Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 These studies are just amongst the dozens that have found the genetic and biological basis of infidelity. http://www.health.am/ab/more/genetic_factors_influence_female_infidelity/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4656636.ece I didn't post this on the other thread at the beginning because I wanted to see what different people's views were about genetic predisposition to infidelity. Of course, just like with all human behaviors from alcoholism to abusive behavior, there are social factors involved, and you can't use genetics as an excuse. But I just wanted to point out to those that insist that cheating definitely doesn't have a biological basis, only say that because of a biased opinion. At the end of the day animal instinct can drive bad conscious choices. Many people are not familiar with the difference between instinctive choices and higher reasoning choices. For example, if I am hungry (an instinctive drive), that can drive me to make conscious choices to go to the fridge and get some food. In the same way lust can drive people to make conscious actions to satisfy their lust. At the end of the day though the initiating force is still biological. For those interested in the topic. They should read The Selfish Gene, Sperm Wars, and in my opinion the best book on the subject is The Red Queen: sex and the evolution of human nature.
utterer of lies Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 ... You're mixing up things. The biological factors are related to humans not being 'naturally monogamous'. For cheating, there are no biological/genetic factors. Cheating is a purely cultural phenomenon.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 So what are you saying? Humans are naturally polygamous? You can only be monogamous or polygamous. But you can have this variation in mating strategy: Many monogamous animals have steady mates they partner with for many years, and cheat on when the opportunity arises. It's seen in many bird species.
Art_Critic Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Finally.......... I'm curious as to whether you have better sourcing for this ? Since you are going at this on a scientific level and expecting to try to prove this with science and genetics and you are not posting scientific studies for your sources I'm wondering if you do have any scientific data backing up your assumption ?
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 Strange, second link wasn't working: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4656636.ece
Art_Critic Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 By the way.. my question is a serious question and not a baiting one.. I'm just trying to understand your angle in infidelity being genetic and I'm having trouble understanding how you can assume all that from those 2 sources.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 I'm curious as to whether you have better sourcing for this ? Since you are going at this on a scientific level and expecting to try to prove this with science and genetics and you are not posting scientific studies for your sources I'm wondering if you do have any scientific data backing up your assumption ? The reason why I don't cite studies directly is because half the people have problems understanding concepts in the first place. I think most people don't even know what is deemed satistically significant in terms of results findings. To post up a study would of course seem more realiable, but to be honest most people will just see dozens of pages of a research paper when the findings can be summarized into a paragraph. It can be done, and I've had people challenge me in forums before to do it. It's not hard to dig things up these days with the internet. Thing is, it takes a lot more time and is simply there to satisfy people who wouldn't understand the research anyway.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 By the way.. my question is a serious question and not a baiting one.. I'm just trying to understand your angle in infidelity being genetic and I'm having trouble understanding how you can assume all that from those 2 sources. Oh I think these 2 sources are pretty poor, but it's easier for people to read an internet link. There have been very good books written on the subject. I've posted their names up. The thing is, I can't reproduce the whole book or even a chapter here. The books of course cite numerous studies.
utterer of lies Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 So what are you saying? Humans are naturally polygamous? Yes. Many monogamous animals have steady mates they partner with for many years, and cheat on when the opportunity arises. It's seen in many bird species. No. Cheating implies an agreement that both parties will not have sex with other people. For humans, this might be marriage. They cheating part is breaking this agreement, and betraying the partner. Again, this is a purely cultural artifact. How do know if animals have a similar contract on sexual exclusivity? You don't.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 Yes. No. Cheating implies an agreement that both parties will not have sex with other people. For humans, this might be marriage. They cheating part is breaking this agreement, and betraying the partner. Again, this is a purely cultural artifact. How do know if animals have a similar contract on sexual exclusivity? You don't. True and marriage is protected legally against infidelity. But that's marriage. Note that there are no laws to protect anyone in relationships but not married. I can cheat, manipulate and hurt someone really badly and there are no laws to say I will go to jail. Why are there no laws for that? If I slander someone I can still be punished under the law and expect civil action. The reason is, there is no contract on sexual exclusivity unless someone decides to get married. But marriage is an artifical instrument humans created to give a pairing more meaning. It has zero significance on a biological level. The key is the behavior. To sneak behind a regular partner's back, and those partners will react very badly, is something seen in other animal species.
AlektraClementine Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Sex has a biological basis. Cheating does not. Hunger drives a man to his refrigerator. A hard-on drives him to go stick it in someone. If he's married, she's probably in the next room. Variety shmariety. Buy the wife a wig and a new pair of stockings.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 Sex has a biological basis. Cheating does not. Hunger drives a man to his refrigerator. A hard-on should drive him to go stick it in someone. If he's married, she's probably in the next room. Variety shmariety. Buy the wife a wig and a new pair of stockings. That's actually an interesting point. I didn't know till I read about it that the act of dressing up is actually a way of tricking the brain into thinking you have a new sex partner, to satisfy the need for sexual variety. Sex has a biological basis, but what about sex with mulitple partners as utterer of lies correctly pointed out? If a human being is biologically driven to have sex with more than one partner but put under restrictions to be with one, then what might happen? Cheating........
AlektraClementine Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Sure - but I think the need populate the planet has been satisfied, so in time, that biological predisposition will wane. I'm an arm-chair behaviorist so take that for what it's worth. And as for what might happen? Cheating? Only if he cannot control himself. Logically? He will want to cheat for variety...but like I said, go dress the wife up.
utterer of lies Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 True and marriage is protected legally against infidelity. But that's marriage. Note that there are no laws to protect anyone in relationships but not married. I can cheat, manipulate and hurt someone really badly and there are no laws to say I will go to jail. Why are there no laws for that? If I slander someone I can still be punished under the law and expect civil action. The reason is, there is no contract on sexual exclusivity unless someone decides to get married. False. There might be a contract on sexual exclusivity, depending on what you agree when you enter a relationshop. There are relationships that fare well without the sexual exclusivity, too. Just because it's not law against it doesn't mean sleeping around is ok, unless you and your partner agreed to grant each other this freedom. Culturally, at least in the west, a relationship implies exclusivity, but of course, people can 'modify' the rules, as long as both parties agree. But marriage is an artifical instrument humans created to give a pairing more meaning. It has zero significance on a biological level. You know the nurture vs. nature debate? Modern views agree that both play an important part in determining human behavior. Marriage was instituted to allow lower-level humans (as in non-alpha 'dominance levels') to have partners. A one-on-one pairing reduces the amount of males without partner and so significantly reduces inter-societal violence and stress. As an example, there was an interesting study published about a year ago on the correlation between the number of suicide bombers and the number of wives of the society's top tier. In countries where most important males have four wives (the maximum allowed by the islam), the number of males with no chance to ever find a wife is much higher, and the number of suicide bombers is statistically significantly linked to that. Anyway, you cannot explain human behavior with only 'nature' or only 'nurture' factors. You should talk to behavioral/evolutionary biologists and psychologists more.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 Sure - but I think the need populate the planet has been satisfied, so in time, that biological predisposition will wane. I'm an arm-chair behaviorist so take that for what it's worth. And as for what might happen? Cheating? Only if he cannot control himself. Logically? He will want to cheat for variety...but like I said, go dress the wife up. Genetically human beings don't change just because the population gets bigger..... We might use higher reasoning to control our biology driving us, so for example we use contraceptives. But the urge to create babies (which is the urge for sex) is something our bodies pump out regardless. I agree, moral human beings should learn how to control themselves. However, I was just having a debate with some of the people here over whether the original drive to cheat is biological. Lots of people didn't want to accept that because they feel it removes repsonsibility from the person cheating. It's not about that, science isn't about getting the answer you want to hear, but to get at the truth.
utterer of lies Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Sex has a biological basis, but what about sex with mulitple partners as utterer of lies correctly pointed out? If a human being is biologically driven to have sex with more than one partner but put under restrictions to be with one, then what might happen? Cheating........ Some people live perfectly happy in monogamy. Others (such as you) cannot be happy like that. The solution, of course, is that those who realize they cannot live monogamously find partners who consent to sexual non-exclusivity. Cheating happens if you pretend to desire monogamy to your partner, but live in polygamy.
utterer of lies Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 However, I was just having a debate with some of the people here over whether the original drive to cheat is biological. Lots of people didn't want to accept that because they feel it removes repsonsibility from the person cheating. It's not about that, science isn't about getting the answer you want to hear, but to get at the truth. Exactly. So why do you keep insisting on cheating being grounded in biology? It is not.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 False. There might be a contract on sexual exclusivity, depending on what you agree when you enter a relationshop. There are relationships that fare well without the sexual exclusivity, too. Just because it's not law against it doesn't mean sleeping around is ok, unless you and your partner agreed to grant each other this freedom. Culturally, at least in the west, a relationship implies exclusivity, but of course, people can 'modify' the rules, as long as both parties agree. I agree. Thing is humans are obviously very good at deception too. If some 50% of men and 25% of women cheat, and that seems to true across developed countries then it shows whether or not we set the rules a huge percentage of people break it. Now do they break the rules because society taught them to? Or is that biology at work? You know the nurture vs. nature debate? Modern views agree that both play an important part in determining human behavior. Marriage was instituted to allow lower-level humans (as in non-alpha 'dominance levels') to have partners. A one-on-one pairing reduces the amount of males without partner and so significantly reduces inter-societal violence and stress. As an example, there was an interesting study published about a year ago on the correlation between the number of suicide bombers and the number of wives of the society's top tier. In countries where most important males have four wives (the maximum allowed by the islam), the number of males with no chance to ever find a wife is much higher, and the number of suicide bombers is statistically significantly linked to that. Anyway, you cannot explain human behavior with only 'nature' or only 'nurture' factors. You should talk to behavioral/evolutionary biologists and psychologists more. I love how you pointed out allowing lower level males to mate, because for anyone that's studied it, that's exactly why monogamous marriages was created.
AlektraClementine Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 HK - I really am "picking up what you're puttin' down". BUT - I might suggest that you'd get further in this debate by extracting the word "cheat" and using "mate" or "sex". Because the drive to mate is absolutely biological, your argument holds a lot of water. But because cheating is a choice and not a necessity, it cannot be proven to be a biological "need", IMO. And I'd be interested to learn more of the evolutionary aspect of populating the planet. I'm inclined to believe in some sort of "Source". I'm no Christian but I do see Grand Design, coupled with evolution. Because I tend toward theories like that, I gravitate also to thinking there was some "end" to original population ideas. Ok now I'm confusing myself.
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 Some people live perfectly happy in monogamy. Others (such as you) cannot be happy like that. The solution, of course, is that those who realize they cannot live monogamously find partners who consent to sexual non-exclusivity. Cheating happens if you pretend to desire monogamy to your partner, but live in polygamy. Err, who says I can't be monogamous? I've debated about murder before. Does that mean I want to murder someone? I was just interested to debate this subject because of the number of threads posted by people that cheat and want help, and other posters don't really help them. They just tell them they are bad people and move on. If people were able to understand the biological drives driving people to cheat even when they feel bad about it, then they can find better solutions to help those people. It's just like people used to say homosexuality wasn't biological so used to tell gay people they were just bad people. Once the facts come out, you can then help people or treat people in the right way.
utterer of lies Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 A one-on-one pairing reduces the amount of males without partner and so significantly reduces inter-societal violence and stress. Obviously, that should have been intra-societal...
Author Hkizzle Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 HK - I really am "picking up what you're puttin' down". BUT - I might suggest that you'd get further in this debate by extracting the word "cheat" and using "mate" or "sex". Because the drive to mate is absolutely biological, your argument holds a lot of water. But because cheating is a choice and not a necessity, it cannot be proven to be a biological "need", IMO. And I'd be interested to learn more of the evolutionary aspect of populating the planet. I'm inclined to believe in some sort of "Source". I'm no Christian but I do see Grand Design, coupled with evolution. Because I tend toward theories like that, I gravitate also to thinking there was some "end" to original population ideas. Ok now I'm confusing myself. Yes I see your point, but I use the word cheat because of this......... I haven't been here long but I've read 3 threads from 3 different people that said they cheated, wanted help and didn't know how to change.......... Doesn't it seem strange that people know they are wrong and don't know how to change? It's almost like an alcoholic asking for help. Addictions and many vices have a biological nature. You can tell they do as soon as someone says they want to quit the behavior but can't..... They're not going crazy, they just have an addiction to certain chemicals or hormones driving their behavior. ------------------------ As for population dynamics, when countries get developed or overpopulated people naturally have fewer kids, because they want a higher standard of living and not just more kids. Our body doesn't really program us with a biological urge to have kids, that's more of a conscious urge. The biological programming is the urge to have sex, which before contraceptives naturally resulted in kids of course.
utterer of lies Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Err, who says I can't be monogamous? Me, obviously. But then again, I just like to provoke, sometimes. I've debated about murder before. Does that mean I want to murder someone? I guess there actually IS someone you'd like to murder. But this doesn't mean you would seriously consider it, or do it, of course... I was just interested to debate this subject because of the number of threads posted by people that cheat and want help, and other posters don't really help them. They just tell them they are bad people and move on. If people were able to understand the biological drives driving people to cheat even when they feel bad about it, then they can find better solutions to help those people. Not necessarily. Some people, consciously or not, prefer to live a fantasy, where good and evil are clearly defined, everything has meaning and there is an absolute truth (most likely written down in a holy book)... Science and realism is not for everyone. It's just like people used to say homosexuality wasn't biological so used to tell gay people they were just bad people. Once the facts come out, you can then help people or treat people in the right way. The funny thing is that the 'homosexuality is genetic' debate splits the gay community, too.
donnamaybe Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 At the end of the day animal instinct can drive bad conscious choices. Many people are not familiar with the difference between instinctive choices and higher reasoning choices. Does this mean you think people who cheat have a low IQ?
AlektraClementine Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Yeah - now we're getting somewhere. Both of my parents were cheaters. I have a harder time with monogamy and therefore have to impose more "rules" on myself. Those are merely 2 statements of fact and not necessarily related. Now, given that they might be. Is my struggle with monogamy a genetic inheritance or a learned behavior based on what I witnessed growing up. Let me give you two scenarios. Girl A - comes to loveshack for advice AFTER she's cheated. She could not control herself. Or rather, she did what she wanted and THEN chose to ask for help. Girl B (me) - came to loveshack BEFORE cheating to ask for help and guidance. I avoided a possibly heart-shattering experience for my fiance. IMO - this means people will do what they WANT to do, rather than what they are predisposed to doing.
Recommended Posts