All it takes is a basic understanding of natural selection. A woman who chooses to stay with one man has just as much chance of passing on her genes as many times as possible as a woman who hops from one man to the next.
Men, on the other hand, can pass on there genes much more frequently if they are polygamous, for obvious reasons. Men don't have to wait 9 months after passing on their seeds to be able to do it again. Men are supposed to impregnate as many women as possible in order to pass on as much of their seed as possible.
Do you think we live in a fluffy world where men and women fall in love and only have eyes for each other for eternity? Do you not realise that we are ultimately governed by powerful instincts?
Straw man alert!
I quite like to look at things in terms of evolutionary biology, it stops me falling into the trap of thinking humans are rational. I also look at history and clearly humanity has science and culture, something more than instinct.
Sorry pal, but you're not doing very well at this inflammatory rhetoric.
Of course men like General Petraeus are going to have affairs. If their wives don't realise this, then they are fools. The reason women choose to get with and marry these men is because they are powerful, red blooded alpha males with high testosterone. Having sex with lots of women is a natural male instinct, for even a normal man to stay faithful his whole live would be strange. For a man like Petraeus to not stray, there would probably be something seriously wrong with him. Women, if you don't want your man to cheat, then why not choose a nice guy (i.e the type of men you friend zone) as your partner? No, don't want that? Of course not. Women will always choose powerful men over weak men, and I'm afraid that there is a price for that.
Oh I see, I was looking for my "implied" attack on men. That's just a grabber, I explain my interest, psychology and sociology mainly, in my opening post.
I am interested in if we can ever move away from our instincts. Man is an animal and no matter how much we evolve it seems instincts prevail.
What you said also about him being finished as soon as it became public? You know it has been public for several months in the USA, so why resign now?
That's because there isn't really any excuse for a female to cheat. Women are supposed to be monogamous, biologically.
No that is not true, if we go by biology Woman have children to pass on their genes and only have children with healthy, strong and fit males, monogamy doesn't come into it.
All it takes is a basic understanding of natural selection. A woman who chooses to stay with one man has just as much chance of passing on her genes as many times as possible as a woman who hops from one man to the next.
Men, on the other hand, can pass on there genes much more frequently if they are polygamous, for obvious reasons. Men don't have to wait 9 months after passing on their seeds to be able to do it again. Men are supposed to impregnate as many women as possible in order to pass on as much of their seed as possible.
But she may decide there's a better male around the corner to mix her superior genes with so will not settle for just that one. :rolleyes:
Hardly, especially when you take into account she was his biographer. Not to mention the guy was a professional, so I very much doubt that he whispered details of any SAD operations or black site locations to her in bed.
Au contraire. It's considered highly risky. You can't assume people do or do not do things just because they are 'professional.'
No that is not true, if we go by biology Woman have children to pass on their genes and only have children with healthy, strong and fit males, monogamy doesn't come into it.
Throughout most of human/primate history, women were much more likely to raise a child through childhood if a man were around. Without a man around, she and her offspring were more vulnerable to attack, theft of resources (food, shelter etc) than a woman who was able to keep a man around. It makes sense, in evolutionary terms, for a woman to find a strong, healthy man who she can keep around for as long as possible to raise her kids. This doesn't apply so much these days, but it's how we evolved.
I think that some women secretly want their husbands/boyfriends to have affairs. It lets them know that they're with a real man. It why they always take back their cheating partners or cheat themselves on weak men who stay faithful.
So its weak to stay faithful If a partner cheated on me I wouldn't think oh what a real man, i would think he was a knob. There is no such thing as a 'real' man. Unless you are imagining them, in which case I suggest you go and see a doctor,
No that is not true, if we go by biology Woman have children to pass on their genes and only have children with healthy, strong and fit males, monogamy doesn't come into it.
A Strathclyde Uni study recently identified that women are attracted to more masculine looking men during ovulation, when they can actually get pregnant. Shown pictures, the attraction actually varies during the month.
But she may decide there's a better male around the corner to mix her superior genes with so will not settle for just that one. :rolleyes:
Absolutely. But that's not in contradiction with monogamy. Monogamy just means one partner at any one time. Of course women are biologically programmed to be on the lookout for a better mate.
Throughout most of human/primate history, women were much more likely to raise a child through childhood if a man were around. Without a man around, she and her offspring were more vulnerable to attack, theft of resources (food, shelter etc) than a woman who was able to keep a man around. It makes sense, in evolutionary terms, for a woman to find a strong, healthy man who she can keep around for as long as possible to raise her kids. This doesn't apply so much these days, but it's how we evolved.
By your natural selection theory she will keep going for those testosterone filled men so wont be monogamous, in your world.
Throughout most of human/primate history, women were much more likely to raise a child through childhood if a man were around. Without a man around, she and her offspring were more vulnerable to attack, theft of resources (food, shelter etc) than a woman who was able to keep a man around. It makes sense, in evolutionary terms, for a woman to find a strong, healthy man who she can keep around for as long as possible to raise her kids. This doesn't apply so much these days, but it's how we evolved.
This is why we stayed in groups, this is nothing to do with why we have kids with only one man. Monogamy is a man made construct.
No that is not true, if we go by biology Woman have children to pass on their genes and only have children with healthy, strong and fit males, monogamy doesn't come into it.
Yay! It's perfectly feasible for child rearing to be a responsibility of the tribe.
Evolution is a product of Victorian society, but that doesn't mean it shares its values.
Pragmatically, I'm soppy, but I'm clear-headed about it.
So its weak to stay faithful If a partner cheated on me I wouldn't think oh what a real man, i would think he was a knob. There is no such thing as a 'real' man. Unless you are imagining them, in which case I suggest you go and see a doctor,
The more masculine a man, the more likely he is to cheat. I know it and you know it.
Absolutely. But that's not in contradiction with monogamy. Monogamy just means one partner at any one time. Of course women are biologically programmed to be on the lookout for a better mate.
So if she's with a partner and finds a more testosterone filled mate she'll go with him, hence not remain monogamous. I suspect your theory is flawed! :eek:
A Strathclyde Uni study recently identified that women are attracted to more masculine looking men during ovulation, when they can actually get pregnant. Shown pictures, the attraction actually varies during the month.
Absolutely. But that's not in contradiction with monogamy. Monogamy just means one partner at any one time. Of course women are biologically programmed to be on the lookout for a better mate.
What I said above could be though. What do you think?
Comments
Ha Ha have not met many of those the difference being is woman tend to see it just as a bit of fun on the side.
And in the case of Edwina Currie to wtite a book to make some cash.
Which biology book says that? :rolleyes:
All it takes is a basic understanding of natural selection. A woman who chooses to stay with one man has just as much chance of passing on her genes as many times as possible as a woman who hops from one man to the next.
Men, on the other hand, can pass on there genes much more frequently if they are polygamous, for obvious reasons. Men don't have to wait 9 months after passing on their seeds to be able to do it again. Men are supposed to impregnate as many women as possible in order to pass on as much of their seed as possible.
Straw man alert!
I quite like to look at things in terms of evolutionary biology, it stops me falling into the trap of thinking humans are rational. I also look at history and clearly humanity has science and culture, something more than instinct.
Sorry pal, but you're not doing very well at this inflammatory rhetoric.
Hate to break it to you but nice guys cheat to,
Try it sometime. Sociobiology? Nope.
Oh I see, I was looking for my "implied" attack on men. That's just a grabber, I explain my interest, psychology and sociology mainly, in my opening post.
I am interested in if we can ever move away from our instincts. Man is an animal and no matter how much we evolve it seems instincts prevail.
What you said also about him being finished as soon as it became public? You know it has been public for several months in the USA, so why resign now?
Nice men who are also weak with low levels of testosterone are MUCH less likely to cheat when compared to real men, nice or otherwise.
No that is not true, if we go by biology Woman have children to pass on their genes and only have children with healthy, strong and fit males, monogamy doesn't come into it.
Only if testosterone is all that matters. We're a species with brains not just bollocks.
But she may decide there's a better male around the corner to mix her superior genes with so will not settle for just that one. :rolleyes:
Au contraire. It's considered highly risky. You can't assume people do or do not do things just because they are 'professional.'
Throughout most of human/primate history, women were much more likely to raise a child through childhood if a man were around. Without a man around, she and her offspring were more vulnerable to attack, theft of resources (food, shelter etc) than a woman who was able to keep a man around. It makes sense, in evolutionary terms, for a woman to find a strong, healthy man who she can keep around for as long as possible to raise her kids. This doesn't apply so much these days, but it's how we evolved.
Well, some of you are..:sleep:
So its weak to stay faithful
The fact the CIA didn't know about it, is a bit worrying.
A Strathclyde Uni study recently identified that women are attracted to more masculine looking men during ovulation, when they can actually get pregnant. Shown pictures, the attraction actually varies during the month.
Absolutely. But that's not in contradiction with monogamy. Monogamy just means one partner at any one time. Of course women are biologically programmed to be on the lookout for a better mate.
By your natural selection theory she will keep going for those testosterone filled men so wont be monogamous, in your world.
This is why we stayed in groups, this is nothing to do with why we have kids with only one man. Monogamy is a man made construct.
Yay! It's perfectly feasible for child rearing to be a responsibility of the tribe.
Evolution is a product of Victorian society, but that doesn't mean it shares its values.
Pragmatically, I'm soppy, but I'm clear-headed about it.
The second the husband was well loaded but his wife was bored at 56 but she was never going to leave him.
Make of that what you will.
The more masculine a man, the more likely he is to cheat. I know it and you know it.
So if she's with a partner and finds a more testosterone filled mate she'll go with him, hence not remain monogamous. I suspect your theory is flawed! :eek:
What I said above could be though. What do you think?