The desire isn't conscious. Following it through is. Keeping it a secret from your partner most certainly is. We all have lots of instinctive desires but that's no excuse for willingly submitting to them all.
Absolute rubbish! "Forced sex" has a perfectly good term of "rape", which has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. There is absolutely no reason to redefine the term "cheating" unless you're trying to distract from that it currently means in this context.
I think you overestimate the idea of choice. We "choose" to have sex just as we "choose" to eat. Contrary to popular opinion, there is not much difference between the two.
My point about reclassifying "cheating" as rape within a relationship is to highlight the sordid reality that while consensual sex outside relationships is generally condemned, non-consensual sex inside relationships is largely overlooked (and sometimes outright condoned). IMO, rape is a far, far worse act than "cheating" could possibly ever be.
It's not about culture winning out over biology. It's more like biology fighting biology. In a very real sense, the fact that we have culture is a result of our biology. We are organisms which survive much better when we are in groups than we do when we are solitary. And part of what comes with culture are generally agreed upon rules for social interaction.
Now, I do think the edict against having more than one sexual partner to be arbitrary (though I'm sure there are or at least were rational reasons to support it.) But the way to go about changing it isn't to be sneaking around and hurting the people you love (or who love you). It's by having open and honest conversations about it, and trying to change the way people view it.
And lastly, just because we have a natural instinct or inclination towards something does not mean that we are bound by that instinct. And just because an instinct is natural, it also doesn't mean it's for the best. I would say our instinct for war is quite strong. Does that mean we should give in to that instinct? Does that mean we are not to be held accountable for waging wars? Hardly.
Hmm! "Biology fighting biology," yes, that can and does happen. It's like parents who attempt to control their teenagers' sexual behavior: To an extent they are merely following their instincts to protect their young, but ironically they are denying them the opportunity to act on their respective instincts.
Now you can't just claim that since one instinct is bad--the drive to fight "other" groups--that any other behavioral instinct is automatically bad. That conclusion simply does not follow. Evolution gave us instincts for a reason. Instead, to assess whether any given instinct is good, bad, or neutral must be done on a case-by-case basis. Here, I believe that the desire to destroy "other" groups is generally bad, but the desire to sleep around? Get back to me on that one.
This seems to be a common answer, but wouldn't the better option be to discuss with the partner the fact that you're not sexually satisfied to the point where you feel like you need to sleep with someone else?
Well sure, that should be the first step. But what if it doesn't work? What if someone needs a different person, or people, to be sexually satisfied, and his or her partner would not let that happen? Is breaking up and forming a new relationship the answer? Perhaps, but this raises another question: Could not serial monogamy be considered a form of sleeping around? Not taking into account the social implications, but strictly from a biological sense, what difference is there between cheating and serial monogamy?
