http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/why-men-need-to-cheat_b_1170015.html Surprise surprise! Men in the 18 to 22 age range cheat on their girlfriends. What an absolutely shitty demographic to choose. I wonder how much this study cost? I can't really disagree with it though. As I race towards 40 and haven't gotten married yet, oftentimes, I wonder if monogamy is worth the love and attention of a relationship. I am guessing a survey of women in that age group would also reveal the same number of cheaters. Not that I blame any of them. The smell and touch of something new is over powering sometimes.
"In his study of 120 undergraduate men, 78 percent of those who had a partner cheated . . ." If ever there was a time when sociologists realized that their college kids aren't always the best sample of the entire population . . .
Because there's a nonzero chance he's contracted some STD and passed it on to his wife. Anderson is a moron. He might have some sort of point if society stigmatized swingers, but it doesn't, at least not in comparison to divorces and cheating. Cheaters deserve the stigma they get. At the very least, it's cowardly, not telling your partner you want to have sex with other people, at worst risking not only your health but hers as well (and if you get the mistress pregnant, your income too), without her consent.
Double yep. There is a world of difference between being in a open relationship of any form and being a cheating lying sack of shit. As for the male desire to cheat...well no shit. Check the DNA. Anthropologists have theorized that one of the reasons that human females do not go into "heat" or give off signs signaling ovulation and fertility is that it is an evolutionary mechanism designed to keep men guessing. A male enticed to mate and stay around to ensure that the offspring he is raising are really his. Even despite this, the urge to stray is strong. However society has said that this (straying with out permission) is wrong. I agree with that.
Another pseudo-academic who suggests erroneous conclusions in a typical bid to deride anything which even smacks of traditionalism. The problem with the modern practice of monogamy isn't the requirements of commitment but that most people rush into that commitment too abruptly and without sufficient consideration. This particular bit of pop-culture effluvia supposes that men are animals at the mercy of their biological imperatives. Choosing monogamy requires discipline and resolve. That isn't to say that it's necessarily any better than remaining a free agent, but it sure as shit requires more consideration and forethought than most people want to spend when they think that they're in love. The divorce rate sure seems to support that. Monogamy is a decision. Not cheating is a decision. To suggest that it's too difficult or unreasonable for men to listen to the big head instead of the little one once they've made commitments lowers the bar and excuses crappy behavior. A reasonable conclusion would be that monogamy is something to be entered into with more careful deliberation beforehand.
Someone else who realizes that if the numbers of men and women are about the same, it wouldn't stand to reason that men could cheat more than women...who would they cheat with? Women either just don't normally brag about it as much, or in any group of ten women nine are virgins and one fucks anything with a pulse...not that there's anything wrong with that! I love loose, sexually assertive women - they give the average man a fighting chance!
provocative new book, The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating (Oxford University Press, $49.99). Wow - selling a new book at an outrageous price that explains to his ex why he's scum. Talk about working the system.
Let's see. Spend money studying commitment in a group of kids that are too young to understand what real commitment is, are not mature enough for it, and have not experienced it and then generalize to a different population. Geniuses.
Another yep. His sampling group was simply the wrong one. You want to sample a better group, hit up those in their 30s and 40s.
It's being treated here exactly the way it should be treated in academia. Hopefully it's getting the same treatment there. Basically, it strikes me as a great example of getting the methodology right, but interpreting the data absolutely incorrectly. Masturbation of the mental kind if I ever saw it.
It was a horrible study. Full stop. Methodology, interpretation. But I have noticed the " Men just can't help it." Meme that has been a trend since last year or so. Dan Savage is promoting it with his whole "monogamish" argument (which is basically just a relabeling of an open relationship) Sure there is room for experimentation, swinging, etc. if it's all out there in the open. I've seen it go wrong more than once. However, there is little discussion in the articles and studies promoting this worldview of the consequences for women and children. If you want to take a look at the real consequences of men who lack control or a sense of personal responsibility, having multiple partners to fill their urges all you need to do is go to the inner city to see how that has worked out. Poverty, crime, disease. I'm liberal as all get out but family is important. Why? Because it works.
If you can't trust a man to keep his dick in his pants before he is married, I don't know why you would trust him to keep it in his pants for everyone but you after he is married.
Kinda looks to me like whoever lead this "study" had an agenda - almost as if to say, "see! See! There's a scientific reason I had to be a lying cheating douchbag."
Well, then that sets us right down to road of "our enemies". They wrap their women up like beekeepers because "men just can't help it".
The male sexual response to a possible novel partner is completely different than that of a female, both in humans and mammals. When a male is introduced to a novel partner whom he has not copulated with, there is a surge of dopamine in the brain, cancelling out the sexual refractory period (if currently present) and allowing the male to continue having sex with renewed vigor. This is known as the Coolidge effect, and does not occur to the same frequency in females. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense, as males are able to impregnate multiple women simultaneously, so the emergence of a system that allows the male to overcome the sexual refractory period would ensure increased future generations of that male's genetics. This, in combination with recent research that shows the frequency of sex in a monogamous relationship doesn't reduce a man's likelihood of cheating, lends some credence to the idea that men just aren't built for monogamy. That being said, if you don't like the rules, don't agree to them.
Here's the thing with all this evolutionary psych bullshit. Yes, we have basic biology. However, ever since we have moved out of the fucking caves we have been surpassing our "animal" natures. Thus sky scrapers and art and what not, instead of constant rutting in the fields when not hunting or bopping each other over the head with rocks. Women have multiple orgasms, evolutionary psych suggests that this may be due to women being able to have multiple partners in a cycle and therefore the strongest semen would dominate creating the strongest child. Yet the " Who's the father?" show on Maury Povich is not the ideal state for humanity. Acting like you can justify any and all behavior based upon certain "natural urges" is ridiculous. There is a natural urge towards aggression and violence when wronged as well, yet murder is illegal. No using the lowest common denominator to justify douche baggery.
No shit? Some women find him hot! Anywho, sorry but just because we left caves our hard wiring hasn't caught up yet. The world goes to total "we might soon be extinct" shit and I'm betting we as a species will be glad we still have that hard-wiring intact. As for building skyscrapers and other achievements? Guys only did that to impress chicks and get laid. Big shots get the most pussy in the animal kingdom last time I checked. Humans are nothing but monkeys with better weapons.
