Mirror, Candles and Sex

I've been reflecting on the concept of loyalty lately. Why do some people remain loyal to each other while others do not? What drives a person to stay faithful to one partner but not another, or to maintain loyalty for years—perhaps a decade—only to eventually cheat? The reasons are undoubtedly complex, with numerous factors at play. One aspect I’d like to explore is how the presence or absence of alternatives influences loyalty.

One of the first considerations is how many people remain loyal out of obligation rather than genuine inclination. For men, it might be around 90 to 95 percent who stay loyal simply because they lack other or better options (excluding, of course, the possibility of paying for sex with a prostitute). Numerous stories exist of men who, after acquiring wealth or power, either leave their wives or begin cheating, underscoring how circumstances can shape loyalty. I wonder what the percentage is for women. Many could easily find more attractive partners than their husbands, but other factors, such as the security a husband provides for her and their children, play a significant role. She might risk losing all of this if the husband discovers her infidelity, especially if the new man isn’t willing to take on that responsibility.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a large enough sample to confirm or refute this, so I'll approach it more theoretically. A habit I developed in university is to consider extreme cases when analyzing the effect of a variable. In mathematics, we do this by setting x to infinity or zero, even though x can never actually reach these extremes. I'll apply the same approach here.

Let’s consider a movie star or celebrity endowed with wealth and good looks—traits that most women are drawn to or associate with power. Imagine a man who is almost like a demigod. This individual will have numerous women trying to approach him, whether indirectly or even directly (which is uncommon for men). He'll receive attention and messages from many different women, providing him with plenty of options. In everyday life, women will also tend to engage with him more, even in ordinary places like work or a supermarket. So whenever he feels bored with his wife or partner, he can easily satisfy his emotional and sexual needs elsewhere.

By emotional needs, I don’t just mean love; I’m referring to a broader spectrum, like the need for attention or the thrill of flirting. You can fulfill these needs with one person, or you can seek them from many others, which, in my view, diminishes the importance of your partner.

Continuing with this example, even the small annoyances his wife causes will start to weigh on him. The way she makes noise when she eats, or the fact that she sometimes passes gas after eating too much broccoli—why should he tolerate these flaws? Yes, he once loved her, but he can love someone else too. And yes, she once loved him, but there are others who can love him as well. Why not explore other options? Why endure her complaints when so many women are eager for his attention?

Now, let’s consider the opposite scenario: an unattractive, poor man at the bottom of the social hierarchy. For this man, life will be quite different. At the office, most women either look at him with disdain or don’t notice him at all. No one wants to flirt with him, even if he tries. Let’s say he somehow manages to get married. His wife is likely at a similar level—she has her flaws, she’s unattractive, she’s emotionally unstable like many people, and she complains constantly. What can he do? At least he occasionally receives some affection and companionship. So he endures her flaws because, realistically, what other options does he have? None. There’s no other woman waiting for him, no other dream he can realistically entertain. He’s wise enough to accept what he has because the alternative is being alone.

When we compare these two scenarios, it’s clear that the second man is more likely to remain loyal to his wife, even if he’s dissatisfied with many aspects of their relationship. What else can he do, assuming he doesn’t try to improve his value in this free-market economy? He’s bound by what his own worth can secure.

I understand that not everyone values the same things, and you might argue that love isn’t so straightforward. Yes, I agree—it’s difficult to quantify and rank people. For instance, we might find a woman who seeks a man who is less wealthy, shorter, or of lower socioeconomic status. But statistically, this is unlikely. And statistics do matter in life because life isn’t a Hollywood movie where perfect matches find each other and live out a great love story. No, real life operates on randomness; you meet a variety of people, and over time, statistics come into play as your sample size increases. So it’s reasonable to define someone as handsome or beautiful because a large percentage of the population finds them attractive, and it’s reasonable to say that women seek men with a better socioeconomic status than their own. Similarly, it’s reasonable to say that men are attracted to nice bodies, and women are as well.

Of course, these scenarios are extreme, and most of our lives fall somewhere in between. We aren’t movie stars, nor are we "losers" at the bottom of the social hierarchy. We’re all ranked somewhere in the social order, trying to climb higher. But these examples illustrate my point: having options gives you an advantage and some power over the other person. It makes the other person more expendable. And keeping "innocent" friends around to satisfy your emotional needs has a similar effect.

This brings up another question: Do we want someone to be with us because they don’t have better alternatives? Assuming that we make decisions based on the options we have, and that it's rational to choose the better option, this is what's really happening—we’re all selecting our partners because we don't have a better alternative, regardless of what we might prefer. So, it’s somewhat self-deceptive, unless you’re in the top 1 percent, to think that your partner will always choose you. In today’s world, where men and women have equal rights and share the same spaces, if you and your partner allow each other to develop better opportunities, then yes, one or both of you will eventually find better options.

This raises yet another question: Should we actively prevent our partner from finding better alternatives? And if so, what can we do? Lock them in a room? Stop them from meeting new people? Keep them isolated out of fear of losing them?

These solutions are neither practical nor beneficial. I believe it’s a waste of time to try to control another person’s life. Instead, a better approach would be to focus on ourselves and work on increasing our value in this free market. This has two benefits. First, it shows the other person that you also have better alternatives if you choose to pursue them, which might encourage them to behave more considerately. They won’t act as freely if they know you have the option to retaliate. Second, it boosts your self-esteem. You will feel more confident and won’t mind losing your partner.

So here’s the main point: it’s an illusion to think that having "friends" won’t affect your relationship. To have a long-term, healthy relationship, you need to make yourself valuable to your partner. Or at the very least, you shouldn’t be trying to create better options for yourself. Otherwise, the illusion of those options will confuse you and ultimately damage your relationship. At the same time, to feel better and more advantaged, you should focus on creating new options.

In the end, loyalty in relationships is not simply a matter of moral commitment or emotional attachment—it's also deeply intertwined with the options available to each individual. While it's tempting to believe that love alone can sustain a partnership, the reality is that both partners must continuously invest in themselves and the relationship to remain desirable to one another. The challenge lies in balancing the creation of personal opportunities with the commitment to a shared life.

Until next time, take care!