What drives women to cheat is a subject that has been long debated over the years. And now scientists are suggesting women have been programmed by evolution to pursue affairs in case they decide to leave their partners.That's certainly a novel excuse. "This isn't what it looks like! I'm only trying to prepare for your inevitable death!"
New research claims this 'mate switching hypothesis' particularly applies to childless women whose loved one can affect their ability to raise offspring. The theory that affairs are women's natural back-up plan challenges the accepted notion that humans are intended to be monogamous. It suggests humans have evolved to constantly be on the lookout for better long-term partners that their current ones.
David Buss, Cari Goetz and their team told the Sunday Times: 'Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating pattern of humans. 'Breaking up with one partner and re-mating with another - mate switching - may more accurately characterise the common, perhaps the primary, mating strategy of humans. For our ancestors, disease, poor diet and poor medical care meant few lived past 30 - meaning experimenting to find the most suitable partner may have been key to survival.
Scientists claim people would pick partners with the highest chance of survival, but have someone in reserve in case that person died.
Of course, the reduced attractivness that is concomitant with the aging process tends to get in the way of this partner-replacement theory.
22 comments:
So a study that acts like social conventions such as shaming and shunning from the group didn't exist, due to things like resource access and the need for understood boundaries in order to allow association with a decreased fear of in-group theft. Sure, hunter gatherer groups in abundance areas may have been more lax, but head to more difficult or marginal areas mate-guarding for both sexes goes up. Last I noticed, abundance areas are not the source of a lot of civilization - at least until a group from a more resource scarce area comes in and conquers them.
Of course, the reduced attractivness that is concomitant with the aging process tends to get in the way of this partner-replacement theory.
Natural selection is a bitch.
Ok I got it. Da gilz be slutz, just cant help it, got it from their mama who got it from her mama.
Actuality do find that being a slut does runs in families. But sometimes it hides daddies mama. So a whore for a mother is a red flag as is a sister but so is slut for a grandmother. Not sure if it is genetics or training, but I am sure when you tell your son to look at a girls mother in order to see the way she will age. Also try to get the family dirt. Mom might stand by her man. But what about all the other women in the close family? Both sides.
I married a woman who truthfully claimed that the woman of her family never left their men. They buried them. She has stayed loyal as they come. The girl before her had what looked like a prefect family. Other than her mom being a cheat who got away with it. I dumped her because I caught her follow in her mothers ways. She never stopped but she found a guy who let her get away with it. And her daughter is a whore
So apparently I've being using "long-term" incorrectly for years. I thought it meant "for an extended duration", but this "scientific study" proves it means "until I find someone more tingle-inducing to fuck"?
It's natural to cheat. It is also natural to punish cheaters to disincentivise cheating.
They have an urge to have children that they can't explain. Historically there was no way to know fertility except the outcome, just look at Henry VIII: loved his first wife, but she only gave him a single daughter.
Women were more cunning about it.
Hell, a book we were forced to read in high school was 'Looking for Alibrandi' which was a story all about an Italian teenager growing up in Australia whose father treats her very harshly.
Spoiler alert: the reason is that the father knew he was sterile from a disease he had as a child, so knew exactly what the mother had done.
Of course the book was modern indoctrination into cuckold for pliable teenage minds.
"challenges the accepted notion"
There we have the entire reason for the article, if not the research.
Evolution: the Just So story for the scientifically illiterate.
Any excuse under the sun - to justify not calling it sin.
I am not a whore because science.
Rabbi B, how have you been?
ITT - lotsa pussies whining how life's just so unfaaair, maaan.
Yes, she will cheat. The onus is on you to make sure she won't. Mainly by being the highest value man she can get. And, in part, that means being capable of violence.
But I guess whining is easier than improving yourself (and that includes knowing how to throw a punch).
Or maybe the fact that they can't have a child has taken an emotional toll on the relationship and the woman is looking to stuff the hole in her heart with cock.
Speaking of women behaving badly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/every-millennial-woman-will-recognise-usain-bolts-one-night-stan/
Every man who reads here will recognise what's going on there.
So apparently I've being using "long-term" incorrectly for years. I thought it meant "for an extended duration", but this "scientific study" proves it means "until I find someone more tingle-inducing to fuck"?
You got it. Better keep the tingles coming.
Sadly, "until I find someone more tingle-inducing to fuck" also applies during marriage, even though there's pretty much nothing more tingle-killing than marriage. If you're married, you are gaming her on Legendary difficulty setting.
The same could be said for men. Men are driven to have sex with many women so as to ensure the survival of their offspring.
The world is in total chaos because of 1.Whores begat whores period!
You can have all the genetic predispositions in the world, and none of them excuse bad behavior. Witness Dr. Ben Carson.
They must have not talked to any of those nice girls in church, or spoke with all the manly man macho studs who keep them in check.
Also note that they use "people" and not "women" when the entire thrust is on female infidelity, but all you better men who love to point out how idiotic MGTOW is can certainly explain that away.
Shucks, it really is a rough road living in blue pill denial, but there are sluts to wife up so you can save the society that despises you.
Just another rationalization of impulsive behavior.
"Women can't help their biological programming so they cheat."
"Klepto's can't help their biological programming so they steal."
"Drug addicts can't help their biological programming so they intoxicate themselves."
"Pedophiles can't help their biological programming so they engage in pederasty."
"Psychopaths can't help their biological programming so they engage in serial murder."
The essential element of civilization is people taming and mastering their impulses. Defenses of impulsivity are nothing but rationalizations for barbarism.
Apparently it escapes the researchers and columnist that social mores against cheating exist because women are otherwise locked in perpetual warfare with each other?
Didn't I just read that men work better in team-based firms because, unlike women who maintain a grudge permanently, men are conditioned to accept loss in a contest and then join forces with those to whom they lost?
and taxpayers probably funded this "research"
If I knew you IRL, then ten would get you twenty that Buss and Goetz are going at it like bunnies. Just look at them.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.