Is adultery inevitable?

[rathelios]

The most successful mating strategy for a man is to spread his genes as widely as possible and then to confine his resources to bringing up a couple of his own ankle biters.

The most successful mating strategy for a woman is to find a resource rich male well suited to looking after her kids and then find other more genetiically fit males to actually father them.

Thus adultery is an inevitable part of the human condition.

Discuss.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Of course it isn't inevitable. But I imagine it happens in a majority of marriages.

[Legio]

I could go through the whole stagnation of morals in past years, blablabla...but you know where I am going with it.
It might be primeval instinct, in a way, but I would be interested to see how a woman would respond to your theory.

[Legio]

The most successful mating strategy for a man is to spread his genes as widely as possible and then to confine his resources to bringing up a couple of his own ankle biters.

The most successful mating strategy for a woman is to find a resource rich male well suited to looking after her kids and then find other more genetiically fit males to actually father them.

Thus adultery is an inevitable part of the human condition.

Discuss.

Most males do not want to spread genes around. They just want to someone.

[AqD]

Most males do not want to spread genes around. They just want to someone.

The same is for females. Why would people try to stop adultery anyway? It's just silly
________
Depakote Lawsuit Info

[MaximiIian]

"Adultery"? Feh. It's just polyamory, plain and simple; been done for millions of years. People do it, animals do it, gods in myths do it. There is nothing wrong with it at all if the parties involved consent to it.

[Azog 150]

Open Relationships FTW!!!!

[Juvenal]

"Adultery"? ... There is nothing wrong with it at all if the parties involved consent to it.

There may be a contradiction lurking in there somewhere.

There is a strong genetic imperative to favour your own blood line and reject those of others. Any other behaviour will eventually lead to your line dying out. We are therefore descended from those that successfully favoured their own genes, so it isn't surprising we do the same.

Adultery is risky, especially for women. Being found out risks rejection and loss of support for her children. It can pay off, but it isn't clearly superior otherwise marriage wouldn't exist at all.

[Cluny the Scourge]

The most successful mating strategy for a man is to spread his genes as widely as possible and then to confine his resources to bringing up a couple of his own ankle biters.

The most successful mating strategy for a woman is to find a resource rich male well suited to looking after her kids and then find other more genetiically fit males to actually father them.

Thus adultery is an inevitable part of the human condition.

Discuss.

Neither men nor women in these circumstances are consciously trying to have children - they just want sex. They very probably are using condoms. Their evolutionary programmed impulses to seek sex in polyamorous relationships may well be for the sake of procreation, but since humans are clearly capable of superseding natural instincts and taking advantage of sex for its own sake, then by that same token there is no reason at all why they shouldn't supersede those same instincts to have sex with other men/women in the first place.

And it so happens that we have evolved a sense of morality and fair play which looks down upon that, so there is a strong reason not to do it, to whit, hurt feelings for someone you supposedly loved.

So no, adultery is not inevitable.

[Kiljaden]

I'm sorry OP but this argument is ages old by now...

If you can't keep it in your pants and be faithful to your spouse, that's your own damn problem - you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place jackass.

[chriscase]

After some discussion with Cleisthenes, I discovered some very interesting ideas (apparently in common knowledge among physical anthropologists) that completely change the context of this discussion.

The entire premise of this conversation as it typically occurs goes something like this:
1) In the Bad Old Days, when men were Men and women were chattel, dominant Men spread their dominant Man-Genes like wildfire, and voluptuous wenches gobbled them up eagerly.
2) Now the the world has gone to crap, the Puritanical Hippie Brigade has turned us all into house trained Manginas, and we chafe under the rule of Monogamy.

The notion that humans are essentially similar to chimpanzees and gorillas in their sexual programming generally accompanies this argument, with an emphasis on male dominance displays and sexual promiscuity.

And this leads us to the interesting facts that completely dispel this mythological male-dominance paradigm.

Among the greater apes that use male dominance displays and promiscuous mating behaviors, sexual dimorphism is highly pronounced, and there is virtually no pair bonding of a male with any female or her offspring. Nor is there any provisioning of the female or her offspring by the male. These behaviors are common throughout history in human cultures, and absent from the behavioral palate of the great apes (there may be some exceptions here, but for the large part, it's true).

The fact of the matter is that sexual dimorphism is significantly less pronounced in homo sapiens as compared to the great apes, and this sexual homomorphism is consistently linked with male provisioning of his mate and her offspring, male-female and male-offspring affiliative bonding, none of which generally occur in the other great apes.

There is a strikingly similar set of associations in a completely different species - wolves. Wolves display the same set of traits - male provisioning, male-female and male-offspring affiliative bonding, and a pronouncedly reduced sexual dimorphism. This similarity is known as the canic analogue.

So the take-away is this: male provisioning, male-female, and male-offspring affiliative bonding are intrinsic to the evolution of our physical morphology. They can't be discarded at a whim: the biochemistry of our species simply won't allow it. Further more, in the scheme of things, male provisioning appears to be a key component of what distinguishes us from the great apes, with their aggressive dominance displays and promiscuity. Anyone who thinks we really want to be like the great apes is laboring under a misapprehension of the evolution of our species.

[Shaun]

The most successful mating strategy for a man is to spread his genes as widely as possible and then to confine his resources to bringing up a couple of his own ankle biters.

The most successful mating strategy for a woman is to find a resource rich male well suited to looking after her kids and then find other more genetiically fit males to actually father them.

Thus adultery is an inevitable part of the human condition.

Discuss.

But of course, a person isn't going to cheat if they currently have a partner who is the best they can attract. That would be downgrading, and that is silly. If you can be both the good genes guy (typically, he is physically fit and attractive, confident, and masculine) and the good provider guy (typically, he is very intelligent, usually has a high paying job or soon will have one, can and will get things if a female requires or wants them) then it is highly unlikely that a woman would be daft enough to cheat on you. But most men aren't, which is why there is the Nice Guy versus Jerk thing going on (good genes guy often being called a Jerk because he is sexually attractive to women so can be polygamous, good provider guy is often called the Nice Guy because he provides well to females). The trick, I believe, to avoiding adultery in your partner is to be the best of both worlds.

However, we're not just at the mercy of our biological imperatives. Sure, they are a huge part of us and influence us all the time, but society also influences our mating habits. Society says adultery is wrong, even if our biological imperatives temporarily make it feel right to us, so this stops a great many from indulging in it.

So, overall, adultery is not inevitable in all marriages. I'd imagine it happens in a majority of marriages, though. I've heard that males who settled down too early, before they got a chance to sow their wild oats, are particularly prone to adultery. As are females. But strong willed people aren't so vulnerable to it.

[chriscase]

But of course, a person isn't going to cheat if they currently have a partner who is the best they can attract. That would be downgrading, and that is silly. If you can be both the good genes guy (typically, he is physically fit and attractive, confident, and masculine) and the good provider guy (typically, he is very intelligent, usually has a high paying job or soon will have one, can and will get things if a female requires or wants them) then it is highly unlikely that a woman would be daft enough to cheat on you. But most men aren't, which is why there is the Nice Guy versus Jerk thing going on (good genes guy often being called a Jerk because he is sexually attractive to women so can be polygamous, good provider guy is often called the Nice Guy because he provides well to females). The trick, I believe, to avoiding adultery in your partner is to be the best of both worlds.

However, we're not just at the mercy of our biological imperatives. Sure, they are a huge part of us and influence us all the time, but society also influences our mating habits. Society says adultery is wrong, even if our biological imperatives temporarily make it feel right to us, so this stops a great many from indulging in it.

So, overall, adultery is not inevitable in all marriages. I'd imagine it happens in a majority of marriages, though. I've heard that males who settled down too early, before they got a chance to sow their wild oats, are particularly prone to adultery. As are females. But strong willed people aren't so vulnerable to it.

The "biological imperative" you speak of is a myth.

[Shaun]

The "biological imperative" you speak of is a myth.

What? Trying to reproduce with the best genes for the best chances of survival and advancement of future generations?

[Philos Sophos]

Of course it is,I aint getting any during my life...there's youre example!

[MaximiIian]

Polyamory is not inevitable. But I don't think it's wrong, either. It's only wrong if the partners involved do not all consent.

[MaximiIian]

The problem with that assertion is, one's children (and genes) will have more survivability if one remains with one's partners to co-nurture and care for said young.
This doesn't cut out possibility of multiple partners, of course, so long as one stays with those partners and raises all the children produced. Polyamory =/= open relationship, for those confused.

[Shaun]

The problem with that assertion is, one's children (and genes) will have more survivability if one remains with one's partners to co-nurture and care for said young.
This doesn't cut out possibility of multiple partners, of course, so long as one stays with those partners and raises all the children produced. Polyamory =/= open relationship, for those confused.

Yes. But the more children you have, the higher the chances of survival of your genes are. There is definitely a bit of conflict.

[MaximiIian]

Yes. But the more children you have, the higher the chances of survival of your genes are. There is definitely a bit of conflict.

Not...really. You can have both, as I illustrated. Closed polyamorous life-term relationship is the optimal via media.
Of course, in our discussion, we haven't taken emotions into account; one's emotions should be followed first in regards to such ventures.

Morally it is reprehensible

How is nailing your 3rd cousin morally wrong? I can see, maybe first cousin being wrong; maybe. But not 3rd cousins.

Should we wipe out the genes for bad eyesight?

As someone with bad eyesight, I say nay, and anyone who seriously suggests such an idea should have their eyes gouged out with a car key. Let 'em get a taste of irony in their sockets.

[dwringer]

If you can't keep it in your pants and be faithful to your spouse, that's your own damn problem - you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place jackass.

That sums it up for me.

Why isn't there a poll on this thread, though?