Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Women biologically predisposed to infidelity?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What are your thoughts on this? Please respond.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Evidence?
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb_keep_walking)
    What are your thoughts on this? Please respond.
    Response : Humans are biologically predisposed to infidelity.
    • 5 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis

    Someone has clearly been reading this.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    More sexism on TSR. Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb_keep_walking)
    What are your thoughts on this? Please respond.
    I'm from Essex, I'm sure you can guess my thoughts.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Hmm. If you say so.

    On a side note I read somewhere that the Multiple Orgasm could possibly have been natures way of encouraging Ape Orgies in order to safeguard a mother's young from attack by non-entangled males. Yay nature.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Some armchair evolutionary thoughts on the topic.
    This all assumes that our ancestors were:
    1. In need of two partners to raise young (likely, due to brain size)
    2. Mostly monogamous, so low paternity uncertainty (likely, due to body-size sexual dimorphism and lack of penile spines)

    Women might take the same strategy as blue tits. Blue tits have a faithful weedy mate, and then copulate with a strong mate who is not tied down. Weedy mate rears the strong mate's children, falsely thinking that they are his.

    Men, however, have a much greater biological incentive for infidelity. If they can be the one to mate with another female, they can have their kids (and their genes) raised by another man! Whereas a woman only has an incentive to do this per child, and would have only reared 2-4 children to adulthood, there's only so many times that this is useful. Additionally, this is only useful at certain times in the month, as she is not always fertile (she becomes more attracted to masculine men whilst fertile).
    The man, however, is always fertile, and will always benefit from extra-marital copulation.

    Finally, the man has real reason to leave a woman who has been unfaithful. He would not want to rear someone else's children. Birds will leave a female who is shown to be unfaithful before she has her eggs, but the male will stay with the unfaithful female when he has the chicks, as he would lose his investment, and has no evidence that she was unfaithful at the time she had these eggs. Assuming this should also apply to humans, the female therefore has a biological incentive to curtail extra-marital copulations.
    However, a female loses out if she leaves an unfaithful man, as the children would have required two partners, and there's no reason for a man to take on her kids. The man therefore does not have this instinct blocked as much.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss_Scarlett)
    Response : Humans are biologically predisposed to infidelity.
    Came here to say this.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Some armchair evolutionary thoughts on the topic.
    This all assumes that our ancestors were:
    1. In need of two partners to raise young (likely, due to brain size)
    2. Mostly monogamous, so low paternity uncertainty (likely, due to body-size sexual dimorphism and lack of penile spines)

    Women might take the same strategy as blue tits. Blue tits have a faithful weedy mate, and then copulate with a strong mate who is not tied down. Weedy mate rears the strong mate's children, falsely thinking that they are his.

    Men, however, have a much greater biological incentive for infidelity. If they can be the one to mate with another female, they can have their kids (and their genes) raised by another man! Whereas a woman only has an incentive to do this per child, and would have only reared 2-4 children to adulthood, there's only so many times that this is useful. Additionally, this is only useful at certain times in the month, as she is not always fertile (she becomes more attracted to masculine men whilst fertile).
    The man, however, is always fertile, and will always benefit from extra-marital copulation.

    Finally, the man has real reason to leave a woman who has been unfaithful. He would not want to rear someone else's children. Birds will leave a female who is shown to be unfaithful before she has her eggs, but the male will stay with the unfaithful female when he has the chicks, as he would lose his investment, and has no evidence that she was unfaithful at the time she had these eggs. Assuming this should also apply to humans, the female therefore has a biological incentive to curtail extra-marital copulations.
    However, a female loses out if she leaves an unfaithful man, as the children would have required two partners, and there's no reason for a man to take on her kids. The man therefore does not have this instinct blocked as much.
    Herp derp women lack all sentience and have the cranial function of a blue tit
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SquaredCircle)
    Herp derp women lack all sentience and have the cranial function of a blue tit
    Why are we alive? Because our parents had sex. Why did they have sex? A behavioural trait made them. Would the behaviours that make more grandchildren for an individual be carried on, and so become standard behaviours in a species? Why, yes, yes they would. Should this apply to humans? Well, why not.

    These traits affect blue tits, they affect chimpanzees, they affect men, and by golly, they also affect women.

    Derpers gonna derp.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I hate hate ****ing evo-psych. Especially arm chair evo psych. ****ing hell, **** lords use it to justify all sorts of douche baggery and misogyny without considering perhaps humans aren't primates bound to their instincts and do in fact have some sort of Ill defined free will. Humans have the ability to be moral people. To understand and develop empathy. So **** y'all and **** your evo pop psych bull ****
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Why are we alive? Because our parents had sex. Why did they have sex? A behavioural trait made them. Would the behaviours that make more grandchildren for an individual be carried on, and so become standard behaviours in a species? Why, yes, yes they would. Should this apply to humans? Well, why not.

    These traits affect blue tits, they affect chimpanzees, they affect men, and by golly, they also affect women.

    Derpers gonna derp.
    Couldn't rep twice in a minute, shame.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Why are we alive? Because our parents had sex. Why did they have sex? A behavioural trait made them. Would the behaviours that make more grandchildren for an individual be carried on, and so become standard behaviours in a species? Why, yes, yes they would. Should this apply to humans? Well, why not.

    These traits affect blue tits, they affect chimpanzees, they affect men, and by golly, they also affect women.

    Derpers gonna derp.
    Because human beings are capable of forming morals and ethics systems regardless of any obvious ingrained evolutionary trait.
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maerzin)
    Came here to say this.
    Great minds, great minds...lol.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SquaredCircle)
    I hate hate ****ing evo-psych. Especially arm chair evo psych. ****ing hell, **** lords use it to justify all sorts of douche baggery and misogyny without considering perhaps humans aren't primates bound to their instincts and do in fact have some sort of Ill defined free will. Humans have the ability to be moral people. To understand and develop empathy. So **** y'all and **** your evo pop psych bull ****
    I don't disagree that humans are capable of overcoming or not giving in to their base instincts. However, we are talking about being predisposed and not how we deal with that predisposition. Also, I think we greatly overestimate our level of "humanity" or rather detachment from base emotions and instinct.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nicatre)
    Couldn't rep twice in a minute, shame.
    Appreciated

    (Original post by SquaredCircle)
    Because human beings are capable of forming morals and ethics systems regardless of any obvious ingrained evolutionary trait.
    Many animals are altruistic. For example, they have tested primates, where a non-family member is shocked each time an individual takes food. Seeing the other primate in pain, many will refuse to eat and starve as they will not allow the unknown primate to be hurt for their benefit. Morals are not an argument against instinct. They are simply an additional and potentially opposing force.

    Sex is perhaps the most important thing to the survival of a species, so every strategy that works will be deeply embedded in our genetical make-up. There is no escaping it.
    If you want to deny it... Explain to me why the vast majority of humans are heterosexual? Why are homosexuals the exception to the norm? We have a moral system that now accepts their existence and understands that it is fine to be homosexual. This has allowed people to express their sexuality. Despite that, instinct still wins; the majority of humans are heterosexual.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Hmm. If you say so.

    On a side note I read somewhere that the Multiple Orgasm could possibly have been natures way of encouraging Ape Orgies in order to safeguard a mother's young from attack by non-entangled males. Yay nature.
    Wtf do you read?

    weirdo
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maerzin)
    I don't disagree that humans are capable of overcoming or not giving in to their base instincts. However, we are talking about being predisposed and not how we deal with that predisposition. Also, I think we greatly overestimate our level of "humanity" or rather detachment from base emotions and instinct.
    I think you'll find the current pop evolutionary Internet hero psychology bull**** on womens sexuality is that they are padlocks and useless if they open to more than one key, if we take this Internet misogynist evo psych hero fact, we can use it to undermine the current Internet hero misogynistic bull **** theory proposed by the OP.

    q e ****ing d

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 10, 2012
New on TSR

Get ready for SQA results day

Share your grade expectations for Tuesday 5 August

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.