Good article in Slate about women cheating

[MatureDJ]

http://www.slate.com/id/2184363?wpisrc=newsletter

It sounds like Rollo Tomassi could have written this.

Humans aren't especially good at monogamy. Evidence gathered from surveys and paternity tests suggests that 25 percent of women and 30 percent of men cheat on their spouses at least once during marriage. The evolutionary reason that men cheat is pretty simple: to father as many children as they can. It's more complicated for women, who can only give birth so many times. The quality of the child, then, wins over quantity. Because men with the best genes aren't always the most stable and resourceful partners (they don't have to be), women might marry the latter but cheat with the former. Then they can become pregnant with a genetically superior child who will, if her mother can pull it off, grow up with the help of her unwitting spouse.

 

[bigjohnson]

The issue I always have with this sort of write up is the statement "...men with the best genes aren't always the most stable and resourceful partners ..." which seems to indicate the author has some magic metric for establishing "superior" genes. I'd like to know what he thinks he'd measure for that determination and why it's appropriate.

It's like people (such as myself) that imagine our perfect vision makes us genetically better. Says who? Nature doesn't seem to be selecting for that so much any more now does she? If anything the 'best genes' from a proliferation standpoint seem to be owned by welfare moms with 7 kids and a crack habit.

 

[mzilla2]

Interesting read, thanks!

 

[Colossus]

Humans aren't especially good at monogamy. Evidence gathered from surveys and paternity tests suggests that 25 percent of women and 30 percent of men cheat on their spouses at least once during marriage. The evolutionary reason that men cheat is pretty simple: to father as many children as they can. It's more complicated for women, who can only give birth so many times. The quality of the child, then, wins over quantity. Because men with the best genes aren't always the most stable and resourceful partners (they don't have to be), women might marry the latter but cheat with the former. Then they can become pregnant with a genetically superior child who will, if her mother can pull it off, grow up with the help of her unwitting spouse.

BULL SH!T. I am calling utter b.s. on this biological cop-out crap. I dont buy it. Biology can be used to explain behavior to a degree. But we are not animals. Contrary to this growing opinion, I believe humans are designed, if you will, for monogamy. I dont necessarily mean like swans who mate with one partner for life, but stable people naturally gravitate towards monogamous relationships.

This whole "father as many children as possible" argument has the cognitive depth of a high school science project. Stop comparing people to animals, for God's sake. I dont care if we are 97% genetically similar to an ape. Think of that 3% like 3 degrees difference in turing the rudder on a ship. In the short term, it doesnt look like much of a difference. But over time, 3% can mean hundreds, if not thousands of miles difference in the course of the ship.

I just think that people use this biology cop-out as a convienient explantion for lack of self control and essentially doing whatever-the-fvck you please without being accountable for it. You, mr. or mrs. cheater, are not an ape. Dont use evolutionary theory to paint over your dishonorable behavior.

 

[Mr.Positive]

BULL SH!T. I am calling utter b.s. on this biological cop-out crap. I dont buy it.

Colossus, good post.

Since only 25-30% cheat in mariage, that would mean 70-75% do not cheat and are, in fact, monogamous.

It would appear that perhaps we are monogamous creatures after all, like swans and foxes.

 

[azanon]

It's like people (such as myself) that imagine our perfect vision makes us genetically better.

Perfect vision? Our vision is not perfect. 20/20 just means that you have average vision for a human. Hawks can see much further than we can and are also far more adept at identifying movement at a distance. "Perfect" vision would mean being able to see a limitless distance (in a vacuum).

Maybe I misunderstood you?

BULL SH!T. I am calling utter b.s. on this biological cop-out crap. I dont buy it. Biology can be used to explain behavior to a degree. But we are not animals. Contrary to this growing opinion, I believe humans are designed, if you will, for monogamy.

Do you mean figuratively; we're not animals? I assure you, literally, we are most definitely animals. We are in Kingdom Animalia.

I dont necessarily mean like swans who mate with one partner for life, but stable people naturally gravitate towards monogamous relationships.

Humans are way too intelligent to be put in definiate categories, such as being monogamous. Not just intelligent, but we have the mental ability and capacity for free will and decision. If I choose to mate with more than one female, I assure you my actions prove I'm not monogamous. These terms are determined by observing behaviors. Your opinion on this must become null and void when one's actions prove otherwise.

In short, the answer to the question "Are humans monagomous or polygamous?" is simply, yes.

This whole "father as many children as possible" argument has the cognitive depth of a high school science project. Stop comparing people to animals, for God's sake. I dont care if we are 97% genetically similar to an ape. Think of that 3% like 3 degrees difference in turing the rudder on a ship. In the short term, it doesnt look like much of a difference. But over time, 3% can mean hundreds, if not thousands of miles difference in the course of the ship.

I just think that people use this biology cop-out as a convienient explantion for lack of self control and essentially doing whatever-the-fvck you please without being accountable for it. You, mr. or mrs. cheater, are not an ape. Dont use evolutionary theory to paint over your dishonorable behavior.

There are no moral absolutes beyond those defined arbitrarily by a given society. One can debate even the most atrocious of atrocities, though certainly for certain acts, the majority opinion will be very strong on some issues (such as unlawful, and unwarranted killing of another human being). But that's all it'd ever be; a majority opinion.

 

[bigjohnson]

Perfect vision? Our vision is not perfect. 20/20 just means that you have average vision for a human. Hawks can see much further than we can and are also far more adept at identifying movement at a distance. "Perfect" vision would mean being able to see a limitless distance (in a vacuum).

First, perfect vision does not mean you can see a limitless distance. Perfect means "without defect", "satisfying all requirements", "corresponding to an ideal standard". My vision at 20/15 is easily describable as perfect for standards of human vision. If you're going to be pedantic please be better at it.

Second due to the wave nature of light and the drop-off in intensity over distance, no aperture that can fit into a skull would ever be able to resolve as you describe. The inherent diffraction limits are just too low and the photons collected would be too sparse.

Finally 20/20 isn't average it is an arbitrarily determined value (Dr Snellen, 1862) that is widely recognized as "good enough". Average for adults is generally a little better than 20/20 according to the few sources I could find.

None of this has anything to do with the original post, you're wandering off on some random tangent here.

 

[Phyzzle]

I just think that people use this biology cop-out as a convienient explantion for lack of self control and essentially doing whatever-the-fvck you please without being accountable for it. Dont use evolutionary theory to paint over your dishonorable behavior.

Excellent point. And, articles like this aren't as logical as they sound:

If this cheating "pays off" in children who are more likely to survive and reproduce, the predilection to cheat will become an evolutionally advantageous trait—and the net result, over many generations, will be women who cheat.

Frankly, it just couldn't pay off enough. Monogamous non-cheating homonid females are hardly in grave danger in the wild. I mean, near-sightedness is far more likely to lead to difficulties in survival, and yet one fifth of women (and men) are near-sighted. If evolution is so efficient, why are there still so many near-sighted people?

 

[Mr.Positive]

Frankly, it just couldn't pay off enough. Monogamous non-cheating homonid females are hardly in grave danger in the wild. I mean, near-sightedness is far more likely to lead to difficulties in survival, and yet one fifth of women (and men) are near-sighted. If evolution is so efficient, why are there still so many near-sighted people?

I've wondered this same thing. Genetically speaking we seem to be getting worse as a species actually, with the increase in mental disorders and obesity rates too. People, in general, just seem to be less healthy than we should be.

Blaming lifestyle and diet is one thing, but genetics plays another big part too.

 

[ketostix]

Yeah I think humans have certain characteristics or human nature that contains good and bad aspects, but not everything people do is tied to genetics. For example sex drive is natural, but does that mean everything you do sexually has a good genetic reason and goal? Just like appetite for food is a natural genetic drive but does that mean everything I choose to eat and how much has a useful genetic purpose and cause lol.

I agree with Mr. Positive that people seem more unhealthy even genetically. I think one reason is women have more power in choosing who they mate with, and they are actually poor at choosing the guy with the best genes.

 

[bigjohnson]

... they are actually poor at choosing the guy with the best genes.

Now that makes some sense AND it's precisely the opposite of what the learned article says. Are you right? Who knows, but as far as I'm concerned that article is a complete work of fiction outside the study itself, and even studies are often flawed or intentionally biased.

On the original point of who decides ... how do you measure 'good genes'?

I have to admit that while I could throw out a few ideas I have nothing outside intuition to base it on.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Since only 25-30% cheat in mariage, that would mean 70-75% do not cheat and are, in fact, monogamous.

If a man marries a single mother of 3 children by 2 different fathers and shares the parental investment for progeny that aren't his does this count as monogamy or her "cheating"?

Biology can be used to explain behavior to a degree. But we are not animals. Contrary to this growing opinion, I believe humans are designed, if you will, for monogamy. I dont necessarily mean like swans who mate with one partner for life, but stable people naturally gravitate towards monogamous relationships.

Dont use evolutionary theory to paint over your dishonorable behavior.

Heheh,..the more you throw rocks at the full moon to make it go away the bigger and brighter it shines.

All kidding aside though, I realize that there is a definite faction of SoSuave moralist members here who see our Selfish Gene as some kind of biological flaw that presents a moral challenge to rise above. As self-righteously satisfying as it would be to join all that I can't. Not because I'm valueless or unethical or I don't think in absolute terms by nature, but because I can accept my own flawed human-ness. And I'm not implying that anyone else here can't see this, but I think what offends the SS moralists is this idea that biology forgives behavior. As if a man or woman should be excused from the consequences of their actions - this is what pisses off the moralists - that a cheater should get away with their crimes because, biologically, they're blameless.

Let me emphatically say right now, they're NOT. There are and should be consequences for indiscretions as well as appreciation and reward (reinforcement) for virtues. But all this doesn't negate any of the root, biological, evolutionary motivators that prompt the behavior. In fact all the moral absolutes that would make us love to cast the first stone are EXACTLY the results of our own biological propensities. It's not an excuse for anti-social behaviors - it is the motivator for them.

 

[mrRuckus]

Deerrr, i'd consider cheating because my girlfriend is being a b1tch and not fvcking me like crazy anymore.

Respect me, strive to stay fun, and sex me a lot and i won't consider cheating. Yeah.. spread my genes... that's no where near why.

 

[bigjohnson]

I have to say I think Rollo is as close to right as anyone on this. The same factors that prompt cheating also prompt the instinct to try to attain a stable pair bond. Both are behaviors that in specific situations are best bets biologically speaking to ensure that offspring survive long enough to breed and keep alive offspring of their own.

Women branch swing, men look for a new mate once the old one becomes infertile, all natural instincts.


But then again I just write software, what do I know?

 

[Mr.Positive]

If a man marries a single mother of 3 children by 2 different fathers and shares the parental investment for progeny that aren't his does this count as monogamy or her "cheating"?

Rollo, I do see your point...even though she may fall under monogamy in marriage, she biologically 'cheated' the system so to speak.

However, biology doesn't always forgive behavior. If a man and woman are in a monogamous marriage, and say the wife cheats do to her biological imperative to get the 'best genes'...

Say she brings home hepatitis B, or AIDS, to her husband from her fling on the side. Does biology forgive that? The monogamous husband pays a biological price for her behavior, ie a shorter life span because of disease.

 

[ketostix]

If a man marries a single mother of 3 children by 2 different fathers and shares the parental investment for progeny that aren't his does this count as monogamy or her "cheating"?



Heheh,..the more you throw rocks at the full moon to make it go away the bigger and brighter it shines.

All kidding aside though, I realize that there is a definite faction of SoSuave moralist members here who see our Selfish Gene as some kind of biological flaw that presents a moral challenge to rise above. As self-righteously satisfying as it would be to join all that I can't. Not because I'm valueless or unethical or I don't think in absolute terms by nature, but because I can accept my own flawed human-ness. And I'm not implying that anyone else here can't see this, but I think what offends the SS moralists is this idea that biology forgives behavior. As if a man or woman should be excused from the consequences of their actions - this is what pisses off the moralists - that a cheater should get away with their crimes because, biologically, they're blameless.

Let me emphatically say right now, they're NOT. There are and should be consequences for indiscretions as well as appreciation and reward (reinforcement) for virtues. But all this doesn't negate any of the root, biological, evolutionary motivators that prompt the behavior. In fact all the moral absolutes that would make us love to cast the first stone are EXACTLY the results of our own biological propensities. It's not an excuse for anti-social behaviors - it is the motivator for them.

That's a good point Rollo. But what I think some people are saying, or at least I am, is that humans have more distinct personalities than (all) other lower order mammals. And the key thing, freewill and the ability to reason. These all things that animals don't have. And for these reasons, for better or worse (people can and do behave even worse than animals do at times), people are not as much a slave to biology as some so-called scientist propose.

But like I was saying, I believe there's human nature and people are strongly influenced by it, but what they ultimately end up doing is affected by reasoning. Anyway, I still doubt women pick the guy with the best genes.

 

[joekerr31]

Let me emphatically say right now, they're NOT. There are and should be consequences for indiscretions as well as appreciation and reward (reinforcement) for virtues. But all this doesn't negate any of the root, biological, evolutionary motivators that prompt the behavior. In fact all the moral absolutes that would make us love to cast the first stone are EXACTLY the results of our own biological propensities. It's not an excuse for anti-social behaviors - it is the motivator for them.

personally i think most peopel cheat for psychological reasons, not biological reasons. a p*ssy is a p*ssy.

obviously if you found a woman that floats your boat enough to be in a LTR / committed relationship, then it makes no sense to risk that p*ssy for another one.

but in relationship people often bicker and berate each other. its very common. as such people end up feeling unappreciated. and sometimes routine simply makes life boring and they long for that thrill they had when they first met.

either way, often cheating is about ego. 'yes, that hot chic gave it up. i still go it. she thinks im da man.'

more over, i do think our cognitive faculties are stronger than our sexual urges. but that's actually the problem - because its our cognitive faculties (ie. ego) that creates this overwhelming urge to conquor some hot chic by banging her and at the same time enjoy the positive validation it brings to the ego.

but this is also why moralism can be applied to human sexual behavior. because we all know that its not THAT hard to control your d*ck, and that the decision to cheat is not some overwhelming biological urge that takes over us, but rather is a psychological urge and as such is intricately tied to choice. in addition, it entails the cognitive decision to lie (hence why we use the term 'cheat').

lots of people cheat, because lots of people aren't happy in their relationships. THAT is the main reason. spreading the seed has very little to do with it in my opinion.

if the urge to spread ones seed were so great, then 99% of guys would cheat.

 

[guru1000]

All kidding aside though, I realize that there is a definite faction of SoSuave moralist members here who see our Selfish Gene as some kind of biological flaw that presents a moral challenge to rise above. As self-righteously satisfying as it would be to join all that I can't. Not because I'm valueless or unethical or I don't think in absolute terms by nature, but because I can accept my own flawed human-ness. And I'm not implying that anyone else here can't see this, but I think what offends the SS moralists is this idea that biology forgives behavior. As if a man or woman should be excused from the consequences of their actions - this is what pisses off the moralists - that a cheater should get away with their crimes because, biologically, they're blameless.

Let me emphatically say right now, they're NOT. There are and should be consequences for indiscretions as well as appreciation and reward (reinforcement) for virtues. But all this doesn't negate any of the root, biological, evolutionary motivators that prompt the behavior. In fact all the moral absolutes that would make us love to cast the first stone are EXACTLY the results of our own biological propensities. It's not an excuse for anti-social behaviors - it is the motivator for them.

CHOOSING to act instinctually may be a poor choice in self-interest, not so much in morality. At the end of the day if we choose to cheat on our wife to appease our biology, there may be unfavorable consequences.

This is the power of CHOICE. We weigh our options on a pain/pleasure scale with short term/long term evaluation and make a decision.

Biology will motivate us. Ultimately we make a calculated decision generally in self-interest.

 

[bigjohnson]

Say she brings home hepatitis B, or AIDS, to her husband from her fling on the side. Does biology forgive that? The monogamous husband pays a biological price for her behavior, ie a shorter life span because of disease.

I can see a few interesting things about this. For one, how much does biology really care if we survive after we've reared our children? Where is the genetic payback to living past 50?

How about this one. How much value is there in a woman staying safely faithful and not risking family upheaval during the child raising years? what is the payback for similar behavior in men? Isn't there also a big payoff statistically (which is what this amounts to) for not taking the risk? How can she know who has "better" genes anyway? Or is there some small advantage to diversity in genetics in offspring that partially counters the advantage of stable home-life?


It's all pretty damn complex to me.

 

[Mr.Positive]

I can see a few interesting things about this. For one, how much does biology really care if we survive after we've reared our children? Where is the genetic payback to living past 50?

Good point, however disease can affect biology if it's acquired during our reproductive years. It can limit reproduction, or pass the disease on to the offspring.

I guess on a purely biological level, all we really need to do is reproduce and die. It's not too much to ask for a bit more out of life isn't it? That's where morality, and reason, come into the picture.