the significance of others

back when every home owned a buggy whip and the ringlets under women's bonnets were as impenetrable as their corsets, very few went very far. travel was arduous, dirty, and could be dangerous. transatlantic voyages were wildly expensive. those with "derring-do-dna" (another post...) may have followed greeley's wild advice to "go west", but battlefields and klondike gold notwithstanding, few went further than the county line.

most people were born, raised, married and died within the circumference of a few yards. aunts, uncles, cousins and neighbors were coming and going, bringing pies and gossip. "he helps those who helps themselves, " raised many a barn.

as an only child, i remember reading histories of that agrarian lifestyle and wanting to scream with claustrophobia. seemingly noone ever had a moment to themselves. later i realized that thoughtful solitude likely was a very foreign concept to those always industrious idle-hands-are-the-devil's-workshop lutherans.

heading in-town to the more "urban" centers like chicago and boston, horse carriage and perambulation remained the mode of transport. so manure and mud prevailed as limitations to travel. and still, most lived within easy strolling distance of family, if not in the same brownstone.

so by long way of much wind, i've always wondered how, or if, this close proximity of so much family moderated *indecent* behavior. dalliances and illegitimate offspring have been around since the concept of monogamy began with its judeo-christian judgement on cohabitation. some men and women seem almost pathologically driven to seek sex outside the box, if you'll pardon the pun. although william the candlestick-maker never got much ink, people like hamilton (who nearly ruined his career over his affair with the sister of his wife) fdr, and his infidelity with his personal secretary (eleanor actually hired her, but upon the discovery, went anorexic and lost many of her teeth) to the mitfords, to the tired cliches of the kennedys and bill clinton, there is a decided category of cake-eaters.

i'm descended from a long line of promiscuous players, both male and female, so have what at worst might be considered a deviant morality, while at best perhaps viewed as a more "old world", ahem, take on the whole thing.

nature or nurture? clearly, there are those who believe in monogamy, and feel more comfortable within those bounds. but for others, is it the concern of what others might think that make many remain faithful? the bitter thought of a biddy spilling the beans? or are some of us just wired to seek what we want, driven under the conviction we won't get caught ?

no statistics will convince me infidelity is anymore prevalent today than 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago. it's a truth that people lie on those surveys anyway.

are cake-eaters a different gene pool? or just selfish hedonists?