humor is pretty sexy at first meeting. When you have little else to go on, a witty person who uses humor in a clever, original way is signaling quite a lot of information, including intelligence, creativity, and even aspects of their personality such as playfulness and openness to experience.”[lxii]

In conclusion, if men want to safeguard their existing relationships, men must be self-aware of this humor dynamic judiciously and wisely restrain the amount of humor they have around other women. This is an important boundary to have.

The Solution: Strategic Boundaries

Gary Neuman suggests the ideal antidote to avoid an affair: avoid one-on-one opposite sex casual relationships. One can be cordial and professional, but that is different from an actual one-on-one friendship.[lxiii]

“Surely, every friendship doesn’t lead to an affair. Yet we forget the emotional harm of relating to someone outside the marriage when that same energy can be used to relate to our own spouse. Marriage is about relating to a member of the opposite sex with an intimacy felt with no other.”[lxiv]

Gary Neuman asserts that it is crucial to avoid "regular, ongoing personal conversations in which you’re developing themes, favorite topics, or a continuing dialogue.”[lxvi]

Doug Wilson adds: “The male bird displaying its plumage is logically distinct from the act of mating—and yet there is still a deep connection there. That bird may not even know enough to articulate that connection, but the ornithologist can.” It seems not too bold of an assertion to state that it is not part of a man’s created purpose to have a one-on-one deep friendship with women not his wife (or relations).[lxvii]

Properly Ordered Jealousy

We must focus on jealousy as being “vigilant in guarding a possession.” In the context of marriage, safeguarding your marriage from intruders is honorable and laudable.

The Apostle Paul uses the analogy of “good jealousy” in 2 Corinthians 11:1–3: “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.”

The idea of mate guarding (properly ordered jealousy) as a fundamental desire is a good thing. The desire to retain the affections and singular commitment of your partner is a healthy jealousy. Appropriate love rejoices when their partner’s affections go toward other things and other people that are appropriate. A partner who is motivated by good jealousy (mate retention) will only ask that the pair bonding affections and energies remain monogamous and singular.

Conclusion: Boundaries and Work Equality

The vocation of marriage (not a career) must be the horizon upon which all other decisions are made. It takes priority over all other earthly endeavors.

Limiting conversation to work-related matters and avoiding emotional and personal conversations levels the playing field for everyone because it helps eliminate sexual dynamics from the workplace. A truly equitable workplace is one where any individual can advance based on their own competence and skill. Boundaries helps advance work equality rather than hurt it because the call to heed wise boundaries is a call to all males and females alike.

End Notes

[i] Kelly Musick and Ann Meier, “Are Both Parents Always Better than One? Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-Being,” Social Science Research 39, no. 5 (September 1, 2010): pp. 814-830, doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.002.

[ii] Jane Anderson, “The Impact of Family Structure on the Health of Children: Effects of Divorce,” The Linacre Quarterly 81, no. 4 (November 2014): pp. 378-387, doi:10.1179/0024363914z.00000000087.

[iii] Musick and Meier.

[iv] Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman, “Virtue Ethics: Natural and Christian,” Theological Studies 74, no. 2 (2013): 444.

[v] M. Gary Neuman, Emotional Infidelity: How to Affair-Proof Your Marriage and 10 Other Secrets to a Great Relationship, Reprint ed. (New York: Harmony, 2002), 29.

[vi] Neuman.

[vii] Lauren Vinopal, “More People Are Having Emotional Affairs Than Are Not,” Fatherly, September 5, 2018.

[viii] Helen Fisher, “Infidelity: When, Where, Why” last modified May 10, 2016.

[ix] Health Research Funding “20 Important Emotional Affair Statistics,” August 3, 2018.

[x] Sheri Meyers, Chatting or Cheating (Tarzana, CA: From the Heart Media, 2012), 19.

[xi] Tara Parker-Pope, “Love, Sex and the Changing Landscape of Infidelity,” New York Times, October 27, 2008.

[xii] Shirley Glass, Ph.D., Not “Just Friends” (New York: Free Press: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 2003), 380.

[xiii] Glass, 16.

[xiv] Glass, 221.

[xv] Glass, 18.

[xvi] Glass. 31.

[xvii] Meyers, 19.

[xviii] Meyers.

[xix] Zack Carter “7 Infidelity Preventatives Your Marriage Needs Today,” October 11, 2017.

[xx] Kaplan, D. L., and Keys, C. B. (1997). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 191-206.

[xxi] Suzanne Venker, “Can Men and Women Work Together in the Workplace?” September 3, 2019.

[xxii] Shirley Glass, 16.

[xxiii] Glass, 258.

[xxiv] Glass, 28.

[xxv] Glass.

[xxvi] Glass.

[xxvii] Glass, 28-29.

[xxviii] Meyers, 23.

[xxix] Neuman, 38.

[xxx-xliii] (Aggregate research findings as listed in original text: Zack Carter, P. H. Wright, K. Werking, S. Swain, H. M. Reeder, J. D. O’Meara, M. Monsour, D. L. Kaplan, A. L. Bleske-Rechek, W. A. Afifi).

[xliv] W. W. Hartup, “The origins of friendships,” (1975).

[xlv] Carter.

[xlvi] Carter.

[xlvii] Carter.

[xlviii] Carter.

[xlix] Carter.

[l] Debra Lieberman and Adam Smith, “It’s All Relative,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 21, no. 4 (2012).

[li] Adrian Ward, “Men and Women Can’t Be ‘Just Friends’” Scientific American, October 23, 2012.

[lii] April L. Bleske and David M. Buss, “Can Men and Women Be Just Friends?” Personal Relationships 7, no. 2 (2000).

[liii] Sari M. van Anders, “Testosterone and Sexual Desire,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 41, no. 6 (March 2012).

[liv] Julius Frankenbach et al., “Sex Drive: Theoretical Conceptualization,” Psychological Bulletin, October 13, 2022.

[lv] Alan Mozes, “Who’s Got the Stronger Sex Drive,” Medical Xpress, October 26, 2022.

[lvi] David Buss, The Evolution of Desire (New York: Basic Books, 2003), 181.

[lvii] Doug Wilson, “What the Ornithologist Knows,” Blog and Mablog, August 10, 2018.

[lviii] Wilson.

[lix] Carter.

[lx] Buss, 181.

[lxi] Buss.

[lxii] Christie Nicholson, “The Humor Gap” Scientific American, October 23, 2012.

[lxiii] Glass, 41.

[lxiv] Glass, 26.

[lxv] Glass, 27.

[lxvi] Glass, 41.

[lxvii] Doug Wilson, “A Rat’s Nest of a Situation,” Blog and Mablog, August 4, 2018.

[lxviii] “Jealous Definition,” Merriam-Webster, November 8, 2022.

[lxix] John Piper, “Dating: Good Jealousy and Bad,” Desiring God, March 28, 2018.

[lxx] David M. Buss and Todd K. Shackelford, “From Vigilance to Violence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, no. 2 (1997).