Is being unfaithful in our DNA? Here's your new thread

[Guest]

Rooster I do agree with you regarding people who cheat not realising why they do it. It is evident to me that some people who cheat have low self esteem and use other people to boost their ego.

 

The most common scenario that I have come across is where the cheaters try to portray themselves as attractive and confident people but many feel inadequate without a partner or bit on the side to validate them. Also some are jealous of the partners of others and want them for themselves. In both cases they dont care how they get a partner as long as they get one.

 

This is often clear to those on the outside looking in on the cheaters but they are not able to see this themselves and would more than likely strongly deny this. The deciding aspect is that often they repeat the pattern of cheating over and over again and have no guilt about this.

 

I think that we as humans have the ability to be able to reason and cheating is a selfish decision - it is not a part of human nature it is a selfish choice.

[tanbark813]

JamesM: You're confusing societal influences with genetic ones.

[bab]

I believe that being monogomous is not necessarily inline with our instinct to create the most healthy offspring.

 

For instance (just talking from biology point of view and leaving social constructs completely out for now), a male has the best possibility of having offspring making it to adulthood by impregnating the most females possible. It doesn't take much of a time investment on their part, so there really is no biological reason to stay faithful. In fact, faithfulness hurts them, as a female can't get reimpregnated while she is still pregnant.

 

On the other hand females invest much more into the child bearing process and therefore have to be more selective of their mates in order to increase the probability that their offspring make it to adulthood. Therefore they aren't necessarily into screwing every male, but even if they've attached themselves to a male, if a male that appears that is perceived as a better mate, then it is more beneficial for the female to want to procreate with that male. This feeling is heightened during ovulation.

 

But all that said, that's just what's behind sexual attraction. It has nothing to do with the ability to control such feelings and take responsibility for them. Now, most offspring make it to adulthood anyways, so the need to find the "best" mate possible or as many as possible isn't as important. We have evolved enough to bring emotions into the picture, and hence all the other stuff has to be taken with a grain of salt and realize it is for non-emotional survival.

[JamesM]

JamesM: You're confusing societal influences with genetic ones.

 

No, I don't think so. Cheating cannot be both. One is either responsible or one is not. It is either as a result of society and behavior, or it is a result of my genetics. ("Son, be proud, you come from a long line of cheaters. You have cheating blood in you.") When one is an alcoholic, he or she is either responsible for controlling his urges because it is behavioral or he is not because it is genetic.

 

When one has a disease such as cancer, we don't say he is responsible for the disease. When one has schizophrenia, we don't say he is to blame for his actions. When one has black skin, we don't say it is his problem. And when someone is has red hair or blue eyes, we don't call this something that can be changed.

 

NO, I don't believe that cheating is in DNA or genetics. If it were, we cannot blames cheaters. We should excuse them. And since the majority of people don't cheat on their partners, then we have to assume that many are evolving to higher levels. So, still we cannot blames the lower class citizens. We either live with them or eliminate them.

 

One of the biggest excuses used on escort boards for rationalizing their secret lives of visiting prostitutes...next to "it is my wife's fault" ...is this one. "It is genetically programmed that men are not monogamous. This gives them a license to cheat.

SO, when we say DNA, we say no responsibility.

[milvushina]

Both strategies have evolutionary advantages. For being promiscuous/scattering your seed to the four corners of the Earth: obvious benefits are lots of offspring, good chance some will survive.

 

For monogamy: Contribution from both parents makes it more likely the offspring will survive. If the father is around to protect, help feed the young and so on, then he is investing his energy for the good of the offspring. Some insects even do this. It's a survival strategy where you focus on quality over quantity. Either one works very well in certain situations.

 

There are times when I wonder whether we aren't all just serially monogamous by nature, that we have the natural inclination to form a bond but also tend to break those bonds when they lose their usefulness. Like how some people say relationships tend to have problems around 5 or 6 years; around the time a baby would not desperately need both parents to survive.

 

I don't know if I buy that or not. But sometimes it makes sense. I had a psychologist friend who used to say she believed that.

[Storyrider]

Bab, the way you explained it was what I was trying to get at. You said it much better.

 

Taking those biological factors into account, the societal cultural factors are huge too.

 

I often think about how in the Victorian era, the construct of family was preserved at all costs. The idea of a husband cheating would be much, much more palatable than the idea of getting divorced. The husband's cheating would not destroy the family structure and leave the wife and children destitute, whereas a divorce would (of course, given the Victorian double standard, if the wife was caught cheating, she would be left with no money and no access to her children.)

 

Nowadays it is the reverse. If you fall in love with someone, society views divorce as the most honorable path.

[tanbark813]

I was referring to this:

 

If we have evolved our natural instincts based on survival, then the structure of family is necessary for man's survival as a society. So, logically one has to believe that we have evolved to develop natural behaviors to prevent the breakup of the family. And if that were the case, we should after a few thousand years of society have developed our natural behavior as one of monogamy. So, by this time, our natural tendencies are actually monogamous not polygamous.

 

Evolution doesn't happen over thousands of years, it happens over hundreds of thousands or millions. Evolution also isn't influenced by society (not directly anyway). Evolution is simply the progression (and mutation) of the genes that happened to carry over to the next generation due to the past generation's ability to survive and procreate.

[blind_otter]

Now to follow the evolution train of thought. If we have evolved our natural instincts based on survival, then the structure of family is necessary for man's survival as a society. So, logically one has to believe that we have evolved to develop natural behaviors to prevent the breakup of the family.

 

google: cads vs. dads; you're on the right track but you're missing a piece of the puzzle.

 

...the findings imply that the dad versus cad distinction is intuitive to women and remains a key element of contemporary mating strategies. Women's preference for cads for short-term relationships supports what evolutionary psychologists call the "sexy son hypothesis," Kruger said. Even though cads aren't good bets to stick around and help raise children, the genes that make men successful cads will be passed along to their sons, who will increase their mothers' eventual reproductive success by providing numerous grandchildren.

[pennyjosix]

For the record, I only started this thread because this topic got started in another thread, and someone suggested to make a thread for this topic. I don't really think there is a gene that causes unfaithfulness. I was just being polite and starting a new thread so the other one wouldn't be flooded with off the topic posts.

[tanbark813]

I was just being polite

 

There's where you went wrong.

[Rooster_DAR]

And since the majority of people don't cheat on their partners

 

Actually with all due respect I believe the opposite is true.

 

I tend to believe more people cheat than don't, but that is what I am gathering from my own shotty research. I'm not convinced this either way yet though.

 

Many good posts here, and lot's of these observations are valid. As of now, I am still leaning on the notion that humans are like most other animals, we simply were not cut out to be monogamous (statistics seem to suggest this is correct). Social structuring has a lot to do with why monogamy has risen, but I don't think it's prevalent by nature. One has to remember that religion and man historically forced women into staying monogamous, and if they strayed they were stoned or hung. This was part of how are society was founded and was a set of rules forced against our natural instincts.

 

The church and organized social societies were basically forming their own opinions on how people should act, and enforced these rules in hopes of preventing the chaos it would be without them and to maintain a stable structure. I think it's similar to forming laws to keep people in order, without them living as a human being would be dangerous and out of control. Now I'm not saying that I'm a genious that all my opinions are right, I am just stating my opinion as I see it through knowledge I have aquired.

 

One quick question:

Why do you think it is that people that are dead set against cheating cheat? They wind up going against their beliefs, risk losing their jobs, families, and pride to have an affair?

 

Something is driving this force, and I believe it's mother nature which is drawn from natural attraction and pair bonding.

 

Cheers!

[Rooster_DAR]

For the record, I only started this thread because this topic got started in another thread, and someone suggested to make a thread for this topic. I don't really think there is a gene that causes unfaithfulness. I was just being polite and starting a new thread so the other one wouldn't be flooded with off the topic posts.

 

BTW...thanks for starting this thread it's a very good one.

 

I don't really think there is a gene that causes unfaithfulness.

 

I don't think it's a matter of whether we have an unfaithful gene, but more of a matter of there is not a magnificent gene that makes us faithful.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[pennyjosix]

that makes sense, and i just say unfaithful gene because i'm not sure to put it haha. but you cleared it up for me so thank you.

[Pyro]

Also I really don't believe that there's a cheating gene. To me that's just another way for people to justify what they did instead of admitting they screwed up and accepting the consequences.

 

Very well put.

 

The same thing with drugs. Do we become a druggie because we have a drug gene?

[che_jesse]

"In our DNA".. Not that anyone knows of, but then again its never been studies.

 

"In part because of what you learned from your family"... here is my take on it. There is a reason I never bother to go out with people that come from single parent households, or from households where the parents have been in marriage after marriage. Maybe one divorce and getting married again, but thats where I draw the line.

 

See.. when kids grow up learning that you can just leave a relationship and move on to something else at the first sign of problems that is exactly what they will do in adult relationships. If a daughter sees mom on husband number 3 or 4 and long string of different boyfriends it teaches her that there are always more men around the corner. If a little boy sees dad with a new girlfriend every week he is not capable of learning how to respect women.

 

Sure there are some counter examples to this, but for the most part, at least as far as my experiance with people has shown me, when people do not grow up in a family where they see mom and dad work thorough problems they will not know how to do that.

 

Those are the people more prone to cheat IMO.

[alphamale]

lets give credit where its due....that was my statement in the other thread....and I stand by it.

[Rooster_DAR]

"In our DNA".. Not that anyone knows of, but then again its never been studies.

 

"In part because of what you learned from your family"... here is my take on it. There is a reason I never bother to go out with people that come from single parent households, or from households where the parents have been in marriage after marriage. Maybe one divorce and getting married again, but thats where I draw the line.

 

See.. when kids grow up learning that you can just leave a relationship and move on to something else at the first sign of problems that is exactly what they will do in adult relationships. If a daughter sees mom on husband number 3 or 4 and long string of different boyfriends it teaches her that there are always more men around the corner. If a little boy sees dad with a new girlfriend every week he is not capable of learning how to respect women.

 

Sure there are some counter examples to this, but for the most part, at least as far as my experiance with people has shown me, when people do not grow up in a family where they see mom and dad work thorough problems they will not know how to do that.

 

Those are the people more prone to cheat IMO.

 

I think in a lot of cases this hold some merit, but not all.

[Great Gazoo]

Actually with all due respect I believe the opposite is true.

 

I tend to believe more people cheat than don't, but that is what I am gathering from my own shotty research. I'm not convinced this either way yet though.

 

I myself don't think that is true. It is what you see right now, it is what you believe but we can always find things to reinforce our ideas. We can perceive anything we want. You had some bad experiences but don't let it make you go all negative.

[Rooster_DAR]

I myself don't think that is true. It is what you see right now, it is what you believe but we can always find things to reinforce our ideas. We can perceive anything we want. You had some bad experiences but don't let it make you go all negative.

 

 

[url=http://www.womansavers.com/infidelity-statistics.asp][/url]Consider the following statistics:

 

[FONT=Arial]-It is estimated that 53% of all people will have one or more affairs during their lifetime.

 

- About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage

"Monogamy Myth", Therapist Peggy Vaugn

 

70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity.

 

Note that the above adultry statistics of the prevalence of affairs were made more than a decade ago; so based on changes in society during the intervening years, the current percentage of the population who have had affairs is probably somewhat HIGHER. For instance, the continuing increase of women in the workplace and the increase of women having affairs on the Internet means that the numbers for women having affairs is probably similar to those for men about 60%.

 

Providing these stats are close to accurate, I would say they more people cheat than don't when it comes to marriage. Given that many divorcees never know their partner cheated, that number goes up higher.

 

Just something to ponder.

 

 

[/FONT]REF: http://www.womansavers.com/infidelity-statistics.asp

[FONT=Arial][/FONT]

[Great Gazoo]

I don't look at statistics, they don't mean anything to me when it comes to love and marriage. I look at people I know, family, friends neighbors etc...

[Outcast]

If it was 'normal', 'natural' or 'genetic' to cheat, the person cheated on wouldn't mourn. You don't see a cow feeling suicidal because the bull's doing all the other cows. There's no hens sitting in front of the TV eating cheesecake and sucking back Jack Daniels.

 

It would be stupid on the part of nature to let humans get dangerously depressed over a sex partner cheating if it was 'genetic'.

[alphamale]

some studies have shown that 5% to 10% of kids are being raised by a father who doesn't know that he's not their real biological father....

[Rooster_DAR]

some studies have shown that 5% to 10% of kids are being raised by a father who doesn't know that he's not their real biological father....

 

It's closer to 10 percent. I talked with a doctor friend of mine, and he says his wife delivers babies all the time that don't belong to the father.

 

Again, the woman left the nest to seek out better genes subconciously.

 

D'oh!

[Rooster_DAR]

If it was 'normal', 'natural' or 'genetic' to cheat, the person cheated on wouldn't mourn. You don't see a cow feeling suicidal because the bull's doing all the other cows. There's no hens sitting in front of the TV eating cheesecake and sucking back Jack Daniels.

 

It would be stupid on the part of nature to let humans get dangerously depressed over a sex partner cheating if it was 'genetic'.

 

I lamence terms...

 

Evolution and nature don't give a rats ass about what any of us think, it's priorities are elsewhere.

[JamesM]

I was referring to this:

 

 

 

Evolution doesn't happen over thousands of years, it happens over hundreds of thousands or millions. Evolution also isn't influenced by society (not directly anyway). Evolution is simply the progression (and mutation) of the genes that happened to carry over to the next generation due to the past generation's ability to survive and procreate.

 

One could easily argue from an evolutionsist's POV that humans developed a society for his survival and furthering the ability to procreate. Societies tend to protect humans better than if it is everyone for himself.

 

If evolution is evolving for survival and families help our survival, then monogamy is because we evoived to a higher level. As an evolutionist, we cannot pick what we think is genetically evolving and wht is not.

 

I always love that...it takes millions of years...or billions. Who knows? But it happened, so as many years as necessary it took. We will come up with any plan to avoid the idea that there is Someone higher than us...but that would be another thread.