Single women and married men

DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Single women and married men

We've been talking a good little bit about how incest and homosexuality figure into our understanding of the evolution of human sexual behaviors lately, so I thought I'd throw in with this question--I apologize if some ancient essay by Hamby has already tackled the issue; no doubt he'll smack me in the head with a spoon if that's the case and judgment will be done in Israel or some such.  Still, I'm interested in uninformed opinions and cold hard logic, if only for the sake of lively discussion.

Why do single women fuck married guys, especially after the guy admits that he's married?  Given what we would expect the human female to want out of a relationship (more than sperm, that is to say), why do so many pursue the unavailable (or succumb to the advances of same) ?  The simple answers don't seem to work.  If he's wealthy, for example, that's all very well and good, but most women who fuck married guys, even wealthy ones, aren't getting car or house payments in return.  And if it's simply a case of a fling that she can walk away from at any time without explanation, there are so many more single guys looking for the same thing, it's hardly necessary to break the adultery taboo to find a partner for mere fornicatory disgressance (neither of those are words).  I've done a little reading online, but I'm seeing mostly anecdotal answers which while boner-inducing, are not satisfactory.  

And don't tell me that the fact he's married is proof that his dick works.  We live in the 21st century.  Everybody's dick works these days.

 

 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps it has something to

Perhaps it has something to with ensuring genetic diversity. "Cheating" is common among other primates. Females who are basically claimed by the alpha-male will sneak off and bang lesser males and vice versa. I would think that if most of the next generation of young are all descended from a single patriarch (or matriarch) to a high degree it would pretty much guarantee incest sooner or later.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
The pursuit of 'winning' the

The pursuit of 'winning' the guy over and getting him to leave his wife?

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Given what we would

Quote:

Given what we would expect the human female to want out of a relationship

I think it is wrong to say that all women seek stable, lasting relationships. Many (perhaps most) do, but some just want to get laid and then not be bothered by guys. So you can expect most women to seek more than sex out of a relationship, but then those aren't the women who are banging other womens' huspands.

Also some women do seek meaningful relationships, but still want sexual excitement from other men who are not their partner. Wouldn't a woman have the best of both worlds if she had a caring breadwinner who would give her all the benefits of a stable relationship and a guy on the side who did nothing besides sexually please her? If a woman had a caring man (or perhaps just a wealthy man she can get money and nice things from) who was bad in bed, she could stay with him for the benefits of having a huspand and cheat on the side for the benefits of having a man who is good at sex.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe wrote: Why do

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

 

Why do single women fuck married guys, especially after the guy admits that he's married?

 

I'll let you know as soon as it happens to me.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

The pursuit of 'winning' the guy over and getting him to leave his wife?

This, I think is a major factor, if not the only reason. Remember DDA that you are assuming that women that fuck married men don't think that he'll ever leave his wife. But in movies you often hear the mistress say: " You promised me you'd leave her once your kids went to college/you settled your deal at the firm/et.c. "

 

I think a smart (and coldhearted) man can string along a mistress for years with empty promises of "something more" in the future.

 

Then there's the simple issue of falling in love.

 

We don't fall in love based on conscious calculations of what will be "beneficial" to our genes. We just fall for the people excibiting positive traits.

 

A hunky, rich man might well attract a mistress, even if he doesn't ever spends any of his money on her. She just falls for him, because he flaunts alfa-male qualities, and even though she never benefits from these qualities, her emotions are allready won over.

 

And this is only when talking about long-term mistresses. A one-night stand is alot easier to explain away. Firstly, a married man on the prowl for a one-night stand probably doesn't say he's married to the women he hits on, but even if he does, it only takes a woman who is sufficiently horny for him that one night, and doesn't have quite as many scrubles about it as you or I might have.

After all, if she's never going to see him again, it's not that hard to just say: "It's not my problem"

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
It's this whole phenomena of

It's this whole phenomena of when it rains it pours. If you got a girlfriend, your confidence is up women sense this and are attracted to it. When you're desperate for some, you can't find it anywhere, your confidence sags.

I think the avalanche theory must apply to women.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


D20DM
D20DM's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
For the same reason that

For the same reason that it's easier to find a job if you already have a job:  If someone else wants/has you must have good qualities. 

I dare do all that may become a man-Who dares more is none


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Maybe he suduced her?

Maybe he suduced her? Although obviously this isn't always the case. Maybe the fact that he was able to win over another female makes him attrachtive genetically? Kind of like a "if he's good enough for someone else he's good enough for me" kind of thing. Its very complicated and I'm sure you could get a biological answer but I find that too many people on these boards go for those and fail to take socio-cultural factors into consideration.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:Maybe he

Stosis wrote:

Maybe he suduced her? Although obviously this isn't always the case. Maybe the fact that he was able to win over another female makes him attrachtive genetically? Kind of like a "if he's good enough for someone else he's good enough for me" kind of thing. Its very complicated and I'm sure you could get a biological answer but I find that too many people on these boards go for those and fail to take socio-cultural factors into consideration.

Well that's only if you consider biology and socio-cultural factors two different things...

You're right, it is complicated. But if you read my post you'll notice that I too take the "socio-cultural" approach.

I'm not a biologist, and anyway, I'm more interested in people and their interactions. So I get what you're saying. But be careful you don't set up a false discotomy. It's not an either/or thing with our biology and our social behavior. The second is an expression of the first.

That said, our social interactions are so intricate, and so complex as to varant a field of study of their own, and one that I am generally alot more interested in than biology.

But it doesn't hurt to look at a problem through the biological lense regardless. It can only imform and clarify the socio-cultural understanding.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
A couple of

A couple of hyoptheses:

...But I want the cheesecake!

It might often be as simple as the lady seeing something she really wants and then pursuing that agenda. I mean, I think most of us have had the cheesecake a few times, right? Why? It's rather bad for us, and there's plenty of other food that isn't nearly as full of calories that tastes about as good.

But... man. I mean, you just saw that cheesecake sitting there. Maybe you even saw it being served to another customer and watched said customer savor every mouthful... mmm. It looked so tasty.

You just had to get a piece yourself.

 

You'll never guess who I slept with last night...

Some people just plain power themselves with drama, and are unhappy unless their life resembles the soap operas they watch on TV. They sleep with involved people because it's a great way of putting themselves in the epicenter of a colossal shitstorm.

Why some people revel in misery so much is beyond me.

 

But I'm his/her TRUE love!

Some people are idiots, and believe that the universe is centered around them and the future will play-out like a mythical fairy-tale, with them as the protagonist. They frame the particular situation of adultery with the current spouse of the person they're fucking taking the role of the evil step-sister / wicked witch / -insert your villainous trope here-

These circumstances I think would be caused by our facepalm inducing capacity for seeing two similar patterns and drawing an immediate non-sequitor conclusion from them.

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
What Kevin said... Really,

What Kevin said...

 

Really, the thing is: love, while caused by and powered by our biology, can still lead us to do some profoundly stupid things, both seen from a emotionless, calculating objective standpoint, and a common sense, adult, why-don't-you-protect-your-own-emotions standpoint.

 

You are seeing human beings as simple robots DDA. They aren't: they are extremely complex robots Eye-wink

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Stosis

Nikolaj wrote:

Stosis wrote:

Maybe he suduced her? Although obviously this isn't always the case. Maybe the fact that he was able to win over another female makes him attrachtive genetically? Kind of like a "if he's good enough for someone else he's good enough for me" kind of thing. Its very complicated and I'm sure you could get a biological answer but I find that too many people on these boards go for those and fail to take socio-cultural factors into consideration.

Well that's only if you consider biology and socio-cultural factors two different things...

You're right, it is complicated. But if you read my post you'll notice that I too take the "socio-cultural" approach.

I'm not a biologist, and anyway, I'm more interested in people and their interactions. So I get what you're saying. But be careful you don't set up a false discotomy. It's not an either/or thing with our biology and our social behavior. The second is an expression of the first.

That said, our social interactions are so intricate, and so complex as to varant a field of study of their own, and one that I am generally alot more interested in than biology.

But it doesn't hurt to look at a problem through the biological lense regardless. It can only imform and clarify the socio-cultural understanding.

Yes, of course this is right. To clarify what I meant by socio-cutural is the norms we learn as children (and continue to learn as adults) that she who we are and how we behave as opposed to how our genes shape us.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I apologize if some

 

Quote:
I apologize if some ancient essay by Hamby has already tackled the issue; no doubt he'll smack me in the head with a spoon if that's the case and judgment will be done in Israel or some such.

I'd have answered sooner but I've been huddling in a corner with only my cat and six layers of blanket to get me through the blizzard of 09.

What Science Says About Human Sexuality

There's your ancient essay.  It's less than a year old, though, so I suppose you can be forgiven, Allah style.  If you can dig yourself out from being buried up to your armpits -- while being pummeled with rocks from all sides, and then escape -- through the crowd of at least a hundred onlookers -- and somehow make it to safety, it is Allah's judgment that you are innocent of all charges.

Quote:
Why do single women fuck married guys, especially after the guy admits that he's married?

Because the optimum female mating strategy in humans is to marry a man who will stay with you through thick and thin (in other words, marry slightly below your own station) and reproduce with someone who has better genes (older, successful, rich men, in this instance.)

Consider the hypothetical reduction of all mating qualities to a single score of 1 to 100.  Regardless of where a female falls on the continuum, she has three options:

1) Marry exactly at her level.

2) Marry below her level

3) Marry above her level.

In such a simple game, we might expect to see a lot of people marry exactly at their level, particularly if they got to experiment before committing.  In real life, of course, there are thousands of potential scales, so we never see "real" exact matches, so we're left with marrying up or marrying down.

If a woman marries up, her man will provide her with better genes, comparatively, but this comes at a cost.  Either the man is unaware of his own superiority, or for some other reason, has chosen to marry down.  Regardless, if he becomes successful, or gets better self esteem, or just ends up in front of a lot of women at any time in his married life, he's likely to get offers from women better than his current wife.  In other words, if a woman marries up, she's likely to lose her man.  Before the days of contraception (and in many cases, after them) this almost automatically meant she'd be left holding the bag and the children.  (Men appear to have a disposition to invest most heavily in very young children, and then play a calculated gamble when they are old enough that the woman can likely raise them well enough alone.)

If, however, a woman marries a man below her own level, she is quite likely to get to keep him.  He is no dummy.  He realizes that he's done better than he ought to be able to do, and will likely forgive a multitude of sins if he gets to keep his prize.  He will be loyal.

Given these two choices, even though it seems counterintuitive at first, it makes sense that women would choose a lesser mate who would be faithful, and then actually reproduce with a greater mate, leaving the duped husband to raise someone else's offspring.  (This happens a LOT in swallows, whose cultural arrangement is disturbingly similar to humans'.)

The whole thing revolves around two concepts, one evolutionary and one mythological:

1) The Selfish Gene theory, which predicts that our behavior is programmed by genes which are unmoved by morality except as it is a benefit to them.  Typically, they will find the most optimal strategy.  The reason this is so shocking to us humans is that we believe:

2) Humans are monogamous.

Of course, #2, is a myth.  In fact, Richard Dawkins' latest effort has an interesting snippet about this, which I just read last night, by candle light, while shivering:

Richard Dawkins wrote:
A surprisingly large number of people, of all ages, are genetically unrelated to the man they think is their father.  To put it mildly, it is not clear that to disillusion them, with conclusive DNA evidence, would increase the sum of human happiness.*

This backs up things I've already said:

Hambydammit wrote:
One of the most dramatic advantages, genetically, of being female is that there is never any doubt of parentage. In other words, a mother knows with 100% certainty that her child is her own. (This, of course, doesn't take into account modern medical procedures, but you get the point.) Since evolution is not concerned with ethics, only successful reproduction, it stands to reason that females would have learned to take advantage of this fact. They clearly have. Though the numbers vary slightly depending on the particular culture, one thing has been proven rather conclusively. In cultures that are primarily or strictly monogamous, cuckoldry is common. In the landmark study, conducted in Liverpool in the 1980s, it was discovered that less than 80% of children were actually related to the man who believed himself to be the father.

Quote:
 Given what we would expect the human female to want out of a relationship (more than sperm, that is to say), why do so many pursue the unavailable (or succumb to the advances of same) ?

By the same logic, a woman "knows" (whether genetically or consciously -- I suspect more genetically) that she cannot keep a suitor who is sufficiently superior to her social standing, but her genes can still benefit by reproducing with him.

Quote:
And if it's simply a case of a fling that she can walk away from at any time without explanation, there are so many more single guys looking for the same thing, it's hardly necessary to break the adultery taboo to find a partner for mere fornicatory disgressance (neither of those are words).

If she is to keep her unwitting dupe of a husband, it's not a matter of deciding to just walk away.  It's important that the man she mates with doesn't want to stay.  Wealthier married men fit the bill.  They won't bother calling in the middle of the night and startling her husband.

 

 

 

 

*The Devil's Chaplain, pg 33.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
So just to make this clear,

So just to make this clear, are you describing the misfiring (well, not really a misfiring from nature's perspective, but from her own interests, possibly) of a system that increased fitness in our our ancestors?  I'm assuming a modern, single, childless woman in this scenario, which admittedly would have been a rarity even a century ago.  She's not co-habiting with anyone but she's still attracted to the (unavailable) person above her station because he will produce fitter offspring, the proof of this being the fact that he's already taken.  

I think I could buy that.

 

 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
I was just thinking about

I was just thinking about "the Selfish Gene" and thought that she could be tricking her husband into raising someone elses kids because the man she cheated with might produce better offspring. Just a thought I figured I'd leave it here.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ah, I guess I missed that

 Ah, I guess I missed that this was a single woman, but yeah, I'd call that a misfiring (from our perspective) of that instinct.  Go for the unattainable to get the good sperm.  The proof of the fact isn't that he's taken, though.  Bubba the Truck Driving Masturbator is also taken... by somebody.  The proof is probably in social cues and physical cues.  Granted, marriage to a young trophy wife might count as a social cue, but you get what I'm saying.  Being married is somewhat extraneous.  If you think about it, most older, successful men are married, so your pool is not random.  You're probably just seeing a correlation without causation.

Also, this theory also parsimoniously explains why you see lots of hot women with ugly men, but seldom see gorgeous men with ugly women.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
We are looking at just one

We are looking at just one dynamic of extra marital interaction. The Single gal with the married guy was much more the standard years ago, before women were able to emancipate their sexuality...& openly (& effectively) express their libido....Today it is documented that married *women* are almost as likely to have a clandestine affair behind the back of their husbands.

There are websites dedicated to offering married people of both sexes who have come to realize that "Happily ever After" wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and who are looking for like minded would be cheaters.

AshleyMadison.com is such a website, and it boasts over 3 million members who pay a nice chunk of change to have the opportunity to engage in carnal knowledge with someone other than their spouse...The male to female ratio is virtually equal.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Hiya, Rich.  Nice to see

 Hiya, Rich.  Nice to see you still lurking around waiting for enough sex talk to bring you out into the open Smiling

Yes, as I mentioned, women have always been good at surreptitiously spreading themselves around, and it's become more obvious now that they have control of their own bodies in many parts of the world.  The stuff I was mentioning was the likely evolutionary origin to the drive for women to have other men besides their husbands.  I really didn't address the cultural implications of a society that acknowledges the desire.  I agree with you that more women than ever are expressing their desire to have sex with someone other than their husband.  I believe the desire is still there because of evolution.  DamnDirtyApe would say it's a "misfiring" of an instinct.  I would probably agree, but I don't like the word misfire because it implies negative value.  Personally, I agree with you.  Happily ever after is mostly not true, especially with 70 year lifespans, global communication, extra spending money, and lots of contraception.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Hey Hamby...always a

Hey Hamby...always a pleasure. E-mail me on my site so I can send you something...I was trying to PM you..but typically, I am fucking clueless.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 PM is disabled for

 PM is disabled for non-subscribers due to a recent rash of stupidity.  You're not as fucking clueless as you think... except maybe that you didn't read the post about this... 

Hmm... I'll stop while you're behind.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Ah, I

Hambydammit wrote:

 Ah, I guess I missed that this was a single woman, but yeah, I'd call that a misfiring (from our perspective) of that instinct.  Go for the unattainable to get the good sperm.

Hamby, I'm wondering why you're not considering the fact that women look for men who would be good providers, and thus the allure of the married man lies in the evidence that he has provider experience and skills? 

On an unrelated topic, since you are a mod, can you get my badge reactivated, since PM's are now limited to subscribers?  I'm not sure how it got removed, but I know Sapient's cashing my checks every month. Smiling

 

 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:Why

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Why do single women fuck married guys, especially after the guy admits that he's married?

Because the optimum female mating strategy in humans is to marry a man who will stay with you through thick and thin (in other words, marry slightly below your own station) and reproduce with someone who has better genes (older, successful, rich men, in this instance.)

Then why do they stay with a married man who may go back to his wife and they know he screws around with other women? Hardly sounds like a guy that will stay through thick and thin.

I think success breeds success. Women claim they want this loyalty, they probably want this consciously. But in the end they go with successful men cause that's what their genetics tell them to do subconsciously. Same thing with guys, we often want a steady relationship with one woman consciously, but our genetics tell us to spread our DNA around with as many attractive women as we can get.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

Also, this theory also parsimoniously explains why you see lots of hot women with ugly men, but seldom see gorgeous men with ugly women. 

Doesn't it also contradict the theory that women are the selectors?

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Then why do they stay

Quote:
Then why do they stay with a married man who may go back to his wife and they know he screws around with other women? Hardly sounds like a guy that will stay through thick and thin.

Did you not read the rest of the post? The answer is very plain:

From a genetic perspective, a good move is to find a 'partner' (not a partner in the contemporary sense; remember that your genetic insticts do not and cannot take contemporary variables into account. They just want you to propagate) who has demonstrable success as a suitor.

To use an analogy: if you were to go to the track and bet on a horse, would you rather bet on one that has an appreciable record for winning or one that hasn't much of a record at all?

The 'through thick and thin' comment is odd, as there is no such thing as someone who will stay faithful with their partner regardless of any circumstances. This is a myth; love and attachment are finite experiences (though, granted, on some occassions the length of one's attachment to another person may equal their own lifespan).

Given that our genes have had more than enough time to pick-up on that particular fact, it's hardly plausible that we would be instinctively programmed to see promiscuity as a weakness of a mate (and I don't believe there is any evidence that supports such a notion)

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Hamby, I'm wondering

 

Quote:
Hamby, I'm wondering why you're not considering the fact that women look for men who would be good providers, and thus the allure of the married man lies in the evidence that he has provider experience and skills?

I am considering it.  I'm just not convinced it has much to do with the question at hand.  Unless I'm misunderstanding the question, the OP wanted to know why women, especially single women, seem so drawn to having affairs with married men that they can't keep.  Since they can't keep the man -- by definition -- it seems odd to suggest that they're going after him because he'll be a good provider.

Quote:
On an unrelated topic, since you are a mod, can you get my badge reactivated, since PM's are now limited to subscribers?  I'm not sure how it got removed, but I know Sapient's cashing my checks every month. Smiling

It's fixed.  I have no idea how it got removed either.  This software is buggy on its good days.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Doesn't it also

Quote:
Doesn't it also contradict the theory that women are the selectors?

No, it does not. It demonstrates that the optimum strategy, from a genetic standpoint, is for a female to marry a rung or two 'below' their status level - and this is because women are the selectors. The higher up you make your choice, the more offers your mate is likely to later recieve from other females, at least some of which may be a rung or two 'above' you*.

I do not see why you constantly claim to have trouble grasping this concept. It is not particularly difficult to understand. Perhaps it's because you find it threatening, in which case I offer the following:

 

*: 'above' and 'below' are used strictly as illustrative words. There is not an absolute, empirical standard where one can point to a person and say, "Better," or "Worse," - every selector varies in the weights they attach to various attributes, and our genes themselves are hardly infallible.

Biology also is simply stating the most likely facts regarding how we behave - it is not stating that, because this is how our genes work, this is the way things are just 'meant to be'. I think that most biologists (I know that Dr. Dawkins certainly does) happily agree that our genes do a pretty shitty job when it comes to making our lives better and that our evolutionary baggage tends to be hazardous more often than it is helpful - but this is, in my opinion, why learning about and accepting what the branches of science have to say about human behavior is important.

If we don't even understand why it is we do certain stupid things in the first place, how can we possibly hope to correct our behavior?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Good explanation, KB.

 Good explanation, KB.  Dr. Dawkins is outspokenly anti-darwinian when it comes to morality and culture, and he says so quite often.  He and I both believe that the first step to correcting the wrongs of blind, uncaring natural selection is to understand exactly how and why they occur.  This means understanding the human animal, especially the human instinct.

Just to put a fine point on your explanation, the scale, as you and I have both mentioned, is not an absolute single number score.  This is obvious.  Two women can look at the same man, and one will think he's the greatest thing ever and the other will think he's a total loser.  The point is not that there is a single scale.  It's that each female has a scale by which to measure men.  Naturally, there will be a lot of overlap.  That is, if one female likes me for my intellect and honesty, there are probably thousands more who would like me for the same reaons, as there are thousands of women who don't care for me because of my very non-body-builder approach to physical health.  For women who like rugged body builder manly men, I am probably around a 15 or 20 on a 100 scale, but for women who prefer intellectuals who pursue the refined arts like science, cooking, music, etc, I'm probably pretty high on most lists.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:I do not

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I do not see why you constantly claim to have trouble grasping this concept. It is not particularly difficult to understand. Perhaps it's because you find it threatening, in which case I offer the following:

I understand what you are saying and I understand the genetics of why you make that case. But it doesn't jive with what we see happen in the real world.

Do you ever see a tall, handsome man with money go after a fat, ugly woman? I see that these women would be will to have sex or a relationship with these men if they pursue them. The difference with men is that we select in about 1 millisecond if we want to pursue a women. Women can take months or years to select. 

 

And if what you're saying is true, then all the feminist rhetoric is false about women being repressed and forced into being sex slaves and arranged marriages. No they have all the power, men just go along with whatever they choose. And if a man cheats on his wife or remains faithful, how is he not being a selector?

You're right there is a genetic bias toward women being selectors, especially when they are young, fertile and childless. But I think environmental factors level the playing field. Women play this game of not having sex unless you're monogamous/married and making the man pay for things, so men have to decide if they want to make that trade-off. Also money is the great equalizer and men make more of it(women spend more of it). If you walk into a brothel with cash in hand, the man is the selector, no doubt about it.

It's not that different than an economic transaction, both the buyer and seller are 'selectors'. Women spend all the time, money on making themselves attractive. High heel shoes would not exist if women were the 'selectors'.

I also think you have a North American bias. In large parts of the world, women are still treated like slave/property, so the culture in these places prevents them from being 'selectors'.

 

What I don't like is this 'genetics explains everything' dogma. It's like 'the bible explains everything' dogma that one must accept even if it doesn't line up with what I observe in the real world.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:It's not that

EXC wrote:

It's not that different than an economic transaction, both the buyer and seller are 'selectors'. Women spend all the time, money on making themselves attractive. High heel shoes would not exist if women were the 'selectors'.

Oh?  So the idea that women are trying to attact the best men to them in order to choose which one they like most hasn't occured to you?  And that a woman who is more attractive will be able to attract "better" potential mates?

Would you rather be a woman with your pick of 5 "losing men" or a woman with your pick of 5 "winning men?"


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Good luck Balkoth.  I,

 Good luck Balkoth.  I, and several others, have explained this to him repeatedly, but he knows better than science because it's his opinion, dammit, and it makes sense to him.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Do you ever see a

Quote:
Do you ever see a tall, handsome man with money go after a fat, ugly woman? I see that these women would be will to have sex or a relationship with these men if they pursue them. The difference with men is that we select in about 1 millisecond if we want to pursue a women. Women can take months or years to select.

*Sigh*

You still don't understand. Asking someone out on a date is not the same as being the selector. That's just being assertive. You'll note that Hamby specifically mentioned the handsome man and fat ugly lady scenario, and why it is such an uncommon sight:

Big, dark, tall and handsome is a hot commodity, and usually picked-up by the first girl he approaches. The 'lower' on the rung a female is, the shallower her options are - but she is still the one doing the choosing (in a typical situation).

Quote:
And if what you're saying is true, then all the feminist rhetoric is false about women being repressed and forced into being sex slaves and arranged marriages. No they have all the power, men just go along with whatever they choose. And if a man cheats on his wife or remains faithful, how is he not being a selector?

Feminists are wrong about all kinds of things - however, yes, I hardly disagree that women have historically been given the short end of the stick. Being forced into an arranged marriage or sex slavery, however, does not change one's genes. Women are biologically the homo sapien selectors.

Yes, circumstances can supercede their instincts. To use an analogy, do you agree that gravity exists and - in layman's terms - holds us to the Earth? And that just because we can escape the Earth's gravity well with enough thrust doesn't somehow undermine the fact that gravity exists and holds objects to the Earth?

Quote:
You're right there is a genetic bias toward women being selectors, especially when they are young, fertile and childless. But I think environmental factors level the playing field. Women play this game of not having sex unless you're monogamous/married and making the man pay for things, so men have to decide if they want to make that trade-off. Also money is the great equalizer and men make more of it(women spend more of it). If you walk into a brothel with cash in hand, the man is the selector, no doubt about it.

EXC, let's just take a look at that last example. The brothel.

How many male brothels do you think likely exist in the world, where women go to pay men for sex? Personally, I would bet that I could count them all on one hand. How is it that women can create such a lucrative trade with something that most men can get for free?

If the man walking into the brothel to pay for sex is a selector, as you claim, why has he had to go down to the brothel and surrender cash before he can have the sex he wants? That doesn't make any sense at all. The biological selector should typically have a pool of wanting mates coming to them.

Quote:
It's not that different than an economic transaction, both the buyer and seller are 'selectors'. Women spend all the time, money on making themselves attractive. High heel shoes would not exist if women were the 'selectors'.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Both parties need to advertise. Again, you seem to be projecting your own threatening version of what 'selector' means into the issue:

Being a biological selector is not some divine status where the woman can magically point her finger at whomever she pleases and watch them swoon with joy on the spot. It simply means that they are the ones who wind-up being solicited for sex, and therefore get to choose from a pool of potential mates.

You've had this explained to you perhaps a hundred times already.

Quote:
I also think you have a North American bias. In large parts of the world, women are still treated like slave/property, so the culture in these places prevents them from being 'selectors'.

And if I'm free-floating in outer space, this prevents gravity from pulling me towards Earth. What is your point?

Quote:
What I don't like is this 'genetics explains everything' dogma. It's like 'the bible explains everything' dogma that one must accept even if it doesn't line up with what I observe in the real world.

And I already explained to you that this 'dogma' that threatens you so much does not exist. Did you read that part of my post or not? Not one Goddamn biologist worth his salt suggests that this is the way people ought to behave - the are telling us why we behave a certain way, in an apparently futile attempt to grant us a better understanding of ourselves so that we can improve our lives.

I suppose that phsyics is similarly one of those damn 'dogmas' that explains things, giving you all sorts of grim news, like the fact that the Earth is heating-up or that the sun won't last forever?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I, and several others,

Quote:
I, and several others, have explained this to him repeatedly, but he knows better than science because it's his opinion, dammit, and it makes sense to him.

...You're right, of course.

Who am I, a lowly member of the rabble, to question the wisdom of a Republican, afterall?

 

I imagine I can find more productive ways of spending my time.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Hamby, I'm wondering why you're not considering the fact that women look for men who would be good providers, and thus the allure of the married man lies in the evidence that he has provider experience and skills?

I am considering it.  I'm just not convinced it has much to do with the question at hand.  Unless I'm misunderstanding the question, the OP wanted to know why women, especially single women, seem so drawn to having affairs with married men that they can't keep.  Since they can't keep the man -- by definition -- it seems odd to suggest that they're going after him because he'll be a good provider.

I read the question the same as you.  I would argue that these women are not of the opinion that they can't keep the married men-- rather they believe they can make them switch teams.  Either that, or perhaps the woman doesn't care if she has to share, as long as said guy has enough to go around.  They aren't rational thought processes, but I don't think that matters.

 

Thanks for fixing that other thing.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I read the question

 

Quote:
I read the question the same as you.  I would argue that these women are not of the opinion that they can't keep the married men-- rather they believe they can make them switch teams.  Either that, or perhaps the woman doesn't care if she has to share, as long as said guy has enough to go around.  They aren't rational thought processes, but I don't think that matters.

Remember that our instincts very often do not match our conscious thoughts, and our conscious thoughts do not always (often?) match the reality of the situation.  I don't deny that many women might secretly hope that their newfound married genetic prize might change his tune and fall madly in love with them.  This isn't really germane to the conversation, though.  DamnDirtyApe wanted to know the genetic explanation for why females would think such a thing in the first place!

Put another way, our emotions are genes' way of getting us to do what they "want."  Genes, being devoid of purpose or consciousness, simply propogate when they have produced a successful effect.  They don't check that desirable effect against the "will" of the organism or the "reality" of the situation.  A woman who hopes a man will leave his wife, and so has sex with him to try to induce him to change, is still doing exactly what the genes have programmed -- getting superior genes while retaining a loyal provider.  It matters not a whit that she believes she is trying to do something else.   (After all, does it matter at all that millions of Christians believe God has answered their prayer?)

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:Oh?  So the

Balkoth wrote:

Oh?  So the idea that women are trying to attact the best men to them in order to choose which one they like most hasn't occured to you?  And that a woman who is more attractive will be able to attract "better" potential mates?

Would you rather be a woman with your pick of 5 "losing men" or a woman with your pick of 5 "winning men?"

I'm not saying the women are not being selectors, but the men are being the selectors as well when they decide to pursue her. The men do their selecting first, then the women take their time in the selection process. It's just different.

So when a man wears a suit or gets a nice car to attract women, why is that not the same?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:I,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
I, and several others, have explained this to him repeatedly, but he knows better than science because it's his opinion, dammit, and it makes sense to him.

...You're right, of course.

Who am I, a lowly member of the rabble, to question the wisdom of a Republican, afterall?

 

I imagine I can find more productive ways of spending my time.

You've never laid out what facts would lead one to this conclusion. Just that men and women look for different things in the selection process and go about it differently.

These 'scientists' are making conclusions that grab headlines but don't reflect the data or reality. They get more money and fame when they make conclusions like this. It's sad to see how a 'Rational Responder' gets suckered into science based on sensationalism.

PS. I'm not a Republican, I just don't live in a fantasy world where an economy and society can be sustained where people are not rewarded according to their contribution but instead by how much they whine and threaten violence. This is another myth you believe not supported by the facts.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Female Choice in Primates

I Googled "female choice in primates"+"evidence".

I didn't find any evidence, but I did find some interesting statements from anthropologists and other scientists:

 

However, apart from the active avoidance of inbreeding (Grob et al., 1998), there is surprisingly little evidence for female choice in primates, either in terms of the exclusive selection of particular mates or the consequences of such persistent choices on male phenotypes (Small, 1989; Keddy-Hector, 1992).

evidence of direct female choice in primates remains scant (Kappeler and van Schaik 2004).

Cryptic female choice in primates is poorly documented.

Bateman Revisited: The Reproductive Tactics of Female Primates:

A more recent shift in focus has revealed substantial variation in female reproductive success and increasingly accentuates the importance of female intrasexual competition and male mate choice.

 

 

You need to understand what happened, the theory of Female Choice and Male-Male Competition came out in the 70s. Just so happened to be after Vietnam War, when you had 'the male competition is evil and creating all wars', female power(woman hear me roar, burning bras), pro-abortion(women's choice) movements. Hence the 'scientific' theories lined up with the politics of the day. There was some evidence of female choice in non-primates, but the 'scientists' did the politically correct thing and extended it to humans with no evidence.

A better analogy would be you telling me there is no gravity(because it's PC). I observe gravity all the time and refuse to accept a scientist motivated by politics. I can walk into a bar any night and observe male choice and female-female competition.

You need to realize that science is often driven more by politics, money and being popular, than facts.

If I'm wrong I'd like to see the evidence that supports your conclusions.

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I Googled "female

 

Quote:
I Googled "female choice in primates"+"evidence".

Good work, EXC.  That's certainly more thorough than say, getting a degree in evolutionary biology.

EXC, female selection isn't the purveyance of anthropology.  It's biology.  What you still do not seem to grasp is that when we say females are the selectors, we mean that one sex has more resource investment in offspring than another, and for that reason, it is a mathematical principle that mate choice will be more important for one sex than the other.  The one for which it is most important must be more selective.  It's that simple.

Female sexual selection was not invented in the 70s.  Darwin covered it in Origin.  He wasn't the first to think of it, either.  Sexual selection was more interesting to Darwin that natural selection.  (He viewed them as two separate processes, though we realize today that sexual selection is a subset of natural selection.)  Fisher, in the 1930s, noted the relationship of female selection to the size and prominence of male ornaments.  Hamilton, drawing from the work of these and other biologists, published in the 1960s, and E.O. Wilson published "Sociobiology," the synthesis of all of these scientists' work (and others) in 1975.

The thing is, it's only been in the last half century that scientists have been completely willing to look at humans as apes, and it's only been in the last half century that we've gotten reliable data from primate studies.

Nobody here that I've seen has debated the fact that within primate culture, there are elements of male selection, nor has anyone suggested that women walk around pointing to men they want and taking them home.  You keep making strawmen out of this and pointing to left wing conspiracies.  EXC, there was no left wing to make the conspiracy when sexual selection was discovered.

By the way, in reading those nice little quote mines you found, I notice that you've even foiled yourself.  Nobody here has suggested that females make direct mate choice.  But then, you wouldn't know to notice that little technicality, would you?

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I am not sure if I had mised

I am not sure if I had mised anyone making this point...but through religious doctrine, women have always been made to bear the burden of guilt for sexuality...Many of the dynamics of Male/Female interaction are predicated on those religious & cultural standards, which have been become part of the American "Melting Pot".

The commonality that every immagrant who has ever come to this country, regardless of their religious or cultural background, is that women have been forced to subjugate their sexuality in favor of a convoluded moral perception

 ..and the self help business capitolizes on this like the parasites that they are...The contemprary Mars/Venus culture exposes the symptoms of the failed institution of marriage, but does not explore the root of why men and women in this country are so inherently conflicted.

There are industries built around sex-o-phobia...and they exist to shield us from this simple truth...that regardless of our gender, Fucking is fundamental...

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:There are

Rich Woods wrote:

There are industries built around sex-o-phobia...and they exist to shield us from this simple truth...that regardless of our gender, Fucking is fundamental...

 

Like the feminized Christian church. Their business is selling women the myth that with religion, men will be faithful husbands. Men need the fear of Hell, it is the only antidote for our natural desire to be promiscuous. Apparently the only way a Christian women can keep a husband from cheating on her.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen