I recently read this thoery and it fits quite well in my case. Anyone else familiar with it or who can add to my understanding of it. Its a facinating subject and I would love to read more about it.

In its basic form it just suggests that one night stands and As are natures way of ensuring adequate gene mixing and giving more chance of producing strong off spring.

It might be that the WW goes for more intelligence or even a stronger more attractive mate but whatever the situation she is trying to improve her chances of a successfull result.

The good news is that the WW chooses long term stability and reliability over Mr attractive but unreliable because thousands of years ago thats what was needed and we havent changed in all of that time so she comes back.

I rushed this out a bit but I am hoping others might add to it and explain it a bit better. On the other hand it might be dismissed out of hand or have already have been a topic somewhere else.

What will they think of next? It's like saying, "The devil made me do it" or in the case of EP, "My genes made me do it."

Hogwash.

I will put you down as 'unsure' - no only joking! Thanks for the reply!

LOL... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

yep
hogwash.

Jet2112--

My problem with "evolutionary psychology" as you've stated it is that it reflects a general trend of society to removes personal responsibility and choice from our actions and obviates our need to make good decisions -- "It's my nature".

We've found all sorts of ways to blame our "genes" for almost every vice: alcoholism, obesiety, homosexuality, drug addiction, etc -- now, let's add infidelity to the list.

I'm not saying, by the way, that our genetic makeup doesn't factor into a pre-disposition to certain vices -- I know some people have greater struggles with some temptations than other people. Your genetic makeup may make it harder for you to resist certain things, but you still have a choice to pursue them.

But to minimize a willful and intentionally destructive choice, in this case infidelity, on some "genetic memory" is pretty shaky.

I've worked with teens for years who hear the church say, "Abstain from sex until marriage" but then go to school and get handed condoms with the message, "You're going to have sex anyway -- you might as well be protected." Is it in Maine where they're handing our condoms and birth control to middle school students?

Where does personal choice and free will fit in? Many of these kids CHOOSE not to have sex -- they're not monkeys or dogs who "can't help themselves".

OK, if you want to make the evolutionary case that mixing of genetic material was necessary at some point in the way distant past, put it in an anthropology book.

But today, there is no reason to think that we're compelled to mate with "Mr/Ms Attractive and Firtile".

If genetic diversity was ever a need in human history, it was long before the established institution of marriage. As long as people have been able to CHOOSE a spouse, they've had the ability to CHOOSE to stay faithful or CHOOSE to be unfaithful.

No overwhelming genetic urge to cheat -- an intentional CHOICE on their part.

That being said, Dr. Harley is a proponent of the concept that we are "wired to cheat", but I'm not sure he thinks it's because of a innate compulsion to seek genetic diversity -- I think it's because we are wired to be selfish at some level and seek what we think will make us happy (even fleeting happiness at the expense of long-term happiness).

I do think that many of the stories here will back up the concept that the "Other Person" was made of less hardy genetic stock than the faithful spouse.

Many affair partners are in multiple areas less "fit" for mating, but the affair happens because Emotional Needs are met -- not genetic diversification. Ask Bob Pure about Squid's OM -- was he "better" stock than Bob?

I don't mean to appear to be going off on this concept, but I do think it's a destructive trend we have today -- blaming our vices and transgressions on "genetic imperatives".

We have free will -- we have choice. Sometimes, we choose wisely, sometimes we choose poorly.

Of course, all the above is my 100 percent, non-expert opinion and your mileage will vary.

Blessings

Hey Jet2112--

Let me add, by the way, that I understand what I think it the underlying desire:

To find someway to excuse our wives' infidelity as something other than their personal, willful, intentional CHOICE.

At least for me, it would be nice if we could pass the blame onto someone, something else.

I tried. I failed.

In the end, I had to come to grips with the fact that my wife CHOSE to betray me for no other reason than she felt like it. Yes, Emotional Needs weren't being met very well, she didn't have great boundaries at work, stress and pressure were factors, but in the end, she made a CHOICE.

If I relegate her infidelity to some external force or compulsion, then it just increases my anxiety that she won't be able to fight the temptation in the future.

Again, Jet2112, just my thoughts.

Hi jet

Theres a whip-smart lady called Anyname who posts on "recovery" who has posited some theories about evolutionary imperatives driving infidelity. Search for posts with " evolution" in it by her on recovery and I think you'll see some interesting discussions.

As for me, I believe that some animals are driven to mate with ans many partners as possible to diversify their offspring, but there are also animals that mate for life. To assume that it is somehow "obviously the best" way of keeping a beings' gene pool healthy isn't borne out by very many species who mate for life without any morality.

What, Fugly the eighth dwarf ? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

In truth , Artor, I learned here from the wise ones that in many cases an infidel will subconsciously "pick" an OP who is patently inferior to their spouse so that they present less of a threat to the marriage.

To begin with I was devastated that such an unpromising POS could be chosen over me, but in hindsight I think I'd have struggled more if he'd been a catch.

Exactly, Bob -- that's what I remembered from your threads -- the OM was so clearly inferior to you that it was almost laughable.

I also couldn't point to any "facts" about the wayward spouse choosing an "inferior" OP, but, as you said, it seems to be the case many times.

So, I think this challenges the notion of some "genetic imperative" to pick the fitter/stronger/attractive partner.

I guess "genetic diversity" would be accomplished from any OP, regardless of their comparison with the faithful spouse, but who wants genetic material from the shallow/stagnant end of the gene pool?

Thanks for confirming what I remembered, Bob.

Jet, if we were puppets or robots without choice, this might be one plausible theory.

As Artor explains (and Bob's OP demonstrates the opposite), this theory of "Nature caused it to improve gene mixing" could be considered the 'easy way out' to justify wayward behaviors.

When I commented on your Recovery thread (you deleted) about 'nature's role', I was referring to natural tendencies of women to be nurturers with 'mate-for-life' mentality....generally speaking. On the other hand, according to our MC and the evidence seen around the world, men are wired to hump whoever is willing.....generally speaking. It's natural. Period.

According to our MC, it's more natural for women to desire monogamy than men. Not sure why, but understanding it exists helps me understand why it's often so difficult for us to communicate with each other.

As evidenced by your (and Artor and Bob P's) wives choices to be wayward, there are exceptions to every generalization.

I know it may not support validation of what seems to have helped you, but I just wanted to clarify what I meant when I tried to reply after you deleted your original post on which I had based my original question. (This is not quite the way I remembered it being slanted.)

Glad you got more opinions on the GQII forum.

Ace

Evolutionary Psychology is a derivitive of something that is called "Cultural Psychology." The best short explanation of both is found on Wikipedia. Both are an attempt by shrinks to steal the thunder of Sociologists.

In a nutshell, both disciplines enumerate those evolutionary forces that influence human behavior in many areas. Narrowed down to affairs, we are all influenced in that direction according to Harley and according to CP and EP, with each sex having a somewhat different rational. Chief among those influences is a chemical called Phenylethylamine (PEA), which directs mating behavior. Unfortunately, PEA continues to be available in the brain once someone has mated - if triggered - and can heavily influence those with a weak moral compass toward having an affair.

Unless heavily cultivated, PEA dies out over time in terms of the attraction influence toward a specific individual. Thus marriages grow stale and so do affairs.

Some of the pundits for both EP and CP explain this as promoting diversity. Others claim that the shorter life span and hard life during our hunter/gatherer evolution time simply allowed nature to be lazy; only one brain chemical was needed to direct the survival of the specie both in terms of family and in terms of diversity. You pays your money and flips the coin. Probably both views have merit.

You don't have to understand influences to deal with them. Harley has done a great job of promoting a narrow path toward recovery from affairs and his work takes into account those emotional influences the proponents of CP and EP put forth as cause and effect. Harley also teaches how to avoid affairs for those few who are wise enough to seek help before the barn burns.

Simply put, PEA drives you nuts. This is not to say that the dog ate the homework. If a person has strong morals and values, they are not going to allow themselves to be put in a situation where they can be driven nuts.

Currently the pundits detail that men and women cheat in almost the same percentages. And often either will pick someone who is vastly or somewhat inferior to their existing mate. EP and CP struggle to justify this inferior selection process. While theories abound, it would seem that the most likely explanation is that PEA isn't really as selective as EP and CP proponents would have us believe. Further, why do so many women cheat if they were really all that monogamous?

Whatever the case, you don't have to understand how a car motor works to drive a car to work. The bottom line is clear and simple; adultery is an act of betrayal both personally and religiously. Don't rob a bank, steal or destroy your integity and morals by committing adultery.

Larry

I'm more familiar with behavioral ecology, which addresses questions like this with a more rigorous, scientific approach.

From what I remember, all monogamous animals, including humans -- meaning that they mate and stay together to rear offspring, not that they are sexually faithful -- have about the same incidence of cheating and babies fathered by males that aren't mates.

Songbirds are a good example. It used to be thought that they were always faithful to each other, but people who were observing them noticed what looked like some sneaking off and mating with non-mates. With DNA analysis, the babies can be tested to see who they belong to.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_07.html

Now... whether people are using that as an excuse for acting like idiots doesn't change whether this is true. It is worth noting that many people do have this urge to stray and that safeguards need to be in place to prevent it.

""In its basic form it just suggests that one night stands and As are natures way of ensuring adequate gene mixing and giving more chance of producing strong off spring.""

This basic form is an off shoot of the main theory suggesting that the huns, mongols, and other barbarians used abduction and rape as natures way of ensuring their gene advancement.

Then of course there were the Nazis that used another form of natures way to ensure their gene pool.

SERIOUSLY FOLK, how would picking up some low life morally bankrupt bozo for a one night stand or a sleazy affair have any chance of giving a strong offspring??

""WW goes for more intelligence or even a stronger more attractive mate but whatever the situation she is trying to improve her chances of a successfull result.""

I beg your pardon???? You may want to go reread that theory again.

I vote hogwash.

kirk

Grown up

Can we conclude that straying might have a purpose or is it the case that we simply never switch off the systems that got us together with our partners in the first place and so will always be suseptible to advances from others.

MB system would suggest the latter.

As a demonstration of how theory can be worked:

The difference between animals and humans is that animals are driven by their genetic predisposition. Humans have been blessed (sorta) with a brain, albeit a brain that can be used to distort reason.

Given that adultery is often paired with someone who is clearly NOT superior, then perhaps there is another explanation. It has been advanced that promiscuous behavior was the norm in generations during hunter/gatherer evolution. If you take humanity as a whole instead of just western (or West Virginia) societies, it would appear that adultery is less than it was some thousands of years ago.

Could it be that nature is selecting for faithfulness instead of something else? That makes a lot more sense to me than saying that someone who picks someone less genetically desirable than their mate is doing something to advance the race.

Larry

Wayzilla and Gollum are spayed and neutered much to the relief of Special Ed. Teachers throughout Colorado. Any attempts on their part to advance the species is thankfully just bumbling practice.