Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Is Cheating Just Par for the Course?
5 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2010 - 6:41PM #11
ArnieBeeGut
Posts: 1,407

Appy,


The fact that this is easier said than done is illustrated by the fact that women who have this evry attitude tend to not mate at all - hence decreasing the quantities of that gene in females in the pool.


You are fighting a multitude of generations are successful mating strategies of both men and women that have produced the current state of genetics. And, although I hate to put a point on it, you are not doing your part in the proposed solution by transmitting your genes into the mix. I don't say this as a criticism, but just to point out how difficult it is to change biology when the very mating mechanisms that have produced the current set of genes act to maintain the status quo - and that genes that try to swim against the tide (so to speak) are at that much of a disadvantage.


In other words, I believe we are likely to be stuck with the current state of affairs (so to speak) for forseeable generations.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2010 - 7:08PM #12
appy20
Posts: 10,165

First of all, I have never transmitted my genes.   For other reasons.  There are women who leave philanderers and marry monogamous males.  The problem is when women stay.  They value marriage more than monogamy thus creating progeny inclined to cheat.


Are you aware that the meaning of evolution is CHANGE.  Humans evolve to change.  Human biology adapts to circumstances.  We are still evolving.  We can change our own evolution.  People do it with animals.  I belonged to a saddle club that pooled funds to buy a hotshot stallion.  That stallion was bred to less expensive mares that we owned.  The offspring, the majority got the stallion's traits and were awesome horses. Women can choose better mates.


Once again, humans adapt to circumstances.  If more women would make the conscious decision not to have Tiger Woods children, then eventually, there would be fewer Tiger Woods. You are right that he won't be totally weeded out of the gene pool because he married a bimbo. Because the bimbo is leaving him, she won't have more children by him.  If women were smart, they would be sure they don't get pregnant by him.  Or at least, if they valued monogamy.


If women began to accept that behavioral traits (a fact that most modern women do believe in the blank slate) can be passed on, then some women would abstain from having children with philanderers.  Over time, that would become statistically significant.  Especially, if it were uncool to have Tiger's children. 


If more philanderers could find only women who would have sex with them and not their children, over time, the dynamics of the behavior would change.


I actually proposed this idea to a behavioral psychologist on the Psychology Today forum and he did not disagree. 


I believe that has happened with Asperger's Syndrome.  I think because this period of time is the really the time of the nerd (Bill Gates), more AS kids are born.  I believe that in the past a lot of geek males went without mates. Because they are breeding more, their quirks are passed on or are slightly exaggerated if they marry other nerds.  Thus we have an "epidemic" of AS.


Circumstances have always altered evolution.  That is how we got dog breeds. Why are labs obsessed with water?  Because they were bred to be duck dogs, primarily.  Why do terriers dig?  Because they were bred to be ratters.  


If it became uncool to be Tiger Woods, then there would be fewer women anxious to get in bed with him. If more women were aware of biolgy, perhaps trained when they were young, fewer fools would be born.


Bear in mind, I said fewer.  There is no way the philanderer will be weeded totally out of the gene pool but his numbers can be reduced.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2010 - 10:29AM #13
ArnieBeeGut
Posts: 1,407

As an individual, there is not much that can be done about the evolution of our species as a whole. The "change" happens across generations through 'natural' selection, and certain traits become more predominant if there is an advantage to them. In the case of Tiger, it is already 'too late' in that he has already successfully bred twice (that we know about).


The whole evolution and biology perspective is of little use to a person or a couple who is struggling with this. Let's do a thought experiment with a young woman who is trying to choose between two propsective husbands. One is very good looking, has a well-paying job, and is on the fast track to become high in his company; the other is not so attractive, quiet and thoughtful, a bit nerdy perhaps, not that well-off, and doesn't have the kind of aggressive personality that will lead to business success. Since the former is clearly more likely to be unfaithful, the advice to the woman would be to pick the second guy. And no doubt many women might (after all, us nerds do come from somewhere!) - but I wager that most would pick the first even if all this were pointed out. How are you going to fight the adaptivity of the mutual mating strategies that have evolved - by putting neural implants in young women's brains to make them pick the one they perceive as a loser over the one who they see as a winner?


The best insights on the Tiger Woods story as applied to actual relationships I have read are in this article.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2010 - 1:06PM #14
appy20
Posts: 10,165

Feb 23, 2010 -- 10:29AM, ArnieBeeGut wrote:


As an individual, there is not much that can be done about the evolution of our species as a whole. The "change" happens across generations through 'natural' selection, and certain traits become more predominant if there is an advantage to them. In the case of Tiger, it is already 'too late' in that he has already successfully bred twice (that we know about).


The whole evolution and biology perspective is of little use to a person or a couple who is struggling with this. Let's do a thought experiment with a young woman who is trying to choose between two propsective husbands. One is very good looking, has a well-paying job, and is on the fast track to become high in his company; the other is not so attractive, quiet and thoughtful, a bit nerdy perhaps, not that well-off, and doesn't have the kind of aggressive personality that will lead to business success. Since the former is clearly more likely to be unfaithful, the advice to the woman would be to pick the second guy. And no doubt many women might (after all, us nerds do come from somewhere!) - but I wager that most would pick the first even if all this were pointed out. How are you going to fight the adaptivity of the mutual mating strategies that have evolved - by putting neural implants in young women's brains to make them pick the one they perceive as a loser over the one who they see as a winner?


The best insights on the Tiger Woods story as applied to actual relationships I have read are in this article.




A individual cannot do it all but a culture can change our dynamics.  Our culture determines who is a winner and loser.  Women wouldn't choose the Tiger Woods if he were defined as a pariah as a father and husband.  Culture can define the loser  That is why it is important to not forgive adultery.  That makes it culturally acceptable.   As it stands, women believe that love conquers all.  They believe that Tiger is a good person.  If women were taught from an early age that the one they are attracted to may not make the best husband and father, the attraction would be lessened. Women are not taught that.  The average woman doesn't even think of genetics before she chooses a husband.  That could be changed with education.


An an individual can have immediate results.  I don't have offspring like my parents.  Those are results.  Procreation is exponential.   I could have 2, they each would have 2, those 4 could have 2, you are up to 8.  After a hundred years, my choice not to have children adds up to a LOT of people not carrying my parents genes.


They don't have to give up having sex with the guy.  They just don't need to marry or have his child.  People have genetic predisposition to alcoholism but our culture put its foot down and the number drunk of drivers did decrease.  They weren't weeded out but they have decreased since MADD effectively made it uncool to drink and drive. There are a lot of single women who won't date guys in bars.  A lot.  Moreso, than once upon a time.  Some women are getting smarter. 


If adulterers were made to be uncool, fewer would have their child.  Female competition with each other could be used.  If women were to lose status for a philanderer instead of giving her status for doing so, then the appeal of the cheater could be reduced.  Social pressures do add to attractability.  If the herd thinks one critter is defective, then that critter will have a harder time finding a mate.  In this case, we only mean having children.  They could still have sex with them. 


We don't teach people that your genes are your responsibility in passing them on.  We ought to teach everyone to question their pedigree and have the courage to make some tough decisions.  If women, especially if bimbos could be targeted, were taught that they are genetically inclined to make lousy choices for mates they might think twice.  If women were taught that it is selfish to give their children a philanderer for a husband, then perhaps some might make other choices.  At this point, we don't give people that knowledge.


I think one thing you don't get is that there are natural genetic variations.  That genetic dynamic is not the only dynamic in the gene pool.  There are women who wouldn't date Tiger Woods or his ilk no matter what. Most of Tiger's women do come off as major bimbos.  So, you only need a slight shift in the dynamic to reduce the number of philanderers. You don't need a majority compliance to make a difference.  Just a fraction.


It could be done.  Once upon a time, there were a lot of black arab horses.  Until one powerful sheik lost a war or a race or something. He blamed it on the black horses that could not function as well in desert heat as the white horses.  That is why black arab horses are rate.  The gene pool of the black arab was virtually wiped out because one guy was a sore looser.  


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2010 - 4:28PM #15
ArnieBeeGut
Posts: 1,407

Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:06PM, appy20 wrote:


A individual cannot do it all but a culture can change our dynamics.  Our culture determines who is a winner and loser.  Women wouldn't choose the Tiger Woods if he were defined as a pariah as a father and husband.


I'm confused - are you saying he is not being treated as a pariah as a father and a husband?


Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:06PM, appy20 wrote:

Culture can define the loser  That is why it is important to not forgive adultery.  That makes it culturally acceptable.


I am curious what has given the impression that adultery is culturally acceptable.

Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:06PM, appy20 wrote:

As it stands, women believe that love conquers all.  They believe that Tiger is a good person.


You are saying then that he is a "bad person" not just that he has done bad things? How does one define "bad person" then apart from their actions?

Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:06PM, appy20 wrote:

If women were taught from an early age that the one they are attracted to may not make the best husband and father, the attraction would be lessened. Women are not taught that.  The average woman doesn't even think of genetics before she chooses a husband.  That could be changed with education.


LOL! I'm laughing because you clearly have never dealt with the many young women who are deeply attracted to "bad boys." Trying to "educate" them away just makes the "bad boys" all the more attractive!

Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:06PM, appy20 wrote:

They don't have to give up having sex with the guy.  They just don't need to marry or have his child.


You claim to be familiar with evolutionary psychology and the research that heas been done on different gender mating strategies; the strategies that evolved are precisely for the purpose of having offspring. Since the current gene pool has been determined by millenia of such successful strategies, as the evolutionary psychologists have elucidated, it is hard to believe that "education" will make a difference. You surely know the studies that show women are significantly more attracted to "manly" type men when they are ovulating, just to cite one example.

The other problem is that for women who have come to this epiphany, the outcome is fewer rather than more offspring - not exactly a recipe for genetic success!

Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:06PM, appy20 wrote:

If adulterers were made to be uncool, fewer would have their child.


This is closing the barn door after the horses have left - at least in the cases where they only cheat (or ar caught) after having had children (possibly the situation with Tiger, to name one).

Trouble is, people aren't like animals being controlled by breeders (or is that what you are proposing?) All attempts by society to impose such things have backfired. Consider China, where restricting the number of children that a couple could have has resulted in the stistically suspicious preponderance of male offspring.

I'm all for teaching young people of both genders to have better self-esteem and boundaries, especially with the opposite sex. I am not so naive to think that would overcome biological urges. The failure of abstinence-only programs only demonstrates the strength of the evolutionary imperative to procreate, to cite another piece of evidence.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2010 - 8:39PM #16
nillawafer
Posts: 587

once upon a time i was a young girl in the 70s. i went to 5 high schools in 4 different states. i was often lonely. girls didn't want to be my friend until they sized me up and by then it was time to move again. boys were my friends and often friends with benefits.


i was married for 16 years and except for a brief last hurrah ( a gross disappointment, thank god) very early in my marriage i was a faithful wife until my husband's death. i'm glad he didn't decide "once a cheater always a cheater" and married me and raised our children. i'm glad i learned how to discipline my self and curb my neediness. ( i wish i wouldn't have done it by getting fat and letting myself go, however). i'm glad my friends and most of the people i've known and helped in my work over the years didn't ostrasize me and say i was to wear a scarlet letter and my children be taken from me or punished for my own problems. i'm glad there is a loving god who helps me walk through this life full of hard hearted people.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2010 - 9:22AM #17
appy20
Posts: 10,165

Feb 23, 2010 -- 4:28PM, ArnieBeeGut wrote:


Feb 23, 2010 -- 1:06PM, appy20 wrote:

If adulterers were made to be uncool, fewer would have their child.


This is closing the barn door after the horses have left - at least in the cases where they only cheat (or ar caught) after having had children (possibly the situation with Tiger, to name one).



I'm all for teaching young people of both genders to have better self-esteem and boundaries, especially with the opposite sex. I am not so naive to think that would overcome biological urges. The failure of abstinence-only programs only demonstrates the strength of the evolutionary imperative to procreate, to cite another piece of evidence.




 


"I'm confused - are you saying he is not being treated as a pariah as a father and a husband?"


No, he isn't.  First ofll, golf wants him back.  Secondly, there are still women who will date him.  He is being ridiculed and laughed at. He is being criticized by SOME. Most men don't think what he did is all that horrible because hurting a wife isn't a terrible thing.


"I am curious what has given the impression that adultery is culturally acceptable."


For one thing, therapists try to reconcile couples with cheating issues.  They don't do that with pedophilia or child abuse.  While, infidelity is criticized, it is not thought horrible or unforgivable.  Social Pariah are banished for life.


"LOL! I'm laughing because you clearly have never dealt with the many young women who are deeply attracted to "bad boys." Trying to "educate" them away just makes the "bad boys" all the more attractive!"


You are so wrong.  The men they are attracted to are popular with more than a few women.  Women who are attracted to bad boys feel superior because they a)think they are so special that these guys will change for them and b)they competed against other women and won.   Women are not educated.  They are told that they have "low self-esteem" when many times they have superiority complexes.   They are also taught that they are victims.  They are not criticized (except by me) for making the choices.  People feel sorry for them and take care of them.  They are rewarded for getting themselves into messes.  If more had to clean up after themselves then it wouldn't be so rewarding.  Also, women are discouraged from birth on from criticizing males.  Have you ever noticed that on BNET, women will argue with other women in a heartbeat but if a guy says the very same thing, the women will ignore it and not confront it?  That is female conditioning to never stand up to men. 


Also, women who stay with bad boys and "reform" them are commended.  Yet, genetically, they are not reformed.


Women who are attracted to bad boys because of opposition do so because of rebellion toward their parents, usually.  They rarely do it as opposition to their peer group. 


"You are saying then that he is a "bad person" not just that he has done bad things? How does one define "bad person" then apart from their actions?"


If a person cannot sing that does not mean he is a bad person. It means he shouldn't be a member of the choir.  If someone cannot be a good husband, they should accept their limitations and not force their inadequacies on a woman who wants a good husband.  Same for parenting. If you can't be a good parent, don't do it.  If a person cannot be monogamous, why try.  If you have an inheritable disease, you think twice about passing it on to your children. 


However, sometimes people are "bad" if  you want to reduce them that simplistically.  I tend to think that some people are more biologically flawed than others and could be fixed biologically.  If a philanderer could be geneticially fixed (by choice), then I would not consider them "bad" anymore than I would consider someone with crooked teeth who got braces as being bad.  It is when you blame others for your badness and refuse to accept the entire responsibility for your genetic limitations and feel like you have no responsibility in promising things you cannot deliver. 


"You claim to be familiar with evolutionary psychology and the research that heas been done on different gender mating strategies; the strategies that evolved are precisely for the purpose of having offspring. Since the current gene pool has been determined by millenia of such successful strategies, as the evolutionary psychologists have elucidated, it is hard to believe that "education" will make a difference. You surely know the studies that show women are significantly..."


Being manly doesn't mean being a jerk or being incapable of monogamy.  Believe it or not, I am normal biologically.  I menstruated normally, ovulated normally and even had a normal sex drive but I never was attracted to "bad boys" during ovulation.  My type did not change with hormone fluctuations.  Most women I know did not have affairs during ovulation.  The women I did know who went after bad boys, went after them every day of the month.


"Trouble is, people aren't like animals being controlled by breeders (or is that what you are proposing?) All attempts by society to impose such things have backfired. Consider China, where restricting the number of children that a couple could have has resulted in the stistically suspicious preponderance of male offspring."


I am absolutely NOT suggesting government forcing anything.  I am not in favor of tyranny.  Just as many drunks now ask people for rides, culture can change.   Women can make choices about who to have children with. There are going to be women who want bad boys and to breed bad boys.   I think their choices should be culturally criticized and not "forgiven."   However, they should not be forced by law.  Social pressure would work better if it were more uniform.


Also, while men may have the offending genes more often, due to their overbreeding, it is genetically spreading to women.  As that happens, our problems will multiply. 


I am advocating that women take control of their genetic legacies.  If women want monogamy, they should practice it and only have children with men who are capable of it.    Women can do this well.  Many women have done this.   Also, I think women should learn biology and not treat genetics as an unproven myth. 


"The other problem is that for women who have come to this epiphany, the outcome is fewer rather than more offspring - not exactly a recipe for genetic success!"


In a time of underpopulation, quantity matters.   That is why I don't think the bad boy or girl should be wiped out of the gene pool.  I am not even advocating an overwhelming majority.  Just a decrease in bad boys from what we have now.  In a new world, for a new species, it was genetic success to breed like rabbits. 


Population would go down if the number of women having children with bad boys decreased.  It would not be wiped out, at this point.  We are oversurviving. In a world that is choking on its own fumes,  we need quality rather than quantity. 


We really don't need more great golf players.  We don't need more bimbos.  We need great human beings. Or at least decent ones.  We need politicians that can go to Washington for purposes other than bedding a lot of exotic women.  There are men who would risk their careers to do the right thing but there are few men that would risk their large pool of tail to do the right thing.  I believe most male politicians go to Washington to chase tail. We need politicians that could focus on solving the problems of our nation. 


We need teachers (of both sexes) that can teach rather than seduce their students. We need men who can work rather than rape.  We need men who spends time building bridges, families, communities rather than spending hours in front of a computer screen drooling over porn.  Out of balance sexuality is a terrible loss in potential for our world in a time that really needs that potential.


I am not advocating a total wipe out of sexual flagrancy.  Just enough of a reduction so that monogamy is not killed off and that there are some men and women can be motivated by other things.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 12:38PM #18
David
Posts: 287

There have been some interesting studies on cheating..and surprisingly enough...cheating is more likely to occur in happy marriages than bad marriages...you would think the opposite...and in soo many cases, it's a case of "I wanna see if I still got it", mentality...women as well as men..


I used to tend bar...became a student of human moves very quickly..and when couples would belly up to my bar, I could tell pretty quickly which ones were happily married and which ones weren't..just by the way they looked at each other, how far away from each other they sat, eye contact, body language, the whole nine yards...    

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook