Sexuality, Relationships, and Genetic Predisposition

[MrPartickler]

I found the following post from another forum I'm a somewhat inactive member of, buried within a thread about rich men and not-so-rich, attractive women. Now the quote's not exactly representative of my own thoughts on relationships, but honestly I go back and forth on this issue in my mind sometimes. So I decided to throw it to the TMF gang to debate.... 😀

Unfortunately, I think that normal male sexuality is bound to seem shallow to women. And from a woman's point of view, it IS shallow. But the evolved biology that compels people to have sex is not concerned with building relationships. Evolution is guided by success, and success in biological terms means that you have had children, i.e., perpetuated the species.

Since women must bear the children and nurture them, their chemistry has evolved in a way to make them want what maximizes the likelihood that their children will survive. That means finding a man who is well off financially and is commited enough to stick around and help with nurturing. But male chemistry sends an entirely different message to the brain. What it says is: impregnate as many females as possible, because then your DNA will have a greater chance of surviving. And this is practical for the male since he does not have to bear the child. He could potentially sire hundreds of children in the time a woman could give birth to only one.

I have given up hoping that women will ever understand this and show some sympathy and understanding. Men can overcome, but you have to realize that, unlike you, he has to exercise incredible discipline in order to remain loyal. And this is true even though he may love you very deeply.

What's your take on this?

 

[Azrael]

In theory, this all sounds quite logical; fundamentally, it may indeed be true. I find a couple of faults with it, however.

1. Human evolution has been dramatically impacted by innumerable societal ideals and technological advancements which compensate for what might otherwise be considered genetic flaws that continued evolution would eliminate. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, only that its impact on natural selection is undeniable.

2. Many men have been true with a lot less put into that, specifically and in a focused fashion, than a constant extreme effort of discipline. Love can conquer all... and there is ample evidence for the existence of some sort of spirituality, as well as aspects of the human brain which we cannot yet explain; there may be more to love than a simple chemical reaction, who's to say?

 

[Redmage]

It's basic sociobiology, and while there's something to it scientifically it's meaningless as an excuse for infidelity. There are all sorts of evolved tendencies that humans have to master or modify in order to live in civilized society. In fact you could argue that civilization is not much more than a set of mechanisms for controlling our inner animals. So I don't buy this "enormous effort" line. It's no greater than any other effort he's expected to make in the daily struggle against the beast.

 

[Helena]

I found the following post from another forum I'm a somewhat inactive member of, buried within a thread about rich men and not-so-rich, attractive women. Now the quote's not exactly representative of my own thoughts on relationships, but honestly I go back and forth on this issue in my mind sometimes. So I decided to throw it to the TMF gang to debate.... 😀

Quote:
Unfortunately, I think that normal male sexuality is bound to seem shallow to women. And from a woman's point of view, it IS shallow. But the evolved biology that compels people to have sex is not concerned with building relationships. Evolution is guided by success, and success in biological terms means that you have had children, i.e., perpetuated the species.

Since women must bear the children and nurture them, their chemistry has evolved in a way to make them want what maximizes the likelihood that their children will survive. That means finding a man who is well off financially and is commited enough to stick around and help with nurturing. But male chemistry sends an entirely different message to the brain. What it says is: impregnate as many females as possible, because then your DNA will have a greater chance of surviving. And this is practical for the male since he does not have to bear the child. He could potentially sire hundreds of children in the time a woman could give birth to only one.

I have given up hoping that women will ever understand this and show some sympathy and understanding. Men can overcome, but you have to realize that, unlike you, he has to exercise incredible discipline in order to remain loyal. And this is true even though he may love you very deeply.
What's your take on this?

Hello MrPartickler,
It seems like this quote was from a larger topic somewhere. I'm not sure how the "rich" man, and the not so well-off attractive woman plays into this statement. But, since you threw this randomly to the gang, I'll give my answer.

Scientifically, I don't think it's possible for a man that only wishes to plant his seed, and then move on, to sire 200 children in the time it takes for a woman to have one child. My reason for this thinking is that most women don't want to be a one night stand. However, if you break through that barrier, and they are willing to have sex, condoms and birth control pills will almost always come into the mix. This variable cuts the chances of conceiving down.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am assuming that the rich man in question does not want to 'build a relationship" of any kind with the woman. This attitude makes the seed spreader a pompous ass, and will halt sexual relations, since the male views his conquest as a sperm recepticle. In other words, it puts the fizzle in the sizzle.

I'm sure that a man that hides his true intentions, until after coitus is complete, may wind up creating children. There are plenty of examples all over the place where this has happened. But, why not just wear a condom if
he wants tons of sexual partners? Some people just shouldn't reproduce.

 

[Rory]

I think it's a gussied up excuse for guys to fuck around.

 

[Haltickling]

I agree that evolution planted the sex drive into us for procreation. A species without functioning sex drive will die out. And the fun that goes along with the sex drive is the key motor for that drive, and it's not restricted to the males.

We all know that there are enough ways to enjoy our sex drive without procreation. Only since the pill was invented, women can participate in that joy without lasting consequences, too. That certainly explains that not only men cheat their partners.

However, nature as well as society have installed two important counterweights to prevent us from just giving in to our bodily drive. One is called love, and with it comes commitment to a relationship. The other balance enforcer is procreation itself: If a couple has kids, but the father can "fuck around" unrestrained, he might lose interest in the relationship to his family. This can (and in many cases does) affect the kids' upbringing negatively, which is in turn negative in an evolutionary sense.

Thus, the female drive to protect her family includes insisting on her man curbing his drive to "spread his DNA as much as possible."

This ignores, however, broken relationships, overwhelming temptations (for both genders), and other (mostly psychological) obstacles for a healthy relationship. In fact, it's always the individual who commits adultery, not the gender as a whole. And the individual reasons can be manifold.

 

[Saeria]

I have considered this for a little while now simply because if it were true that men are simply built to be promiscuous then that would make myself contradictory to the norm. This statement may well be true but it isn't necessarily gender specific. If i may be allowed to use myself as an example (as i often do, i'm such a narcissist)The relationship i had with my husband evolved into something that driven towards mutual companionship and raising our daughter (or at least it was for me). My husband had absolutely no desire to have any kind of sexual relations, talk about it, anything of that nature. Now whether this was a result of our relationship shifting into family mode or simply because he didn't see me that way anymore is beyond me. Me, on the other hand, began craving extramarital affairs shortly after. For years I was able to keep it on the back burner then last year i kinda lost my resolve. After it was all over and done with i felt little guilt about it. I still loved my husband deeply and without question yet something compelled me to occasionally seek out the comfort of someone else temporarily, without any emotional attachment.
I guess the point i'm trying to make is that while it is argued that men are genetically predisposed to seek out multiple partners, i think perhaps under certain circumstances women too will do the same. So we're no angels

 

[Headsnap]

It's basic sociobiology, and while there's something to it scientifically it's meaningless as an excuse for infidelity. There are all sorts of evolved tendencies that humans have to master or modify in order to live in civilized society. In fact you could argue that civilization is not much more than a set of mechanisms for controlling our inner animals. So I don't buy this "enormous effort" line. It's no greater than any other effort he's expected to make in the daily struggle against the beast.

IAWTC. You could use the biological hardwiring argument to justify all sorts of shite, such as kicking a Jehovah's Witness to death for infringing territorial boundaries or shitting in the street whilst drunk.

If he'd said "men cheat because women are boring and prudish" I might have had more sympathy.

 

[lk70]

I honestly don't think either men OR women are biologically hard wired for fidelity. Some individuals of both genders seem to be, but I think most would roam if it were better accepted.

 

[MrPartickler]

Interesting points made by all. Thanks. I wanted to see where this would go before chiming in, but I'll add a few thoughts now...

This really wasn't intended to be a justification or rationalization for infidelity. Rather it was supposed to compare the relative motivations or "drives" between men and women. Similarly, if the assertion was that men have evolved to be more physically aggressive than women, even if true, it certainly wouldn't be a justification to go around starting fistfights. lol

The original idea was: women, in general, tend to seek more for a good provider over the long term--hence the quote's origins within a "Rich men get hotties" thread (lol)--while men tend to be content with shorter-term, more instant gratification with a variety of women. The author of the quote, unfortunately, added a part about requiring "incredible discipline" for men to remain loyal. However, it wasn't meant to justify someone being unfaithful, but rather to explain why (perhaps) men might always find doing so more difficult than many women do.

Again, everything is stated as broad generalization so lone, specific cases can't really be called to bear. And, of course, no one knows how much, if any, of this is really true. It's just interesting to think about. 🙂

 

[LindyHopper]

It was fine until the third paragraph. That men and women have different incentives with regard to mate selection makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint. That men value youth, good looks, and chastity more than women do, and that women value ambition and industriousness more than men do, has been found consistently in many different cultures all over the globe.

The abuse of evolutionary psychology lies in using it's theories to justify current behaviors. Rape, murder, infanticide, theft, and many other crimes have been justified, by some, as legacies of a primitive urge to survive. But if modern human beings can invent airplanes and SCUBA equipment, eat a low-fat diet, and work 40 hours a week at a desk, then surely they can stay fight those other, more glamorous evolutionary urges. 😛

 

[asutickler]

If you're not really capable of fidelity, then don't commit to a relationship. If you're in a relationship, and yet you feel an overwhelming desire to go and sleep with someone else, then do it - Just have the courtesy/balls (or the female version thereof) to break up with your current partner FIRST. I don't know why people have to go and make all of this junk so complicated...