Are we wired to cheat on our mates?

[VegasLee]

For one species of flatworm that lives in the gills of freshwater fish, monogamy is the rule. But for humans and every other living creature, biologists believe nature prefers that man and beast have multiple sexual partners.

Full Story Here


This has been discussed in these forums by Swingers many times now it appears that the "straight" world is looking for a reason for their cheating.

Are Swingers the advanced people that know the truth and have done something about it?

[des1re06]

We totally agree that we're not biologically wired to be monogamous, which is why we have no issues with swinging IMO.

Mrs. D

[havefuninsun]

I saw part of this on the Today show this morning; unfortunately, I had to leave for work before I could hear it all. Thanks for sharing the link, Lee ... I thought it was interesting that the title was "are we wired to cheat ..." and not "are we wired to be monogamous ..." One of the experts did talk about how hard it is not to give into our "animal urges" -- I didn't hear any discussion about not repressing the urges.

And yes, I do believe that we are "advanced people that know the truth and have done something about it"

[iapr]

This comes up whenever some celebrity or polician gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar and everyone acts like it is such a newsflash. If someone were to read all the sexual topics in the Bible it would boil down to a simple, " don't be animal who just follows their instincts. Be a human being and make some conscious decisions and control your behaviour so the kids have an intact family to grow up in and so noone gets hurt."

So for thousands of years people have known we have basic urges and we all want to screw who we want when we want but as human beings we have free will and can make our own decisions.

The only thing that separates us from the cheating monogamists is that swingers communicate about their desires and find a way to address their sexual interests within the framework of their primary sexual relationship.

[celtic239]

One of Darwins theories had to do with the "survival of the species" as being part of a lifeforms purpose for being. There is no doubt in my mind that this is hard wired into the DNA of the male species of homosapiens (that's us) and, agreeing with the article, that's why many men have the "urge" to stray.
Women, if one follows the "survival of the species" were genetically enginered to give birth and nurture the next generation of the species.
Civilization then began to set some rules down. In early societies rich men, those with resources who could feed extra mouths, had mulitple wives. This practice would help ensure that the male genes would continue on in greater number than, say a poorer man. Having several wives made sense since women died with great regularity during childbirth and about 50% of all children rarely survived into their teens.
Then somewhere emotions were created. While love was not a pre-condition for marriage ancient Sumerian and Egyptian texts abound with love poems. I suspect that emotional attachment to a particular member of the opposite sex created the practice of monogomy. Men, especially rulers, thoughout the centuries probably valued procreation more than an emotional attachment to the "wife". It may be worth noting that many of the Queens of antiquity schemed greatly to have her son, as opposed to the sons of the other wives, next in line for the throne, as a means of gaining power for themselves (Nero's mother comes to mind) and assuring their own personal survival.
Now what does this have to do with modern society and swinging? Beats the Hell out of me. Swinging has nothing to do with procreation. Rather it is an activity which, if I believe correctly, doesn't condemn a committed couple from engaging in sexual activites with other committed couples, for recreational purposes (granted there are several single men and women in the lifestyle).

[WesternSwing]

Originally Posted by celtic239

Now what does this have to do with modern society and swinging? Beats the Hell out of me. Swinging has nothing to do with procreation. Rather it is an activity which, if I believe correctly, doesn't condemn a committed couple from engaging in sexual activities with other committed couples, for recreational purposes (granted there are several single men and women in the lifestyle).

I feel the only reason it doesn't have to do with procreation is because today we have birth control methods. But, the biological reason, the reason fused into our DNA to want to be sexually attracted to others and to have sex with them, is still based on procreation and survival of the species. You can't just switch that basic need, the need for survival and continuation of the species, you can only alter its appearance.

[ktimephoenix]

Originally Posted by celtic239

One of Darwins theories had to do with the "survival of the species" as being part of a lifeforms purpose for being.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is hard wired into the DNA of the male species of homosapiens (that's us) and, agreeing with the article, that's why many men have the "urge" to stray.
Women, if one follows the "survival of the species" were genetically enginered to give birth and nurture the next generation of the species.

This is an oft misunderstood theory. Richard dawkins addresses it well in "the selfish gene".

there are many many instances where evolution has hit a fork in the road. taking one path would lead to a benefit for the species, while the other road leads to more mates for the individual, at a cost to the wellbeing of the species.

and in pretty much every case, evolution favors the genes that get themselves into the next generation. so the path that costs the species, but benefits the individual is the one that is taken. It is genetically hardwired into us to pass on OUR genes, not help the species. one human quality is to try to attach a purpose to everything. unfortunately there may be no "why" anything exists.

to help understand this, think about fur seals. only 1 in 10 males get to mate with a harem of females. the other males spend their time fighting over who gets to be next in line to mate. if a genetic mutation popped up that made the non-mating males stop fighting, and work to gather resources (food) for the colony, then that would benefit the species.

unfortunately that mutation would only last 1 generation, because the seal that goes and helps the colony doesn't get to mate and pass his DNA on to the next generation. seals have evolved to fight for the right to pass on their DNA regardless of the disadvantages it poses of the colony.

the opinion that men are more likely to stray than men i don't agree with. sure it may appear it in our society, but that is influenced from morals, modern media etc. also remember, that in our society, it is much costlier for the woman to cheat than the man.

in early times (and even today in some instances) women were killed for straying. pregnancy is a high cost activity , and our society was structured in a way that it was much more difficult for women to earn a living than men. this means that both the cost of straying (pregnancy) and the cost of being caught (death, injury, being disowned by the man who supported you) was a bigger deterrant for women, compared to men (what happened if they strayed? they either continued to do it because the wife couldn't leave, or they became single and could stray all they want).

to see what biology has "programmed" us to do, we have to strip away the social conditioning. there are species of animals that pair off with a good provider, but mate with the alpha male of the pack. this gives her the best of both worlds. a genetically strong child, and a way to survive pregnancy and raise the child with the best resources available.

we see this to an extent in our society. housewifes to rich or hardworking men having affairs and children to the "bad boys" while hubby is off working.

also, one little biological indicator that women are likely to stray. Many species of mammal, including elephants and us, have evolved 2 types of sperm. one goes for the egg, while the other implants it's head into the vaginal wall, and creates a loop with it's tail, in an effort to capture other sperm.

now if women evolved to be monogomous, why would we waste resources producing sperm that will only capture our own sperm? we wouldn't, we'd produce all swimmers to give us a better chance of impregnating the woman the first time (in case we met with an unfortunate end).

the presence of the sperm catchers suggests that it was common enough that a woman would take multiple partners and effectively let their sperm fight it out to see who would impregnate her.