Could cheating be an evolutionary thing?

[Trialbyfire]

Monogamy is a social construct. It's the way to ensure that humans living in close proximity, particularly aggressive males, don't run around either killing or maiming each other, to gain the largest herd of females.

 

If you look to the social structure of our closest relatives, the apes, there is one dominant alpha male, a few younger beta males and a pack of females, with one dominant alpha female.

 

They are also territorial, in that if another pack/herd of apes invades their territory, there can be death, although most often, it's aggressive posturing which leads to one pack backing down. When the beta males gain in size and aggression, they challenge the alpha male and one wins, with the other either chased off or killed.

 

I doubt humans could exist in this type of environment, considering our population and the centralized mentality of cities...

[OWoman]

Not much new in the article with one exception: low ranking female chimps keep quiet while having sex with the alpha male chimps so as not to invite aggression from other females:

 

"Low-ranking females were also more likely to keep quiet during sex, probably to keep female competitors at bay, the researchers said."We think that by being quiet, you are less likely to incite aggression from other females... ."

 

Kind of like aggressive Other Women trumpeting their affairs on infidelity threads...

 

Except rank is a social construct, so what the quote suggests is that those females not socially sanctioned to be having sex with those males (ie, "OWs") are more likely to be having sex away from the public gaze for fear of reprisals and aggression from the socially sanctioned females (ie "BWs").

 

Which kind of fits with many, if not most, stories here - OW As with MM mostly kept hidden, away from the gaze of BW.

 

Guess it's not that different from life in the jungle...

[grogster]

Except rank is a social construct, so what the quote suggests is that those females not socially sanctioned to be having sex with those males (ie, "OWs") are more likely to be having sex away from the public gaze for fear of reprisals and aggression from the socially sanctioned females (ie "BWs").

 

Which kind of fits with many, if not most, stories here - OW As with MM mostly kept hidden, away from the gaze of BW.

 

Guess it's not that different from life in the jungle...

 

Well put, OW. That's the analogy I was struggling to express.

[Owl]

Yes, promiscuity is encoded in our genes but society seeks to destroy what is natural and impose its own constructed system of moral values. Which way one chooses to go depends on the extent to which one has resisted or accepted societal pressure to abide by what is wrong or right. That being said, I strongly believe that everyone has the potential to cheat, even the most rigidly inculcated.

 

Well, following this same line of thinking, I have to ask...just because promiscuity is programmed into our genes, does that mean we should condone behaving in that fashion?

 

By the same token, pedophilia is also in our genes (the desire to mate with a newly fertile female before any other male can do so). So would any form of robbery (take what's wanted/needed without regard to the impact to others...what matters is what I want/need).

 

SOCIETY is the result of an effort to mitigate our INDIVIDUAL motivations and focus on GROUP motivations.

 

Technically, SOCIETY is the result of our evolution as well. We survive ONLY because of our social and analytical natures. Otherwise, we're poorly developed animals. Physically weak and ineffective, no innate defenses or offensive skills...so societal behavior is a direct result of those same "genes" that also led us to that "spread the genes" mindset too.

 

Which do we choose to follow? The "what's in it for me" vs. the "what's in it for us"?

 

That's the REAL bottom line.

[Lookingforward]

Except rank is a social construct, so what the quote suggests is that those females not socially sanctioned to be having sex with those males (ie, "OWs") are more likely to be having sex away from the public gaze for fear of reprisals and aggression from the socially sanctioned females (ie "BWs").

 

Which kind of fits with many, if not most, stories here - OW As with MM mostly kept hidden, away from the gaze of BW.

 

Guess it's not that different from life in the jungle...

 

got it in one, OW, and now we will hear from the "outraged" defenders of the "socially sanctioned" sector

[marlena]

Well, following this same line of thinking, I have to ask...just because promiscuity is programmed into our genes, does that mean we should condone behaving in that fashion?

 

 

It is up to the individual. Some may condone, others may not, still others may have a neutral stance.

 

 

By the same token, pedophilia is also in our genes (the desire to mate with a newly fertile female before any other male can do so).

 

I don't know if this is a natural impulse or not. In any case, pedophilia and wanting to mate with a virgin are two different things.

 

We survive ONLY because of our social and analytical natures.

 

No, not necessarily. It may be easier to survive in numbers, collectively, but animals survive in even harsher circumstances without possessing an intellect capable of analysis. It's called the instinct of self- preservation.

 

 

so societal behavior is a direct result of those same "genes" that also led us to that "spread the genes" mindset too.

 

Yes, this is true. There can be no doubt that man is essentially a social animal. The need to congregate in numbers is as primitive as man himself. However, I do not think that this is encoded, biologically speaking, in his genes. Rather, man very early on figured out the practical (food,shelter,safety) advantages of living together as a group.

 

Which do we choose to follow? The "what's in it for me" vs. the "what's in it for us"?

 

This is an oversimplication. Man is not his own enemy nor is he the enemy of others. Most people reach a balance between these two polar ends through exercising their free will as well as their brain capacity to evaluate and either accept or reject societal values. when it comes to morality, religion has a powerful hand and that's when things get even more complicated.

[Trialbyfire]

I wonder how condoning everyone would be, if everyone, BWs and BHs inclusive, just took what they wanted.

[blind_otter]

Yes, this is true. There can be no doubt that man is essentially a social animal. The need to congregate in numbers is as primitive as man himself. However, I do not think that this is encoded, biologically speaking, in his genes. Rather, man very early on figured out the practical (food,shelter,safety) advantages of living together as a group.

 

I don't know that it's an intellectual/practical thing over an instinctual urge to congregate in groups for humans. I mean, all of our closest living relatives exist in social groups (primates) - and I'm pretty sure it's not because they thought about it a while and decided they would be at an advantage if they hung out in a social group.

 

It's interesting to note that all species that form pair bonds react with censure to promiscuity. Even dung beetles. Scientists did a study where they tethered the female of the pair bond to one place, leaving the male free to solicit other females to reproduce with. Once she was released from her tether, the primary female of the pair bond would rush over to the male and push him over onto his back so he couldn't move around!

[smartgirl]

I'm conflicted when I think about this subject sometimes.

 

On the one hand, I believe that it's human nature to want to stray, not because we get some sick satisfaction out of wanting to inflict injury upon on our mate, but because we, for whatever reason, just aren't feeling the desire to stay involved with the same person sexually. In some cases, it's deeper than that, and it's a genuine dislike for the partner, but not always.

 

On the other hand, though, there are a lot of couples who stay wedded for 50 years or more. I have to admit that it's a sight to see when you see couples who've bonded together exclusively for that long. There's obviously something healthy there. It's just that over the course of my life, that has been the exception, not the rule. Is it because we've lost our discipline as a society? Do we need to be brainwashed into accepting monogamy as the only choice?

 

I really wish I had a good answer to this. Intellectually I do believe that monogamy is not a natural state for humans. At least not forever monogamy. Monogamy until the kids reach a certain age many people seem able and willing to handle.

 

That is not to say we are programmed to cheat. To me that is something different. We may be programmed to desire multiple partners, but if you have made a comittment to a person for a lifetime you should at least have enough respect for them to be honest if you feel you no longer love them or want to remain married.

 

I think part of us desires monogamy. We like the idea of it and when we are in love, we want to be with that person always. We want to believe it is possible and that it will work for us no matter how many failed marriages we see around us. But making that work requires relationship work and sometimes some sacrifices of our personal wants. You know that in theory going into marriage. People aren't always willing to pony up though when he time comes.

 

The law of averages dictates that some relationships cannot remain healthy for a lifetime. I do not believe in monogamy at any cost and I think that is the real issue that generates more heated discussion. Many of us are told in our upbringing that you are a bad person if you don't stay married and that really messes with people's heads. It is not more honorable to stay married, but cheat. That is where the spiritual and moral aspects of our societies should be guiding us to 1) work on our marriages first if there are problems but 2) to separate civily if the problems can't be worked out. The problem there for a lot of people is that financially in this day and age, moving from mate to mate can get damned expensive!

[OWoman]

By the same token, pedophilia is also in our genes (the desire to mate with a newly fertile female before any other male can do so).

 

That is not paedophilia. Paedophilia is explicitly sexual desire for a pre-pubescent child (of whichever gender).

 

The acting on desire for a newly fertile female may well be statutory rape, depending on the prevailing law and the age of the newly fertile female, but by virtue of her having reached puberty, it's no longer paedophilia.

[twice_shy]

Of course it's an evolutionary thing, and of course it's genetically programmed into both males and females to cheat.

 

Gee, guess they missed that part of the programming for me. Darn, and I really wanted that cheating gene too!!!

[twice_shy]

Some of us have outgrown our genes. The rest are unfortunately too weak-willed and morally vacuous to raise their genitals out of the gutter. Well, I shouldn't suppose unfortunately. I'm sure they're having a great time thinking only of themselves, and that's perhaps what makes their lives so juicy and succulent.

 

Dang! I like the way you think!!

[twice_shy]

Yes, promiscuity is encoded in our genes but society seeks to destroy what is natural and impose its own constructed system of moral values. Which way one chooses to go depends on the extent to which one has resisted or accepted societal pressure to abide by what is wrong or right.

 

Uh, no....its not about choosing which side to go with based on "societal pressure". Its about being a decent human being and choosing to be monogomous to a person you love and the desire to not hurt other people.

 

The rest can swing the other way and excuse the harm they do to others and pawn it off to "genetic programming".

[Owl]

Fair enough...regardless of the word choice, it still results in the breaking of established laws, and is considered illegal and immoral by SOCIETY...contrary to the desire/intent of the perpetrator. Does it still make it right to pursue it if its the result of a "genetic code"?

[twice_shy]

I think it's funny when people go on and on about "artificial restrictions on our behavior" - as if that's a bad thing.

 

Well just consider the source and it shouldn't surprise you in the least.

[grogster]

Infidelity is one of those hot button issues where people confuse science with morality; analysis with prescription. If animal behavior studies or genetic research confirm a cheating is universal hypothesis, many people become outraged that research is granting a "license" to cheat. If, all things being equal, research confirmed the hypothesis that violence is universal, no one would complain that science is granting a "license" to kill. Violence gets a free pass; not cheating.

 

There's something about infidelity that affects everyone: people are either unfaithful or critical of people who are (or who are on the verge of becoming) unfaithful. There's not much middle ground. No one's neutral.

 

Heaven help us if researchers discover an infidelity gene.

[Owl]

I wouldn't know if there's an actual gene or not...but I would agree that 'spreading the seed' is a normal genetic imperative for virtually every creature in existance...to include human beings. That desire is clearly a part of our make up.

 

The real question boils down to whether or not we agree as to if its acceptable in the society that we've created to act on that desire.

 

We have many other desires that are part of our make up that we can all agree that we SHOULDN'T act upon, as I tried to outline in my earlier post.

 

This one is just a little more 'gray' for some people than others that I mentioned. For some, its a clear black, or a clear white. And for some, its a definite gray.

 

Deciding what it should be as a SOCIETY is far more difficult on this than on many other issues.

[marlena]

Infidelity is one of those hot button issues where people confuse science with morality; analysis with prescription. If animal behavior studies or genetic research confirm a cheating is universal hypothesis, many people become outraged that research is granting a "license" to cheat. If, all things being equal, research confirmed the hypothesis that violence is universal, no one would complain that science is granting a "license" to kill. Violence gets a free pass; not cheating.

 

 

Yes, infidelity is fraught with moral connotations and as such can not be scientifically examined re its universality in both kingdoms. Comparing an animal's proclivity for infidelity or loyalty to that of a human being's would be plausible only if animals had a specific code of morality as regards the issue or a religion to keep that morality in check. Til they do, all discussion is really futile.

[pelicanpreacher]

A lot of posters seem to jump to the conclusion that promiscuity is the natural order preferred in nature but there is a grisly cost to pay for that behavior within a variety of social and non-social species. It is often witnessed that the male of the species will use his sense of smell to kill or exile any offspring too young to fend for itself not sired through his own procreation. This is often followed by the onset of estrus within the female of the species which gives rise to his opportunity to mate, reproduce, and continue his genetic line. In lion prides, the lionesses will often band together to drive off a marauding male to defend their cubs because their investment in their offspring with the resident male is vital to the survival of the pride. The only species that I'm aware of that would unknowingly raise another's progeny are birds...ie, the term cuckold.

 

In our "civilized" society it makes little sense for a woman to remain monogamous as long as she receives adequate financial support either from the father or the state because she is expected to love any child she gives produces. This is easily observed by the growing number of women in or out of wedlock giving birth to children of multiple fathers.

 

For a man, monogamy is more important if he takes financial responsibility for paternity because he needs to know that his procreation efforts results in the continuation of his genetic line. Most men aren't wealthy enough to support more than 8 children nowadays so it becomes critically important that his financial assets assures that the needs of his children are specifically addressed. For the man who has no intention of financially supporting his progeny then he, like a woman, has little use for monogamy.

 

On a more superficial level, if sex is to be viewed as strictly recreational then, as long as neither party is involved in a committed relationship, then promiscuity can be accepted as long as safe sex practices are strictly enforced. In a committed relationship however, where both partners have agreed to remain beholden unto each other in a monogamous arrangement, it can only be viewed as the deepest betrayal of trust to engage in sex or make an inappropriate emotional connection with another person. If a couple has publicly elevated their commitment to the level of marriage, unless they have a predefined alternative arrangement, they're vows of fidelity to one another (if taken seriously) is expected to guarantee a lifetime monogamous relationship which should end all thoughts and worries about promiscuity.

 

Of course, we're on the OW/OM forum so we know all opinions expressed herein are subject to flaming!

[amerikajin]

We have to clarify what we're discussing here. I think what we mean to say is that the desire to have sex is a natural instinct, and that this desire can't be just shut down once we've found someone we want to date or marry. Of course we can control our behavior, irrespective of our desires, and I think that's the point that TBF and others are making here. But this desire to want to procreate with more than one person is not the same as cheating. I think polygamy or serial monogamy is indeed a natural trait, but that doesn't address the issue of whether it is "right" or "wrong", appropriate or inappropriate, advised or ill-advised, in this day and age to engage in sexual relations with multiple partners at the same time without the consent and knowledge of the people you're dating.

 

The discussion of that last issue is going to very from one culture to the next, and ultimately one individual to the next. Throughout history and today most societies have had laws or limitations against the sexual conduct outside of marriage. Some will point out that these laws were written to protect men against having their wives stolen from them, and some laws were written so that they unfairly protected men and enable their sexual freedom while punishing women and suppressing theirs, and all of that might indeed be true. Even so, there are probably valid reasons for discouraging extramarital affairs. The law isn't necessarily wrong.

 

I think that most of the people participating in this discussion right now and on the LS site as a whole are probably of the opinion that cheating is wrong because it's dishonest and it injures the other person, and I happen to agree. And yet, over time, I would probably guess that a majority of men and a near majority of women in modernized countries like the U.S. (if you believe the research that's out there) have strayed at least once in their lives, whether in a pre-marital relationship or in a long-term committed relationship.

 

My own experience abroad has also influenced my opinion on this subject. I spent four years living in a society in which it became apparent to me that appearances were more important than truth, in which the perception of truth was more important than truth itself. I saw a lot of instances in which people cheated, and it didn't even seem to be that big a deal as long as it was kept out of sight. In fact the Japanese make a distinction between short-term encounters (uwaki) and full-on affairs (furin), the latter being the more serious. In fact, I would say most of the men don't even consider going to a prostitute cheating, and apparently a lot of the women don't either. It's not something that would be thrown in their face, obviously, but the point is, it seemed that people in this society didn't necessarily have to know the truth. The greater point I'm trying to make here is that we're having this discussion as though they are some kind of universal ethic which governs sexual conduct. Well, the simple fact is, there isn't.

 

What it gets down to is that you have to understand that we live in a world of consequences. Yes, you're free to shag whoever you want, and if you get busted for sleeping around, maybe you can clear your conscious and justify it or rationalize it however you want. Who knows...some women or men might buy it. But know that some won't, and while you're free to do as you please, your partner is free to do as he/she pleases. They are not forced to date you, it's a matter of choice. They can choose to find someone else. So my advice is, if you want to cheat, find someone who's okay with it, or make sure you live in a place that doesn't seem to mind it all that much and then do your best to keep your indiscretions out of sight. Otherwise, you're bound to be in for a lot of drama. Never mind how our ancestors would have behaved 15,000 years ago...this is the world we live in right here and now.

[luvmy2ns]

Of course we struggle with our biological impulses. One, they believe, was to eat as much as you could when food was available to add fat that could sustain you during famine times. Evolution didn't see the grocery store and "all you can eat bar" coming I guess.

 

I don't think anyone will really dispute that there isn't some degree of biological imperative associated with cheating. With more women in the workplace there are vastly more opportunties now for temptations in that area -- in both directions.

 

But many people also believe that as allegedly intelligent beings, we should strive to rise above some of our biological impulses. Does morality play a role here? I think it does. I personally don't believe in the "you will go to hell" kind of morality. But I think that to live a life where we don't harm ourselves and the people around us is a good place to start.

 

We can acknowledge the nature and origins of our various biological impulses. The question then for each person is, do you use that knowledge to guide your life or do you use it to excuse your impulse driven actions.

 

...and with this post I feel confident in declaring that you chose your screen name on LS well.

[luvmy2ns]

got it in one, OW, and now we will hear from the "outraged" defenders of the "socially sanctioned" sector

 

Wow. Very mature.

 

Are you just seeking to get at any BW because you were tossed under the bus, so to speak?

[grogster]

The very concept of infidelity is a social construct relative to time, place and culture. Infidelity has layers of meaning depending on the particular culture, subculture, historical period and nation.

 

I agree with Amerikajin to the extent that in many, not all, cultures, the degree of infidelity and the depth of the gaze are important. If the infidelity involves a one night stand with a prostitute that the BS never confirms, or merely suspects, the consequences are much less than a full throttle long term affair that the BS discovers.

 

The apprehended consequences determine the harm and relative degree of marital misconduct. If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear the crash, is there a sound? If a spouse has safe sex once with a non-spouse, and the betrayed spouse never learns of the tryst, is there infidelity?

 

In my pragmatic view, consequences make the "sin."

[pentacle]

The main criticism of social biological studies is that it is spurious to use biological behaviours of other animal species with different social contexts to draw conclusions about human behaviour.

 

It is also true that previously cited monogamous species eg gibbons have been shown to be less virtuous thorough genetic testing of offspring.

 

Sexuality, or rather limitations and practice are social constructs has been mentioned here several times. What is really interesting about Western society is that we have seen SOOO much change in social sexual mores eg the liberalisation of homosexuality and the deviance of paedophiles. There is a position which acknowledges that the very fact that homosexuality, paedophilia, polyamority exist then these are natural biological human behaviours that are managed by social morals to maintain the 'civilised' community.

 

I just wonder that there appears to be so much cheating going on that it won't become a reconstructed norm at some time in our social history. Also, it would seem to be indicated that if we are brought up (some time in the future) to understand and acknowledge that people do find others attractive and sleep with them regardless of the social relationship of the family, that emotional pain of betrayal will not be an issue because betrayal does not exist purely as a sexual relationship (it is the very fact that we associate sex with love that we have issues) and live more happily with our actual behaviours. Certainly the Japanese example of the man having short affairs or sleeping with prostitutes is found in many societies and is acceptable as long as it does not interfere with the social relationship of husband/wife. In a couple of human civilisations sex is a fun recreation with whoever you like and the concept of sex and procreation is not made. But the social relationship with a partner is necessary to give children (regardless of genes) socially accepted recognition in the clan.

 

So to me, the current social emphasis is on cheating because of the societal changes we've experienced (feminism, capitalism, sexual liberation, global media) and sex is the very basic thing we try to control individuals behaviour, so the judgment of others sexual behaviour is that reaction to societal uncertainty, continually harking back to a better time when people didn't do this.

[theycallmeprincess]

The thing that seperates us humans from other animals is an intelligent brain! Basic instincts do not have to be acted upon when repurcussions of one's actions and the well being of others is taken into consideration.