Ah, "difference feminism." It's just bad science. I suppose technically you could argue that women being different doesn't make them inferior however, the truth really is that the majority of actual differences between the behavior of men and women can be traced to social expectations and cultural environment, not evolution or biology.

I think it goes beyond how society punishes women differently -- a powerful man who is intimate with a strange woman is seen as having that woman under his power; she is no threat to his public trust. But a powerful woman who is intimate with a strange man is seen as BEING under the power of that man (even if he's the car wash boy); he, no matter who he is, is seen as taking power unlawfully -- and she is seen as the "slut" that gave it to him.

For some reason, this seems more about power to me than about sex. Bill Maher has said all sorts of stuff on his show about how Spitzer is needing to satisfy sexual urges because he's basically "not getting any" at home. I doubt that has anything to do with Spitzer's motivation. It probably has very little to do with his marriage at all and much more to do with his own ego and need to get away with something and feel powerful.

Well, I'm a feminist and I agree with Robin Morgan. She didn't say women never would do such a thing, just that they don't as much, which is simply true. They don't, so why not admit it and grapple with the meaning of it? It's a good point about the historical (well, and still fully prevalent) consequences being worse for women. But I think it's true that men seek sex impulsively more on average than women.

Specifically, have you seen that Romanian movie, 4 months, 2 weeks, 3 days? [Caution, spoilers] Well it was a really fantastic and intense movie, but the exchange with the doctor was particularly poignant to me. It was so painful. I just can't imagine a female doctor exploiting them the way he did. Not that female doctors couldn't do really awful and exploitative things, but demanding an exchange for sex with someone who is completely at your mercy and as a resolution of a debt is particularly male.

I beg to make no claims about whether that's genetic or socially crafted, just that it is.

I think feminists have had a weird relationship with essentialism. I remember reading Adrienne Rich, in particular, and a lot of other feminists from the last three decades, and what strikes me is a back and forth between the "women are X" school and those who see the differences as socially constructed. It shows up in ostensibly feminist fiction in particular. It's like there's this need to validate some basic difference to explain something.

I think the only big-time feminist fiction authors from the 70s I can think of who've really grappled with this are Joanna Russ and Ursula LeGuin.

The rest of the time I always got this sense that all the nattering about how women were more nurturing or whatever came from frustration with the way men did things (not that that wasn't well earned frustration).

But the down side is that if you buy the essentialists' position, you remove any reason for men to change.

If men are basically, irredeemably evil by their nature -- and that's what you end up with when you say "men are ___ " or "women are ____ " -- then there isn't any reason for men to even try. And that strikes me as too bad, and rather dispiriting. What's the point then?

Humans are pretty flexible -- it's that flexibility, especially of social norms, that makes us able to adapt to many environments. (African social structure isn't much help in the Arctic, for instance -- that's one reason why those cultures are different).

"society punishes [women who stray] more harshly than men who stray."

It should be noted that there is a solid evolutionary reason why this would tend to be the case: unlike men who stray, until the very recent advent of DNA paternity testing women who strayed often were tricking their husbands into raising "cuckoo's eggs": children they incorrectly believed to be biologically their own but were not. Men who stray are not doing the same to their wives.

Alan

SlackerInc, that may have been the case until the advent of highly effective birth control methods and prophylactics, but I wouldn't call it "evolutionary" per se, since in the research of social structure, one does not find such stringent limits on women's sexual behavior until the the establishment of an agricultural society in which a man now has land with which to pass down to his offspring and wants to ensure that his land is actually going to his spawn.

I dont know, its been a long time since Early Human civilizations class, I could be misremembering.

I agree with lilaeden.

SlackerInc: If a woman was procreating, and found another man more suitable genetically to be the father of her child, but her husband to be a better partner or whatever, that is still "solid evolutionary reason". The species goes on.

So your batshit crazy argument of evolutionary biology is invalid. And your sentiment is untrue.

Let's talk theory! I don't buy into this "difference feminism," or even to some extend, "cultural feminism" BS. Why can't we just say that "people are different," instead of the genders are different?

Some people cheat because they're horny. Some people cheat because they need attention. Some people cheat because they need an ego stroke. It makes me uncomfortable when a feminist writer starts to put women and men into these categories - it makes women into asexual beings who are all about vadilating their own feelings, and men into heartless horndogs. Neither is good.

I doubt Bill Maher - or anyone else - has the insider as to why Spitzer cheated - the fact is he did, though, and whatever reason it might have been, there is little excuse.

the assumption that men will be "naughty" is built into phrases like "boys will be boys." "Do you hear 'girls will be girls'?"

"Boys will be boys, but girls will be women" is the complete phrase I think.

Alan, all that shows is that society is, in fact, more oriented towards men's needs than women's. Many of the men who cheated would bring home awful diseases. The women that men would cheat with would get pregnant, have children, and have absolutely no social system to help them raise their children, thus leading to a lot of people starting out at a serious disadvantage in every way that was difficult (if not impossible) to overcome. Consequences like that are far more serious and terrible than a man raising someone else's child as his own. Which consequences are worse, after all: chronic disease, death, and/or social shunning of massive amounts of innocent people, or raising a child that isn't yours? So why do we still punish women more for cheating than men?

This need to verify paternity to pass on property, name, etc is also only valid in a patrilineal society. When the mother can be easily known and the father cannot, it does not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to put so much importance on paternity. It is a social construct that developed at some point in human history and has been very widespread, but not universal.

I only hit "enter" once, I am sorry for the multiple post. My computer is being stupid. Forgiveness pppleasssseeeeeeee!

Alan: This is true of our culture, but in cultures where the property is passed down mother-to-daughter, women enjoy a lot more sexual freedom (because it's usually obvious who someone's mother is). So, you're right, but it's a social construct and not biological.

I don't have any theories, but I'd like to note how damaging that whole "men want sex more than women do" thing is. It caused problems in my relationships until I realized what was going on.

I think the observed difference in female politician's behavior and male politician's behavior is a statistical anomaly.

There are far fewer women in political positions, especially powerful ones like Senate, Governor, Representative..etc..than in the general population. I think it's less than 20% of the government (I could be wrong on that number).

By and large, most politicians do not get caught up in scandals, do not get caught cheating on their spouses, do not wind up in jail. Most male politicians are faithful to their wives.

If it is unlikely to hear about a male politician cheating (who make up most politicians) it is extremely unlikely to hear of minorities doing the same thing.

That's a good point, Angelo. You're dealing with a question of ratios as well.

But the double-standard is all over the place, even in things like HPV. Girls are whores for needing to be protected from it, but where the flying fuck do people think they're GETTING it? Ducks? Both sides accept responsiblity, everyone wins. Instead though, we fall back on slut shaming.

As for Spitzer, his was really I believe a question of control, especially in light of his 'demands' about unsafe sex and the like. He's in a profession that holds ultimate power, and he never could get enough of it. I honestly believe Bill Clinton maybe just liked nookie, but Spitzer wanted control.

Ew.

You know, I read an interesting book about evolutionary psychology once and it argued that men are less forgiving when women cheat b/c the thought of using their resources to raise another man's children is unacceptable to them. But for women, a man may still use his resources to raise your children even if he cheats, so they are more likely to forgive. Clearly the issue isn't this simple, but I thought it was an interesting take on it. I find evolutionary psychology fascinating, but it's important to keep in mind that we're not SLAVES to our biology, so it's not some sort of a "free pass" for bad behavior or something.

I can't quite grasp Morgan's actual reasoning from that quote. Is she really saying one reason women don't cheat is "And women tend to regard sex differently. They like to at least like the person."?

Why would that lead to less cheating? A woman can like lots of people while married to one. In fact, I suspect most women who cheat do so with someone they "like."

I have a feeling this quote was taken out of context.

MyBabyPanda, I would think that a major factor in that would be that women have HAD to depend on men for much of recorded history, so they HAD to forgive the man who cheated, or lose their economic stability.

Evolutionary psychology is essentially complete bullshit. Honest.

And I second the "people are different theory" thing. I doubt it's true that women cheat less than men. Perhaps they are better are hiding it. I think the statistics on cheating in general are actually pretty staggering, it seems to have become sort of common. (Perhaps women politicians are unlikely to cheat because a- it's not in their personalities or b- they don't want to put the careers they worked so hard for in jeopardy.)

Waxghost - that is a good point too. Like I said, the reasons behind any human behavior are so complex. It's not even purely in the past - even today many women would not have an income if they left their husband because they don't work. I'd assume they would be less likely than working women to leave their husbands if they cheated but haven't seen any statistics on it.

The only way I could even see a shred of argument for any biological explanation would have to do with the consequences of casual sex--any casual sex, cheating or non--being greater for women, unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy they can't support. But ultimately, that's bullshit, since pregnancy would be a plus evolutionarily.

MyBabyPanda,

You are coming from the same place I am, definitely. I agree that while EvPsych has a powerful effect, it is not immune to modification by reason and social forces. However, I do think whenever we go against its "preferences", it's a hard slog upstream, and any relenting of effort results in getting swept away. Male lust and desire to "spread our seed" is one such primeval urge that is very hard to overcome. (Though it is also true that women have a strong desire to be promiscuous so as to not put all their reproductive eggs in one basket.)

Pillarsofsalt,

You make a good point about patrilineal passing of property. But in straight up genetic terms (and, I should make it clear, I was a big fan of Richard Dawkins' _Selfish Gene_ for years before his recent fame as an atheist bestseller), people--male or female--always instinctually "want" to pass on their genes regardless of property or any of that. Genes "like" to survive and be copied throughout the population, and "dislike" dwindling.

Religiarchy said, to me:

"If a woman was procreating, and found another man more suitable genetically to be the father of her child, but her husband to be a better partner or whatever, that is still "solid evolutionary reason". The species goes on.

So your batshit crazy argument of evolutionary biology is invalid. And your sentiment is untrue."

No, because (as Dawkins repeatedly demonstrates) evolution does not go on at the species level, with our species competing against other species like basketball teams. It happens at the individual level (or even the gene level). If it only happened at the interspecies level and not intraspecies, we'd not find people who live near the equator having darker skin to protect against the sun (but which provides less vitamin A at northern climes), sickle cells to fight malaria but which are a net disadvantage in other regions...etc.

But though your understanding of natural selection is deeply flawed, I'll not return fire with insults like you directed at me.

Although if you meant it is evolutionarily advantageous to the woman to get her husband to raise her biological offspring which is not actually his, of course that's right. But I thought that was obvious and part of my point. It is for him that this is a very bad deal evolutionarily speaking.

(I'll post this and then deal with other objections in a subsequent post.)

Alan

If a woman was procreating, and found another man more suitable genetically to be the father of her child, but her husband to be a better partner or whatever, that is still "solid evolutionary reason". The species goes on.

Evolution, inasmuch as it can be said to care about anything, does not give a whit for the the continued existence of species. But individuals *do* care about the continued survival of their own line. The male in our little scenario here will not be consoled by the continued existence of the species. It does not matter whose child your mate is caring for as long as your own child survives and thrives. Group survival is almost completely the wrong way to approach this problem.

I'm with ProFemMale. Humans are different.

All this talk about biology seems mostly irrelevant to me. It just serves to reinforce that since men and women are biologically different, certain behaviors can be excused and/or justified. And women have historically been given the short end of the stick with it. I'm not really interested in someone's agenda driven biological study, although you all make very interesting points about evolution.

This is one where people are just people. It's true that women are more stigmatized for expressing themselves sexually, but that just reinforces the ridiculous notion that women don't want or need sex the way men do.

I love sex. Amen.

SlackerInc,
In regards to your response to me, I am not sure how this statement, people--male or female--always instinctually "want" to pass on their genes regardless of property or any of that." has anything to do with specifically controlling the sexuality of women more than the sexuality of men. Of course people "want" to pass on their genes, and of course the genes "prefer" (in as much as one can call it that) not to dwindle, but all that proves is that men and women are just as likely to desire to reproduce, not that women are evolutionarily more likely to be monogamous,and men are more likely to be promiscuous.

If I missed where that all fits in(which is quite possible, YAY for lack of caffeine) please let me know.

SlackerInc - It can be hard to "swim upstream" against biological drives, but I don't think it's impossible, or even hard in all cases! It might be advantageous for siblings to try to kill each other to get more resources from the parents, but that is not acceptable in our culture (or any other I can think of off the top of my head...). Rejecting people with deformities or genetic disease might be a natural drive to avoid passing down these traits, but we know that is morally wrong and many of us fight against that kind of discrimination.

I think we're on the same page, though, that evolution does effect us both physically and psychologically. It's hard to say how much. It seems that some people think that admitting that these things have an influence on our behavior means (a) they can't be consciously overcome and (b) we should just accept them.

But a woman would have an interest in keeping her mate from cheating, also, since she would not want to share whatever protection and resources her man provides with another woman and the other woman's potential offspring. And a husband's straying could lead to the husband abandoning the wife altogether.

Which, I guess, would be the evo-psych explanation for why women often engage in vociferous slut-shaming.

(I'm not a believer in evo-psych, myself, just thought I'd point out a different angle.)

Ithika, right on--glad to see some more of us who understand the basics of natural selection.

Lilaeden claimed:

Evolutionary psychology is essentially complete bullshit. Honest.

Honestly, it is not bullshit at all. Which is not to say they have settled every issue (or even most issues) to the point where it's nailed down scientifically. It's a new field, and one with many inherent challenges. Plus they could do well to blend their theories with sociological ones (just as the sociologists would do well to do the converse).

But it's hardly "bullshit" to assert that we, like other primates (other mammals for that matter) have developed certain predictable behavioral tendencies in response to our ancestral environment (some of which are maladaptive today, but evolutionary time takes many many generations to play out, and our culture changes so fast now it can never catch up except to remain as flexible as possible).

EG, there's a very simple reason why "casual sex" is, in fact, riskier for women (particularly in the environment in which we all evolved, one that lacked modern contraception). I'll illustrate with a metaphor.

A man is like Johnny Appleseed, except that his bag of seeds is nearly inexhaustible. He can throw his seeds into any field, even a sorry-looking one (indeed, those may be all he can find to accept his seeds if they are not of great quality). Planting seeds in one infertile field does not impact much on his ability to plant elsewhere, so quantity (the "shotgun approach") is a viable strategy. At the same time, though, he does like to spend more time around the better land and really help cultivate certain apple trees. His optimal evolutionary strategy is to cultivate some carefully and throw others any spot he can find.

The woman is like the possessor of a certain small plot of land. She only has the space and the fertility to grow a certain amount of trees. If she allows any old Johnny A. to wander in and throw low quality seed in her plot of land, she won't get much in the way of good apples to eat, and if a guy with some primo seed comes along while she's "full up" with others (that is, pregnant) she loses the chance to have a top-quality planting (mating).

Alan

Ok SlackerInc, I almost laughed at your analogy. Seriously- you just went on about a man spreading his seed and a woman saying "hey now, no seed over in this plot, this is my plot."

And this is my problem with breaking human beings down with a strictly biological view. Of course we can't rationally dismiss science, but looking at in that way only leaves the door open to say that differences between men and women are irrefutable scientific fact. That doesn't mean there isn't something to your argument, maybe I just found the visual absurd. Like a little Dutch girl out in the field turning away some boy in clogs and a basket of seeds.

I just find it a bit narrow to explain human behavior with wide generalizations, whether they be biologically or socially constructed.

No really, bullshit.

Ok ok, I should elaborate and say that it's more like MyBabyPanda described. Whatever drives we might have leftover from generations past (as highly unlikely and lacking in empirical evidence as these theories might be) probably have a *miniscule* effect on actual behavior. There's no evolutionary instinct so strong that it could really override, say, common sense and cause someone to cheat. Men don't desperately need to sow their wild oats and women don't crave to stay home because of some hunter/gatherer distinction. (In reality behavior in nomadic tribes probably wasn't broken down in this way as people tend to believe, anyway.)

But it's much easier to just say "bullshit." You know, because...it's bullshit.

Well, and also, even if we think that there's some benefit to breaking it down to such an absurd biological level, there's advantage there, too- if a woman has slept with multiple men in an attempt to get pregnant, there hasn't, traditionally, been a way for those men to tell who the actual father of the child is. If the goal is ensuring offspring, it's to those men's benefits to assume that it could be theirs, then, and to help care for those children. One could quickly come to the conclusion that a social group is the strongest, biologically speaking, when nobody knows who the father of any particular woman's child is, because then all members have a vested interest in working together to ensure the well-being of all of a group's offspring.

Or, you know, we could acknowledge that the mating habits we participated in several thousand years ago may not really apply today, and stop trying to use crap-science to justify out-dated models of human sexuality.

Lilaeden - I don't think we're seeing eye to eye because I don't think the effect of evolution is "minuscule". I think it makes sense that an effective strategy for a man to successfully pass along his DNA would be to sleep around. That doesn't mean they are will always feel that urge, will always be unable to control that urge, or should be excused for acting on such an urge. And there are DEFINITELY cultural/societal factors that influence behavior like this as well.

I definitely DO agree with you about how people create "hunter gatherer" situations in their minds to say that women are destined to stay at home. Live in the caveman days was not so easy that the caveladies could stay at home, sweep the cave, bathe the children and look pretty for when the hunter man came home. Both sexes most likely had to work extremely hard to survive, so other depictions are a big misrepresentation. I think it's important to remember this isn't about gender roles or social mores, but rather the core issue is about passing along ones's DNA to an offspring who will survive to sexual maturity.

And Roymac - No one is arguing that the mating habits of 2000 years ago are a desirable model for today's society. Shit, the mating habits of 50 years ago aren't desirable to us, which is why we're feminists. But genetics don't change as quickly as culture, as SlackerInc said, so we may be left with drives and behaviors that are unacceptable today.

PillarsOfSalt,

I don't believe women are more likely to be monogamous. But they are more likely to be choosy about whom they are non-monogamous with, for the reason I laid out in my (admittedly funny, but I think accurate) analogy of Johnny Appleseed etc.

MyBabyPanda:

It seems that some people think that admitting that these things have an influence on our behavior means (a) they can't be consciously overcome and (b) we should just accept them.

Exactly!! So well put. Explaining things and justifying them are not the same. EvPsych can be used to explain an evolutionary motive for rape, for instance; that hardly in any way excuses it morally. I'm very glad that we are rational beings who can rise up above mere instinct. But we can't always rise as far as we like to pretend, is all.

LynstHolin:

But a woman would have an interest in keeping her mate from cheating, also, since she would not want to share whatever protection and resources her man provides with another woman and the other woman's potential offspring. And a husband's straying could lead to the husband abandoning the wife altogether.

All true (though these are weaker forces than those operating on the other side). And we'd certainly agree that most women aren't super jazzed by the idea of their men being with other women. But I'd dare say women get much more concerned about whether their male partners are "in love" with another woman. If it's "just sex", I don't think they freak out nearly as much as men do when their female partners have "just sex" with another man.

T-Monster,

Do you not think any differences between men and women are "irrefutable scientific fact"? I guess I think some are, some aren't, and some are in a grey area.

Lilaeden,

Why is it "common sense" "not to cheat"? (I don't actually accept that loaded term "cheat", btw, as I don't accept the idea that humans or any other creature is voluntarily monogamous.)

Did anyone see the recent NY Times article about how the animals we used to think were monogamous (like swans) actually sneak nookie on the side? Turns out the only completely monogamous animal is some weird sea critter: the female and male physically fuse together to mate.

Spitzer didn't "cheat" because his wife didn't fulfill him (in fact, if more women understood this there would be a lot less hurt feelings: men simply crave variety). He didn't do it out of some weird ego trip or compulsion to take risks. He did what he did because these online services offered him an endless variety of attractive young sex partners who were discreet (remember: they didn't turn him in) and which he had enough money to afford. Period. End of story.

I submit that if there were not already a gene that caused men to have a strong tendency to wish to "sow their oats" one would eventually develop because of its strong adaptive nature. Those lacking such a gene would be at a considerable disadvantage.

I'm sorry, but it's not just (or even mostly) socialisation that causes men to crave nubile flesh in endless variety. In fact, men in modern society sublimate and hide this urge to a greater degree than most women remotely suspect, is my sense of things.

I said nothing about women "craving to stay home" btw. You seem to be throwing that in as a straw man. We're talking about sex drive, which is along with hunger and thirst among the most basic biological drives--for good reason.

BTW, RoyMacIII, the points you make in your first paragraph are valid. There are many different kinds of successful evolutionary survival strategies. Your ambiguous group dynamics (where most people would be cousins anyway) is another one. But strict monogamy and nuclear families fly more directly in the face of evolutionary forces.

Alan

SlackerInc. Please. What I wrote does not remotely indicate I believe humans are androgynous cyborgs.

I simply think that reducing the complexities around human sexual behavior gender specific generalizations has its dangers. I agree completely that we have certain instincts, and that some are different between men and women. But again, I think using this line of thinking to prove differences in sexual behaviors is dangerously general and does more harm than good in reinforcing negative societal gender norms.

Excuse me, I have an apple tree field to monitor.

"Spitzer didn't "cheat" because his wife didn't fulfill him (in fact, if more women understood this there would be a lot less hurt feelings: men simply crave variety)."

Women also crave variety, at least the women I know. (Since you used antecdotal evidence, I assume you'll allow me to do the same).

I noticed you did not reply to roymac's point that during the time our mating habits evolved, men could not tell which offspring was their's genetically. Many non-agricultural cultures reflect this in their social structure. For instance, one group of Polynesian islanders have a setup in which a woman's offspring is supported by herself and her brother, and hence women can mate with whoever they like. Many Native American societies accepted pre-marital sex, and allowed women to divorce husbands and take another fairly easily.

Plus, I think you can look at our modern culture, and look at national surveys that say about 1/3rd of wives have cheated on their husband, compared to 1/2 of husbands. Considering that for older generations especially, there is definitely more social risk women take in cheating, I think it's reasonable to suggest men and women are comparable on this front.

So I don't disagree with you that humans are not naturally monogamous, I just don't understand how anything about most /modern/ evolutionary understanding takes away from the OPs point, that it's wrong to say that men should be essentially expected to cheat, while women should not.

Furthermore, in our culture we tend to think of sex as always including intercourse. Thus, although pregnancy would occur less than half the time sexual intercourse occurs, it would occur a significant percentage of the time. However, many cultures have engaged in various other sexual acts, and the apes you referenced, especially the ones we're closest to (bonobos) use various sexual acts for purposes other than simply reproduction (reducing conflict, creating social bonds, etc.). Thus it would make a matter of sense, at least to me, that humans of all varieties may have evolved a desire to be highly sexual/sexual with a variety of other people, irregardless of whether intercourse is involved.

It's common sense because if, as a person (not just a MAN, though you seem to make a lot of sweeping generalizations about all men and their tendencies) who has entered into a monogamous relationship, it's dishonest and oh, I dunno, wrong to fuck someone else. If you don't feel you are naturally monogamous, don't be. Be with someone or many someones who understands that you aren't meant to be with one person.

Cheating isn't sex outside of a relationship between two people. Cheating is breaking a relational contract that you voluntarily made with someone and then, generally, doing a lot of hiding it and lying about it.

It's interesting that several non-feminists have been around recently (or maybe longer, and I just wasn't paying as much attention in the past) who all tend to use the same style of argument.

And now we're arguing ev psych with a guy who thinks women should just be more understanding of men who cheat because they can't help themselves.. they just need variety!

On topic, essentialism within Feminism is also problematic. But I think that Robin Morgan quote is being misued by the article. I could be wrong, but she has expressed a much more nuanced view of this issue:

"Biological determinism has for years struck me as a failure of intellectual nerve. So I don't mean to counter sexist theories along those lines with a mirror-image feminist version. We have as yet no truly value-free science, uninfluenced by masculinist (among other biases) prejudice. Consequently — although on certain bleak days I am sorely tempted to agreement with what we feminists have termed the "acute terminal testosterone-poisoning" theory of patriarchal history — I do not make the argument that women are inherently more peaceable, nurturing, or altruistic than men. (For one thing, this permits men the laziest of justifications for their own behavior.) Yet it is undeniable that history is a record of most women acting peaceably and of most men acting belligerently — to a point where the capacity for belligerence is regarded as an essential ingredient of manhood and the proclivity for conciliation is thought largely a quality of women."
—Robin Morgan, The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism, 1989.

Group survival is almost completely the wrong way to approach this problem.

Except that primates are a social species and depend upon a non-nuclear-family group to keep them alive.

I agree that ev psych is bullshit, because the physical and cultural evolution of humans contradicts just about everything ev psych ever says.

What waxghost said.

Also, from what I've read, having multiple sexual partners was beneficial for women, b/c it hid paternity and raised the chances of her offspring surviving. I've also read in multiple places that having multiple partners or concentrating one's energy on one partner yielded the same results for men, as far as continuing their genetic line. Both strategies get the same results, and they also found that men don't always use the same strategy. Some men are inspired to be monogamous with some women, and aren't in other situations. Given that seems to match what people actually do, I would say that it's accurate, and that there's quite a bit less covering for latent nubile flesh cravings than MRA's, evolutionary psychologists, and SlackerInc would have anybody believe.

Am I naive enough to believe that Mr. KMP doesn't find other women attractive? Of course not. Is that the same thing as him wanting to have sex with women he finds attractive. No. And I think that the more men free themselves of the expectation that they are supposed to be wanting to fuck anything under 25 in a C-cup, they find that they don't really think about a woman's fuckability as much when they meet them. I'd be willing to wager that when they start thinking of women as full on people, the supposedly natural objectification that they do when seeing women around them happens faaar less often.

Lilaeden: If you don't feel you are naturally monogamous, don't be. Be with someone or many someones who understands that you aren't meant to be with one person.

That is exactly what I have done, though it took me a while to come to the point of realising this is what I had to do (that is, just be upfront about it). And she was not initially thrilled by the idea (I should explain: I am with one woman I consider a life partner, someone I want to share the rest of my life with, but I can't close down the possibility of "don't ask/don't tell" trysts on the side, should the opportunity arise).

Cheating isn't sex outside of a relationship between two people. Cheating is breaking a relational contract that you voluntarily made with someone and then, generally, doing a lot of hiding it and lying about it.

I take your point. But there is such a strong social prescription against being openly non-monogamous that this is what we generally end up with.

Geek: It's interesting that several non-feminists have been around recently (or maybe longer, and I just wasn't paying as much attention in the past) who all tend to use the same style of argument.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me in this paragraph, but I was around quite a bit last fall and have taken a hiatus in the past few months. And I do consider myself a feminist, though I get into conflicts with some feminists over certain issues. I suppose I'm a "difference feminist" in that I do think women are superiour to men in many of their traits, though some men have some nice tricks up their sleeves as well. In general, though, I'm the antithesis of Ann Coulter--in just about every way, but in this context I refer specifically to her stated wish that women were not allowed to vote. I'd be cool with *only* allowing women to vote. :)

And now we're arguing ev psych with a guy who thinks women should just be more understanding of men who cheat because they can't help themselves.. they just need variety!

That's pretty close. I suppose they can help themselves, at least theoretically; but it's like someone who is overweight and wants to lose weight and keep it off long term. It's possible with enough effort and dedication, but not easy--at least, not if the opportunity to indulge in "guilty pleasures" is freely available.

KissMyPineapple: I think that the more men free themselves of the expectation that they are supposed to be wanting to fuck anything under 25 in a C-cup...

This is what I was talking about when I said women just don't understand. My parents were professors of social science (anthropology and sociology). My fiance is a sociology grad student. I am an amateur social scientist, but not so shabby as amateurs go. There are a lot of wants (brand name and/or fashion forward clothing, expensive cars, pharmaceuticals of dubious benefit) that are created by socialisation. But the desire to have sex with young, attractive women is way more deeply rooted than that. It's not "okay, I want to be cool, respected by other men in the locker room, so I'll lust after pretty young things". It's like an ache that won't go away, a frankly very annoying hassle to deal with really. I mean, sometimes (quite often, really) I'd much prefer to turn it off. It's embarrassing to feel like such a base creature; and it's intensely frustrating since most of us (the rich and famous and the exceptionally good looking excepted) can't act on these desires anyway (hence the multibillion dollar porn industry, not to mention all the money in other sex work, of which the vast majority is spent by men).

Alan

LILAEDEN: "Evolutionary psychology is essentially complete bullshit. Honest."

Wow. That's a pretty strong statement about a field involving literally thousands of researchers and thousands of studies spanning the fields of psychology, economics, anthropology, medicine, and even some surprising arenas like sociology.

For a science that is "complete bullshit", it has expanded surprisingly rapidly over the past 3 decades.

We (I consider my primary affiliation to be an evolutionary psychologist, followed by social psychologist), study topics that range from how evolved hunger mechanisms influence behavior in the current social context of widespread dieting, evolved mechanisms for face processing and recognition, the evolved functions of anger/fear/disgust, how evolving in the context of social groups triggered the development of evolved systems for processing social and cultural information, how shifts in hormones influence mating behaviors, etc.

Is it evolutionary psychology you object to broadly, or a slice of the ev psych gender differences research that you find either a) politically worrisome; b) neglectful of social constructionist theories; or c) both?

There is a difference between saying some subset of feminism is bogus and castigating the whole women's studies field as a whole.

LILADEEN "Ah, "difference feminism." It's just bad science. I suppose technically you could argue that women being different doesn't make them inferior however, the truth really is that the majority of actual differences between the behavior of men and women can be traced to social expectations and cultural environment, not evolution or biology."

That statement buys into the (highly socially constructed!!) notion of nature vs. nurture (rather than say, nature via nurture).

Sometimes evolutionary psychologists and social constructionists are providing different and complementary levels of analysis, and sometimes they conflict. But you seem very dismissive of the evolutionary perspective.

Let's take monagomy as a case example, since that's been talked about alot on this thread.

Why are people faithful to their mates?

An evolutionary psychologist interested in hormonal mechanisms might look at how the hormones oxytocin/vasopressin get released in social relationships and how they facilitate bonding among individuals. They might then look at species with and without receptors for these hormones and see that species with these receptors are highly monogamous and species without them are not, suggesting these hormones are part of an evolved system for promoting fidelity.

An evolutionary psychologist interested why monogamy evolved in the first place might look at what factors we share with other monagamous species (e.g., very fragile infants) to figure out why the general impulse to couple emerged in the first place.

An evolutionary psychologist interested in sex differences might look at the different costs vs. benefits associated with infidelity for men and women to see if there might be different motives. For example, we know that in a variety of mammal species, females become much more selective about who they mate with during ovulation. The same pattern occurs in human women (ovulating women have more fantasies about people other than their partners, stronger preferences for more symmetrical men, stronger preferences for men with dissimilar MHC genes, etc.) - these effects are so specific that it would be extremely difficult to explain them from a social constructionist perspective.

An evolutionary psychologist interested in the interaction of cultural norms and evolved systems might examine how the birth control pill blunts the normal surge of hormones around ovulation that are thought to drive this increased interest in extra-pair sex.

These are very different than what a sociologist might propose (e.g., the cultural valuation of marriage, the centrality of coupling is social discourse, stigmatization of cheaters, etc.) and they don't mean that the social constructionist perspective isn't valid. It is. But having that as the only approach leaves too many questions unanswered about why humans behave the way they do.

JESS: "But the down side is that if you buy the essentialists' position, you remove any reason for men to change.

If men are basically, irredeemably evil by their nature -- and that's what you end up with when you say "men are ___ " or "women are ____ " -- then there isn't any reason for men to even try. And that strikes me as too bad, and rather dispiriting. What's the point then?"

I don't endorse that position at all.

I am a hardcore full-fledged without a doubt essentialist.

I also believe very strongly that we need to work very hard to overcome the factors that limit people from achieving their full potential. This includes fighting against the massive patriarchal/capitalistic marketing conspiracy that keeps women obsessed with their bodies, the social factors that discourage women from entering the sciences, the repressive attitudes about sex that harm women, the biases in the workplace that keep women from advancing as quickly as men, and other critical issues.

You can believe that there are some general group differences between men and women on some things and still believe that it's very important to give every person the opportunities they deserve to pursue their interests and develop their abilities.

Along your despair that if men are somewhat more likely to be interested in short-term affairs than women, that doesn't mean a) it is some how therefore justifiable or b) that we as a society can't decide to erect roadblocks to this behavior.

"Except that primates are a social species and depend upon a non-nuclear-family group to keep them alive.

I agree that ev psych is bullshit, because the physical and cultural evolution of humans contradicts just about everything ev psych ever says."

Everything? That's a strong statement because many evolutionary psychologists / social scientinsts consult the literature on the physical and cultural evolution of humans when formulating their hypotheses.

In regards to the group selection argument, the overwhelmingly accepted position in biology is that natural/sexual selection operates on the individual level, not the group level. There are a few people who challenge that, but not many.

The logic for why is pretty straightforward for non-human animals. Imagine a herd that is starving and but would be able to pull through if just one individual committed suicide. Imagine two individuals. One has genes that leads them to sacrafice their life, the other one doesn't. Which set of genes is going to spread? You can model this in a huge range of situations

The thing about humans, of course, is that we are bizarrely prosocial, often against our self-interest. And that's one of the major questions that evolutionary social scientists focus on - how did this "pro-sociality" evolve, what evolved mechanisms in the mind were co-opted to allow this prosociality to emerge, and why don't we see this in other species for the most part? Cooperation that is mutually beneficial is easy to explain from an evolutionary perspective, but prosociality isn't.

Not really sure why tackling that question is bullshit, though....

EG "The only way I could even see a shred of argument for any biological explanation would have to do with the consequences of casual sex--any casual sex, cheating or non--being greater for women, unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy they can't support."

[Note in this response I'm talking generally about mammals]

That's precisely one good reason for expecting a biological origin to sex differences in interest for sexual variety. Or, more specifically, greater willingness to pursue low-cost mating opportunities.

In particular, you'd expect three major factors to influence willingness to obtain short-term matings: When males and female differ on
a) obligatory costs of pregnancy (usually higher in femalesmales);
b) the number of possible offspring they can produce (usually higher in males); c) The costs to obtaining a new sex partner (varies)

The sex that invests more immediate energy and that can produce fewer potential offspring is under greater pressure to be more selective because of these increased costs. In many species this is the female, in some it is the male (e.g., male seahorses, which gestate the offspring).

But this "selectivity" can take place in many ways. It can be pre-intercourse (sex differences in willingness to seek multiple partners). It can be post-intercourse (e.g., mating with as many males as possible to allow for sperm competition in the reproductive tract; mating with multiple individuals to reduce the cost of pregnancy by making it less likely that males will commit infanticide).

EG. "But ultimately, that's bullshit, since pregnancy would be a plus evolutionarily."

I don't think the argument that pregnancy = always good from evolutionary perspective holds, particularly because pregnancy and an additional offspring can be extremely costly, both physically and in terms of reducing the ability to deal with other goals.

Selection favors the production of offspring who in turn continue to reproduce, not simply pumping out the max number of offspring possible.

Often, in fact, fewer pregnancies lead to better outcomes from an evolutionary perspective - when this is true depends on the environmental condition, how much energy the offspring require, and number of existing offspring.

In many instances, it is quite advantageous to avoid further pregnancy/fertilization, or to focus greater effort on a few pregnancies/hatchlings.

For example,
Reproductive suppression" is one tactic of female mammals - when they fall in the bottom of the dominance hierarchy, for example, females will cease ovulating for a time. This is because the benefit to giving birth in the current social situation doesn't outweigh the costs - it's better to preserve one's resources

The "Bruce Effect", or spontaneous abortion of an embryo when presented with a potential new mate, is another example. There is no point in going through with the pregnancy if the new partner is just going to commit infanticide anyways.

There is extensive research in birds about the ideal clutch size, and more doesn't always equal better.

These are all good biological reasons that females avoid short-term matings in some instances - because of the associated costs, which males don't face.

Males face a whole set of different costs, however, than can limit their short-term mate seeking.

KISSMYPINEAPPLE: "Also, from what I've read, having multiple sexual partners was beneficial for women, b/c it hid paternity and raised the chances of her offspring surviving. I've also read in multiple places that having multiple partners or concentrating one's energy on one partner yielded the same results for men, as far as continuing their genetic line. Both strategies get the same results, and they also found that men don't always use the same strategy. Some men are inspired to be monogamous with some women, and aren't in other situations. Given that seems to match what people actually do, I would say that it's accurate, and that there's quite a bit less covering for latent nubile flesh cravings than MRA's, evolutionary psychologists, and SlackerInc would have anybody believe."

I'd have people believe that! Every evolutionary psychologist with the least bit of training would as well.

Individual differences in mating strategies, and factors that shift mating strategies, is a HUGE area within evolutionary psychology. This area focuses on everything ranging from testosterone level, shifts in testosterone level when single vs. in couple, effect of childhood stressors on current mating strategy, effect of moving to a new culture on mating strategy, effect of one's own physical characteristics on mating strategy, effects of one's mating strategy on preferences for in the opposite sex, how stress/fear shift mate preferences, shifts in women's mating preferences across the ovulatory cycle, the importance of physical attractiveness in low vs. high parasite load environments, and so on. In fact, I'd say it's actually one of the biggest areas in evolutionary psych.

One of the three main tenets of evolutionary theory is that individuals vary in their traits, and these variations impact reproductive outcomes. So it's not surprisingly that evolutionary psychologists are obsessed with individual differences.

NINA: "Plus, I think you can look at our modern culture, and look at national surveys that say about 1/3rd of wives have cheated on their husband, compared to 1/2 of husbands. Considering that for older generations especially, there is definitely more social risk women take in cheating, I think it's reasonable to suggest men and women are comparable on this front."

Eeek! That's a scary thought!

But most national surveys find that 20-25% of heterosexual men and 11-15% of heterosexual men (admit) to cheating on their partner (average age of samples 30-40). In one of our samples (N = 60,000), only 4% are cheating on their partner at the current moment (1/4 men and 1/7 women ever on current partner).

It's the magazine studies, which are biased in their population, that find the crazy high cheat rates.

Hope that is reassuring! Yikes! 50%!

SLACKER INC "BTW, RoyMacIII, the points you make in your first paragraph are valid. There are many different kinds of successful evolutionary survival strategies. Your ambiguous group dynamics (where most people would be cousins anyway) is another one. But strict monogamy and nuclear families fly more directly in the face of evolutionary forces."

I'm not sure what you mean by strict monagomy flies in the face of evolutionary forces.

There are many socially monagamous species where the overwhelming majority of the offspring are born to monagamous pairs and genetically match the parents. In humans, the extra-pair paternity rate is only about 5%.

There are many evolutionary forces that could drive the evolution of strict monogamy. Common hypotheses include:

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION - infants are so fragile that desertion of offspring and mate would lead to poor reproductive outcomes.

POP'EM OUT - it's more efficient to continue mating with the same individual than seeking out additional mates, which can be time consuming and risky.

DANGER THEORY - it's more dangerous (physically) to seek other mates than to stick with your current mate.

SLACKERINC - "Spitzer didn't "cheat" because his wife didn't fulfill him (in fact, if more women understood this there would be a lot less hurt feelings: men simply crave variety). He didn't do it out of some weird ego trip or compulsion to take risks. He did what he did because these online services offered him an endless variety of attractive young sex partners who were discreet (remember: they didn't turn him in) and which he had enough money to afford. Period. End of story"

That's quite a strong statement. It seems like all of those are plausible reasons for why he cheated. There could be dozens of reasons, ranging from being a thrill-seeker, to desiring dominance over women, to having high testosterone level, to having an evolved desire for many mate, to socialization favoring the sexual objectification of women.

I don't see how you can so easily just accept one explanation and state it as fact when there are numerous possibilities that likely fed into his choices.

MY BABY PANDA "You know, I read an interesting book about evolutionary psychology once and it argued that men are less forgiving when women cheat b/c the thought of using their resources to raise another man's children is unacceptable to them. But for women, a man may still use his resources to raise your children even if he cheats, so they are more likely to forgive."

That was one of the first evolutionary psych hypotheses. It's certainly not one of the more sophisticated theories, but it gets talked about alot because it was one of the first proposals to emerge. Whether it will stand the test of time is debateable...

But the hypothesis is actually a little different than you described. There are two parts to it:

A) Sexual Jealousy. Men, more than women, will be upset by sexual infidelity than women are. Both men and women risk being abandoned by their partner, but then men face an additional problem that women don't face. If their partner commits sexual infidelity, they could end being cuckolded. This means not only did they fail to pass on their genes, they are investing resources in another individual's little bundle of genes. This makes genes unhappy in an evolutionary sense. Imagine two sets of men - one who had no evolved jealousy mechanism and one who had evolved one. Which man would reproduce more successfully, the one who guarded against cuckoldry through greater attention to their partner or the one who didn't? Since men had their extra selection pressure and women didn't, you might expect that men (on average) evolved a stronger sexual jealousy mechanism.

B) Emotional Jealousy. The second part is that women might have had more to lose by abandonment in terms of sudden and abrupt withdrawal of resources if their partner switches mates. So you might expect women (on average) to be more jealous of their partner forming an emotional attachment to someone else. Of course, we can all think of reasons why this would be pretty harmful to men as well, so this part of the hypothesis seems shakier to me. But that's the general idea.

WAXGHOST: "MyBabyPanda, I would think that a major factor in that would be that women have HAD to depend on men for much of recorded history, so they HAD to forgive the man who cheated, or lose their economic stability. "

That seems like a plausible hypothesis. The only data that currently tests it looks at income level. Women who make 5000 a year don't differ than women who make 250,000 a year in whether they say they would be more upset by emotional vs. sexual infidelity. And current relationship status doesn't make much of a difference either.

Of course, it could just be that it is socially engrained in women from day 1 to value emotional connection and to forgive sexual transgresses, but there currently isn't strong experimental evidence favoring the "financially dependent female is more upset by emotional infidelity" hypothesis.

UCLA, I've enjoyed reading your posts and appreciate the input of an expert like yourself. But we do have a bone or two of contention. I'll allow that perhaps I was being too facile in my "slam dunk" explanation of Spitzer's behaviour; however, it does seem like by far the most likely explanation to me, and one that gets surprisingly little credit in media analyses. Every time they would ask "Why would Spitzer do this?" my thought was "Duh...!" Still, I can't claim to read the guy's mind, so I will at least partially concede that point.

You made another assertion, though, that does not square with information provided in a recent NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/science/18angi.html)

You wrote: There are many socially monagamous species where the overwhelming majority of the offspring are born to monagamous pairs and genetically match the parents.

From the article (emphasis mine):

Sexual promiscuity is rampant throughout nature, and true faithfulness a fond fantasy. Oh, there are plenty of animals in which males and females team up to raise young, as we do, that form “pair bonds� of impressive endurance and apparent mutual affection...Yet as biologists have discovered through the application of DNA paternity tests to the offspring of these bonded pairs, social monogamy is very rarely accompanied by sexual, or genetic, monogamy. Assay the kids in a given brood, whether of birds, voles, lesser apes, foxes or any other pair-bonding species, and anywhere from 10 to 70 percent will prove to have been sired by somebody other than the resident male.

UCLAbodyimage: Thanks! This is what I love about the blogosphere. Start talking about a topic, any topic, and you just might find a bona fide expert dropping by.

One thing, though. Could you maybe take a little time to specifically address some of the points being made? Your drive-by one-liners leave us wanting more.

Alan- I don't know if someone has mentioned this already, I didn't get all the way through the comments, but it's worth noting that there is at least one culture I've read about where men raise other men's kids and know it, and that's just the way it's done. It's a matrifocal culture, so sons and daughters live with their mother, and men leave home and spend the night with their wives, and then come back home and help raise their nieces and nephews. It's called walking marriages, because the men walk back and forth.

Jfaustus,

Love the dry sense of humour. :)

Judges,

In these "walking marriages" the "other men's kids" they are raising are their own nieces and nephews, as you say. People at that level of relation (which also includes cousins and half-siblings) are "half as valuable" in terms of passing on your genes as are your own biological children (who are btw equalled by your own siblings). Quite different from raising a child that shares your wife's genes but not yours (at least not any more than any random person you'd meet on the street, most likely).

Alan

Ugh, UCLA. Believe me, I need no education in Evolutionary Psychology. I understand it as a field, I'm well versed enough, thanks so much.

My point is that human behavior and motivation is far too complex to reduce to some ambiguous (and they ARE ambiguous) evolutionary explanations and ESPECIALLY to use these supposed motives as an excuse for being an asshole. Or to enforce gender roles. Or to, not EVOLVE socially.

Jesus. No drive is strong enough to control a person's behavior on its own, except in extreme cases of illness or addiction (which is biological but not evolutionary, certainly). Take some goddamn responsibility.

And thanks again UCLA, but I get my education from reading and my psychology professors not random internet commenters.

And additionally, yes, I think the science of evolutionary psychology is gravely exagerrated and then reported by the media by those furthering a conservative agenda or seeking to apologize for politicians making asses of themselves. I'm not threatened by information that doesn't fit into my ideology but I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing to suggest this psychology is a dominant force in human behavior.

So it pisses me off, a whole hell of a lot.

Evolutionary psychology is "furthering a conservative agenda"? Last I checked, conservatives didn't believe in evolution, and did believe strongly in monogamy. So how my perspective could be called "conservative" is truly a mystery to me!

Alan

jfaustus "One thing, though. Could you maybe take a little time to specifically address some of the points being made? Your drive-by one-liners leave us wanting more."

hehe. Yea, my fingers were flying last night. Must have been due to posting withdrawal symptoms after not posting for a month or so.

LILAEDEN: "And thanks again UCLA, but I get my education from reading and my psychology professors not random internet commenters."

Wow, I thought we all came here for education through exposure to different viewpoints.

If you demand that your ev psych info come from psychology professors, then I still fit the bill. I'm not technically a professor (7 days until my dissertation prelims, ack!) but I'm pretty close. I do teach classes on ev psych and social construction of gender at UCLA. For example, Sex and Gender: From Biology to Social Construction, which examines the genetic factors, hormonal factors, evolutionary pressures, and social constructions that contribute to sex differences. This spring I'm teaching my own seminar "Psychology of Gender and the Body" where students will read both ev psych readings and social constructionist perspectives on mating.

Additionally, I'm a member of the UCLA Behavior Evolution and Culture group (www.bec.ucla.edu) and have published evolutionary psychology academic articles in journals such as "Evolution and Human Behavior; Hormones and Behavior; Body Image; Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Etc.).

So I don't think you can dismiss my posts as "some random Internet commnenter" and a non-psychology professor.

Whether you agree or not is of course a different matter, but your response to information that countered your original posts was dismissive and failed to actually address the arguments for why evolutionary psychology is or is not useful.

LILADEEN "Ugh, UCLA. Believe me, I need no education in Evolutionary Psychology. I understand it as a field, I'm well versed enough, thanks so much."

I can only go on what you've posted, which is basically saying that ev psych is B.S., human behavior is complex, and that most behaviors are attributable to culture (as if culture is somehow a phenomenon that exists independent of evolved mechanisms). This is in contrast to say, Nina's post (1:14pm), which addresses a number of specific ways in which she thinks ev psych perspectives are lacking.

I've explained, in detail, where evolutionary psychology can be useful, which you appear to have dismissed out of hand without specific reason.

LILADEEN "and ESPECIALLY to use these supposed motives as an excuse for being an asshole."

I completely, 100%, agree with you. But whether people use biological framings to interpret and justify there behaviors is a very different question than asking how evolved processes influence our behaviors.

The first aspect is a normative question - how should biological explanations be used?

The second is an empirical question - how do evolved processes operate and guide behavior?

"Jesus. No drive is strong enough to control a person's behavior on its own, except in extreme cases of illness or addiction (which is biological but not evolutionary, certainly). Take some goddamn responsibility."

Viewing biological factors as simple drives is not really an "ev psych perspective".

Also, it ignores the fact that humans are quite sensitive to perceived costs/benefits to a behavior, social reputation, etc. All of which are factors that can dissuade an individual from seeking extra-pair mates but could still be considered evolutionarily relevant.

Also, I'm not sure why you dismiss illness or addiction as non-evolutionary so quickly.

Of all the areas in standard psychology, genetics of mental illness is a big one and often involve disregulation of evolved systems (e.g., in gambling addictions, the reward motivation systems). What is the system evolved to do, and what happens when something goes wrong in that system?

How these systems become disregulated (through repeated experiences triggering the system, natural individual differences, etc) is a question of strong interest to evolutionary psychologists and to geneticists more broadly.

SLACKERINC "as biologists have discovered through the application of DNA paternity tests to the offspring of these bonded pairs, social monogamy is very rarely accompanied by sexual, or genetic, monogamy."

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "strict monogamy". If you mean "there is always 100% complete fidelity to one's mate in the species", then yes, I agree, that probably doesn't exist.

If your claim is that evolutionary forces don't craft mating systems that are extremely monogamous most of the time, then I disagree. For example, the extra-pair paternity rate for the Great Weed Warbler is only about 4%, meaning that the overwhelming majority of pairings are socially and sexually monagamous. The majority of humans are faithful to their mates.

Theories for why monogamy evolves can be found here in one of my earlier posts!

SLACKERINC "I'll allow that perhaps I was being too facile in my "slam dunk" explanation of Spitzer's behaviour; however, it does seem like by far the most likely explanation to me, and one that gets surprisingly little credit in media analyses. Every time they would ask "Why would Spitzer do this?" my thought was "Duh...!" Still, I can't claim to read the guy's mind, so I will at least partially concede that point."

I think it's risky to apply group differences to explain an individual's behavior (regardless of whether the group difference is supposed to be evolved, constructed, etc.).

Is it plausible that Spitzer has highly activated evolved mechanisms for seeking extrapair mates, which may be tripped by his high status, testosterone level, etc.? Possibly.

Is it probable that there are lots of other things going on in his head that enable him to act on these impulses or help form these impulses (attitudes toward women, perceived risk of being caught, etc)? I think so.

LILAEDEN: "And additionally, yes, I think the science of evolutionary psychology is gravely exagerrated and then reported by the media by those furthering a conservative agenda or seeking to apologize for politicians making asses of themselves."

SLACKERINC "Evolutionary psychology is "furthering a conservative agenda"? Last I checked, conservatives didn't believe in evolution, and did believe strongly in monogamy. So how my perspective could be called "conservative" is truly a mystery to me!"

I think Lila is referring to the idea that many conservatives believe strongly in biological sex differences. Men are "naturally" stronger/leaders/smarter and women are "naturally" homemakers/nurturant/weaker.

So they don't use evolution per se to bolster their sexist beliefs, but try to frame gender differences as biological to justify maintenence of traditional gender roles (which also frames biological = fixed/unchangeable vs. environmentally caused = changeable, which is another silly widely held false dichotomy).

I do think the way this framing of biological = unchangeable in the media is problematic and that the highly sensationalized coverage of some ev psych research in the media does further that conservative agenda.

That's a reason to attack the coverage of a thin slice of ev psych, not necessarily ev psych as a whole, however.

For me, it was ev psych that first got me into feminism. Specifically, a class on primate social organization, and just how different gender organizations were across species, across different resource distributions, and how biological explanations had been used to interpret contemporary sex discrimination.

For others, however, exposure to ev psych research might have the opposite effect. I actually just applied for funds to test that idea next year. How does exposure to media coverage of evolved sex differences shift gender attitudes? What about exposure in academic classes? What are the views on gender among the researchers themselves?

Interestingly, evolutionary psychologists are demonstrably overwhelmingly liberal, and don't differ from non-adaptationists in this regard. Most are atheists, as you might imagine, and politically liberal/socialist in orientation. So it's certainly on the minds of ev psychologists about political uses of research.

NINA "Women also crave variety, at least the women I know. (Since you used antecdotal evidence, I assume you'll allow me to do the same)."

Absolutely!

From an ev psych perspectives, there are specific intances when this occurs.

For example, when women are ovulating, they show a marked increase in interest in partners other than their mate IF:
a) their mate has similar MHC genes (which leads to poorer
b) is less symmetrical/attractive than average.

The ev psych argument isn't that men seek variety and women don't. It's that sometimes different motives underly the search for sexual variety.*

*Which isn't to say other factors aren't at work. There seems to be a theme on this board that behavior is either primarily evolved or socially contructed, as opposed to both factors playing important roles.

SlackerInc, I'm sorry, I still don't buy the idea that men are insatiable beasts who are walking around wanting to fuck every young attractive woman they see. I agree that wanting to have sex with young attractive people is natural to human beings, but that's sort of circular, isn't it? Saying that men want to have sex with women they are...sexually attracted to? I know plenty of men who are the way that you describe, but they grew up in environments where they were taught that they are entitled to think of women that way. I don't think men are consciously walking around trying to prove their coolness by scoring with women (though that is certainly the case for some men), but I do believe that when you're taught that all women are up for grabs and youth is one of the most valuable things in the world, that influences your sexual patterns. Plenty of women want to have sex with young attractive men. That's a no-brainer. I'm waiting for proof that men are such base creatures, like you say, that they have a completely unrestrained Id. Because for every man I've met that is like you described I've met a woman who also is that way and a man who just plain isn't.

I don't think people really believe the whole "men are bad, women are good" thing. If they did, the society would be much less patriarchal. Think of the attempts to ban unhealthy food and employ strict nutrition in schools; if people accepted the gender thing as fact, there would surely be attempts to weed out masculinity in children. As it is, it's just a convenient excuse pulled up to avoid guilt.

Alan - what I thought was interesting in the walking marriages was that as long as the kids a man was taking care of were his sister's, he wouldn't have any evolutionary reason to care who the father was (except he might prefer an evolutionarily fit father). So there wouldn't be a disincentive for women to cheat on their spouses or to have multiple partners coming from the man raising her kids. The men she slept with could still be jealous, but they wouldn't have the cuckold effect of having to care for kids that weren't theirs, so their jealousy wouldn't have any reason to be stronger than a woman's jealousy. Of course, I have no reason to think that this kind of societal structure was the one under which humans evolved and gave us whatever innate mating tendencies we may have, but it's still something that exists, that I think we should keep in mind.

Judgesnineteen, good points about the walking marriages. Very interesting!

KissMyPineapple: I know plenty of men who are the way that you describe, but they grew up in environments where they were taught that they are entitled to think of women that way.

That doesn't explain me: brought up in a liberal college town by parents who were university professors (in anthropology and sociology) and so liberal in terms of gender issues that my mom kept her maiden name and they gave me and my sister hyphenated names (with the order reversed for fairness); and they shared childrearing and housework by trading off "on duty" times on a regular schedule.

In fact, I know my mother would tend (like most sociologists, unfortunately) to be anti-EvPsych. But somehow I ended up with these hormonal drives (or so they seem to me anyway) and beliefs.

Alan