# Theory: Women less suited to monogamy



## seeking sanity (Oct 20, 2009)

I have a theory I want to kick around: I'm coming to believe that women are actually less suited to monogamy than men. Here's my rationale...

In many relationships, the women ultimately loses attraction to the man and then the cycle of rejection and avoidance begins. He's still raring to go, he's still wanting sexual monogamy, but she loses interest. Another dude comes along and all of a sudden she's an insatiable porn star in the bedroom and all the things she found disgusting about her husband are exciting with new guy.

Men may fantasize more about other women, but in practice they seem more able to maintain sexual desire in a relationship. Thoughts?


----------



## StayInIt (Jul 27, 2012)

Rubbish. My dad stuck it in every piece of strange he could find and he didn't even have a uterus. Damaged people do damaging things. Genitalia is more or less incidental and merely along for the ride.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trying2figureitout (Feb 3, 2011)

I think its about the same. The difference is Women will stay and torture their husbands.


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

That sounds like a good theory to me. I think alot more women get away with cheating than men do.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I think it's pretty even, and neither are suited to monogamy except by culture and personal choice.

Higamous hogamous, women aren't truly monogamous | Psychology Today

"Women might not be any more monogamous than men, they are just much more subtle about it."


----------



## DarkHoly (Dec 18, 2012)

The **** is strong with this one


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

The evolutionary psych folks say that women were historically serial monogamists. The benefits were:
- Always had a male partner to help provide, protect/co parent
- Once their child was 5-10 years old and less dependent they could switch partners and start over. Or they had to switch partners because a wooly mammoth stomped on Sven 
- Maximizes the genetic diversity of her offspring 





seeking sanity said:


> I have a theory I want to kick around: I'm coming to believe that women are actually less suited to monogamy than men. Here's my rationale...
> 
> In many relationships, the women ultimately loses attraction to the man and then the cycle of rejection and avoidance begins. He's still raring to go, he's still wanting sexual monogamy, but she loses interest. Another dude comes along and all of a sudden she's an insatiable porn star in the bedroom and all the things she found disgusting about her husband are exciting with new guy.
> 
> Men may fantasize more about other women, but in practice they seem more able to maintain sexual desire in a relationship. Thoughts?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*I would think that your theorem is pretty sound to me! It does make sense. But I'd have to say that it's just every bit as sound as an emotionally "distant man" straying from his wife, as is an emotionally "distant woman" straying from her man!*


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Instinctively, I don't believe we are hard wired for monogamy when you strip us down to our pure animal natures. However, our higher brain functions will override many instincts and thus strengthen the "instinct" of monogamy within us - so much so that our laws were designed for monogamous couples. Others will disagree and state that we were never intended to be monogamous, but that's for another thread.

Regarding your theory, I think it's completely wrong. Just look at human sexuality and you'll know it's the man who is less designed for monogamy than the woman. It only takes one man to impregnate a woman and she's incapable of getting pregnant again for the next 9 months. But one man can impregnate many many women indefinitely until his equipment stops working. That alone is enough to show that your theory is backwards.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> The evolutionary psych folks say that women were historically serial monogamists. The benefits were:
> - Always had a male partner to help provide, protect/co parent
> - Once their child was 5-10 years old and less dependent they could switch partners and start over. Or they had to switch partners because a wooly mammoth stomped on Sven
> - Maximizes the genetic diversity of her offspring


MEM - that is ridiculous. Everyone knows that Sven was too quick for the mammoth, but not quick enough to avoid the saber toothed tiger. Lars was the slow one that got stepped on.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

I don't buy this theory in whole. If we go back to our evolutionary beginnings, I would suggest that men are more adapted to drifting between tribes whereas women tend to find it easier to stay with a tribe for life. I believe there is lot of primate evidence that actually supports such a theory. 

We often seen black back apes drifting between tribes, but rarely do the females of a such a tribe drift away from the tribe. The only time the mating ape, silver back, leaves a tribe is when he is driven away from the tribe by a rival. The females of that tribe often stay with the victor. 

Of course it is hard to draw the direct line of conclusion between lower primates and H. sapiens, however we are still from the same ancestral stock. And, there are some social activities that have some level of similarity.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

drerio said:


> I don't buy this theory in whole. If we go back to our evolutionary beginnings, I would suggest that men are more adapted to drifting between tribes whereas women tend to find it easier to stay with a tribe for life. I believe there is lot of primate evidence that actually supports such a theory.
> 
> We often seen black back apes drifting between tribes, but rarely do the females of a such a tribe drift away from the tribe. The only time the mating ape, silver back, leaves a tribe is when he is driven away from the tribe by a rival. The females of that tribe often stay with the victor.
> 
> Of course it is hard to draw the direct line of conclusion between lower primates and H. sapiens, however we are still from the same ancestral stock. And, there are some social activities that have some level of similarity.


I don't see that staying with one tribes and monogamy are the same thing.


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

I am in NO way related or evolved from a ape either.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I don't see that staying with one tribes and monogamy are the same thing.



It is if you consider that only one male of lower primates is considered the mating male. Again, I'm not poo poo the theory, I'm just not sold on it based on what we know about our closest cousins.

ETA: not my area of expertise, so I'm drawing conclusion based on my knowledge I'm familiar in other areas.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

tornado said:


> I am in NO way related or evolved from a ape either.



You the ape share a common ancestor. So no you did not evolve from apes but we are part of the same family tree.


----------



## Shoto1984 (Apr 11, 2009)

I think there is a nuance missing in that females of a mammal species often see benefits in have a primary male who provides all the good things mentioned. The does not rule out liaisons with other males who just happened to available at the right time. 

Antidotally, I recall a study that looked at twins. Part of the information gathered was genetic and a by product of the study was the revelation that a surprisingly high percentage of twins had different fathers.


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

*Re: Re: Theory: Women less suited to monogamy*



drerio said:


> You the ape share a common ancestor. So no you did not evolve from apes but we are part of the same family tree.


I don't have that particular tree.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Shoto1984 said:


> I think there is a nuance missing in that females of a mammal species often see benefits in have a primary male who provides all the good things mentioned. The does not rule out liaisons with other males who just happened to available at the right time.
> 
> 
> 
> Antidotally, I recall a study that looked at twins. Part of the information gathered was genetic and a by product of the study was the revelation that a surprisingly *high percentage of twins had different fathers.*



:scratchhead: You have to help me with that one... Developmental Biologist hat on.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

tornado said:


> I don't have that particular tree.



"I do" but then again we are both (great apes and man) a relatively new species. On a football field of life we are on the 2 yard line.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

seeking sanity said:


> I have a theory I want to kick around: I'm coming to believe that women are actually less suited to monogamy than men. Here's my rationale...
> 
> In many relationships, the women ultimately loses attraction to the man and then the cycle of rejection and avoidance begins. He's still raring to go, he's still wanting sexual monogamy, but she loses interest. Another dude comes along and all of a sudden she's an insatiable porn star in the bedroom and all the things she found disgusting about her husband are exciting with new guy.
> 
> Men may fantasize more about other women, but in practice they seem more able to maintain sexual desire in a relationship. Thoughts?


It's not so much that women don't want sexual monogamy. It's that they don't want the sameness of it all. Men are physiologically made to desire sex. Women will want sex if there's excitement and desire there, too. For a woman to desire her partner day after day, year after year, he must offer her some mystery. He must be strong unto himself. She must be able to see him as a whole, separate from her, and be drawn to him. But so many men just think that they put a ring on it and put a roof over her head and that's marriage. But if you do that, her passion for you will die. Her passion will get redirected, in other words. You have to keep her passion, her desire directed at you.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

ebp123 said:


> It's not so much that women don't want sexual monogamy. It's that they don't want the sameness of it all. Men are physiologically made to desire sex. Women will want sex if there's excitement and desire there, too. For a woman to desire her partner day after day, year after year, he must offer her some mystery. He must be strong unto himself. She must be able to see him and be drawn to him. But so many men just think that they put a ring on it and put a roof over her head and that's marriage. But if you do that, her passion for you will die. Her passion will get redirected, in other words. You have to keep her passion, her desire directed at you.



This sounds reasonable, but definitely beyond my area of expertise both in profession and gender


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

StayInIt said:


> Rubbish. My dad stuck it in every piece of strange he could find and he didn't even have a uterus.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

drerio said:


> "I do" but then again we are both (great apes and man) a relatively new species. On a football field of life we are on the 2 yard line.


IF that! Ever watch Carl Sagan? It's like we don't even matter! LOL. By the way, I haven't caught the new Cosmos yet. Need to watch!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Women will pursue nonmonogamous sex, especially when it's to their reproductive advantage.



> Female sexual biology seems to trend away from monogamy in several interesting ways. ... One of the things that occurs during female orgasm is that the cervical channels are cleared somewhat, opening the door so to speak, for new sperm to get to the womb. Women are much more orgasmic when they have sex with someone other than their primary partner. They are also much more orgasmic when having sex with a man of high genetic value, who shows traits of facial symmetry, and testosterone, which indicates a strong immune system. This preferentially nonmonogamous orgasmic response increases the likelihood of fertilization by this other male lover.


(From the article I cited earlier.)


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> IF that! Ever watch Carl Sagan? It's like we don't even matter! LOL. By the way, I haven't caught the new Cosmos yet. Need to watch!



I know we are more like inches to the goal line but most sideline judges have faulty vision for those increments


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

In today's culture of instant gratification and less consequences for the woman vs the man it makes sense...


----------



## BostonBruins32 (Nov 2, 2013)

I buy it. Women are more sensitive to factors outside of physical attraction. This would mean that there are more reasons she may be turned off by her husband. Thus less "built for monogamy".


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

john117 said:


> In today's culture of instant gratification and less consequences for the woman vs the man it makes sense...



A particular instance where our cultural evolution has drifted faster than our biological evolution. This too seems like a possible way to make a more definitive hypothesis.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

If mammoth burger tastes like bison I'm joining Sven 

In other cultures where cheating has more unfortunate consequences for the woman I bet the numbers are reversed....


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

john117 said:


> If mammoth burger tastes like bison I'm joining Sven
> 
> In other cultures where cheating has more unfortunate consequences for the woman I bet the numbers are reversed....


Yes, it is all about consequences.

In the early industrial era in the British Empire, the situation which prevails today was literally the opposite.

Men 'owned' the children. Father and then husband were entitled to be paid the woman's wage directly to himself (if any).
Men were deliberately chosen for work over women. (Positive discrimination, partly through union agitation which removed women and children from the workplace.)
Men were able to better convince a judge of his partner's bad qualities. Men also tended to get off scot free for their criminal actions.
It was easy to get a woman locked up, very easy, for insanity, nerves, just as it is to get men locked up for the slightest aggression, or even self-defensive violence today.

Those were horrible times for women, and women acted like 'nice guys' out of a fear of being financially and reputationally ruined by, and losing their children to, a spiteful spouse.

I fail to see why it's a great victory that we've arrived at the other extreme.

Unless things get better for men, I predict Islam will become extraordinarily attractive to American men in the centuries to come. And who wants that?


----------



## StayInIt (Jul 27, 2012)

The pendulum will swing back and eventually the genders will be able to interact without being mutually demonized. And what on earth does this have to do with Islam?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

StayInIt said:


> The pendulum will swing back and eventually the genders will be able to interact without being mutually demonized. And what on earth does this have to do with Islam?
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Islam just happens to disapprove of women's adultery in a bit too radical of a fashion. For men there's workarounds but not so for women....


----------



## StayInIt (Jul 27, 2012)

Oh, I see. American men will be driven to Sharia law by women who have the same rights as they do? Got it. Pretty negative view of men, IMHO
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Instinctively, I don't believe we are hard wired for monogamy when you strip us down to our pure animal natures. However, our higher brain functions will override many instincts and thus strengthen the "instinct" of monogamy within us - so much so that our laws were designed for monogamous couples. Others will disagree and state that we were never intended to be monogamous, but that's for another thread.
> 
> Regarding your theory, I think it's completely wrong. Just look at human sexuality and you'll know it's the man who is less designed for monogamy than the woman. It only takes one man to impregnate a woman and she's incapable of getting pregnant again for the next 9 months. But one man can impregnate many many women indefinitely until his equipment stops working. That alone is enough to show that your theory is backwards.


Actually it's the offspring that are most important in evolutionary terms not seed spreading men. 

The difference between animals and humans is that human offspring need a long period of nurturing before they are old enough to have offspring. The mother needs a man to provide for her and her offspring until they can produce offspring of their own. 

The fathers who have a strong enough emotional connection to his offspring and their mother to provide for them are well represented in the gene pool. Their offspring have time to reach sexual maturity and have their own offspring.

In terms of evolution, the seed spreader is a waste of genes. Without a provider, the scores of seed spreader offspring starve to death before they reach maturity. 

It could be that egg spreading women not men are more suited ensure the survival of offspring and the survival of the species. 

She can change the father of her children and unlike the seed spreaders, the offspring will survive. The new father provides for his progeny. The new offspring have a unique genetic combination. 

Genetic recombinations are as important as progeny survival. In evolutionary term, woman are much more suited to support both of these vital functions by changing fathers. 

Genetic recombination is as vital as survival of progeny. Without that, harmful mutations would accumulate and humans would be extinct by now.


----------



## WadeWilson (Jul 4, 2010)

seeking sanity said:


> I have a theory I want to kick around: I'm coming to believe that women are actually less suited to monogamy than men. Here's my rationale...
> 
> In many relationships, the women ultimately loses attraction to the man and then the cycle of rejection and avoidance begins. He's still raring to go, he's still wanting sexual monogamy, but she loses interest. Another dude comes along and all of a sudden she's an insatiable porn star in the bedroom and all the things she found disgusting about her husband are exciting with new guy.
> 
> Men may fantasize more about other women, but in practice they seem more able to maintain sexual desire in a relationship. Thoughts?



This reminds me somewhat of the hypergamy theory, yet one I also don't entirely agree with. Sometimes, some people are just eff'd up in my opinion.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Shoto1984 said:


> I think there is a nuance missing in that females of a mammal species often see benefits in have a primary male who provides all the good things mentioned. The does not rule out liaisons with other males who just happened to available at the right time.
> 
> Antidotally, I recall a study that looked at twins. Part of the information gathered was genetic and a by product of the study was the revelation that a surprisingly high percentage of twins had different fathers.


You mean incidental findings in studies on family genes? A small proportion of children are not genetically related to the father.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

drerio said:


> I don't buy this theory in whole. If we go back to our evolutionary beginnings, I would suggest that men are more adapted to drifting between tribes whereas women tend to find it easier to stay with a tribe for life. I believe there is lot of primate evidence that actually supports such a theory.
> 
> We often seen black back apes drifting between tribes, but rarely do the females of a such a tribe drift away from the tribe. The only time the mating ape, silver back, leaves a tribe is when he is driven away from the tribe by a rival. The females of that tribe often stay with the victor.
> 
> Of course it is hard to draw the direct line of conclusion between lower primates and H. sapiens, however we are still from the same ancestral stock. And, there are some social activities that have some level of similarity.


Don't the female apes mate with non dominant males on the side? Not all of the little apes are fathered by the alpha male. Genetic diversity and protection.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> Don't the female apes mate with non dominant males on the side? Not all of the little apes are fathered by the alpha male. Genetic diversity and protection.


Possibly, like I said it is a little beyond my complete area of expertise. I do know of a study that shows if a rival silver back takes over a tribe and if any male babies (from the previous leader) are below a certain age, the new silver back will kill them and immediately mate with several of the females.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> ... In terms of evolution, *the seed spreader is a waste of genes*. Without a provider, the scores of seed spreader offspring starve to death before they reach maturity.
> 
> It could be that egg spreading women not men are more suited ensure the survival of offspring and the survival of the species.
> 
> She can change the father of her children and unlike the seed spreaders, the offspring will survive. The new father provides for his progeny. The new offspring have a unique genetic combination. ...


I agree with everything you posted as it's backed by good research, except perhaps the bold. It's fairly common to cuckold the existing provider, and this is done by the "seed spreader" and the "egg spreading women" in cooperation. She gets the (possibly) superior genes, he gets the support for his progeny without the investment.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

BostonBruins32 said:


> I buy it. Women are more sensitive to factors outside of physical attraction. This would mean that there are more reasons she may be turned off by her husband. Thus less "built for monogamy".


I don't think its a fixed loss of attraction the way some people think. It is more fluid than the way men experience attraction. It is probably based more on intangible things that are fixable. 

I'll give you an example. When we were first married, my husband had the bad habit of leaving clothing in a heap on the bathroom floor. 

I'd tell him about it and he would pick up but then drift back to the habit again. At the times that he he consistently forgot, I had a hard time being aroused. But when he consistently remembered I had no problem. 

At the time I thought is was anger but now I think it was that his behavior seemed child-like.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Married but Happy said:


> I agree with everything you posted as it's backed by good research, except perhaps the bold. It's fairly common to cuckold the existing provider, and this is done by the "seed spreader" and the "egg spreading women" in cooperation. She gets the (possibly) superior genes, he gets the support for his progeny without the investment.


I think you're right. Men and woman are so similar. It's amazing that culture is so strong an influence. 

I don't think we think or behave the same but we seem to arrive at the same place by different routes.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

I believe this about as much as I believe the theory the women are less suited to drive a car because their legs are shorter.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

StayInIt said:


> Oh, I see. American men will be driven to Sharia law by women who have the same rights as they do? Got it. Pretty negative view of men, IMHO



Negative view of men in Islamic based cultures such as the one my wife came from.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

john117 said:


> Negative view of men in Islamic based cultures such as the one my wife came from.


Can you blame them when women are treated so badly. Girls are killed by their family for honor! They are not loved but are the repository of the whole families honor? 

Men rape but the woman is stoned to death, she cheats and the woman is stoned to death and her partner goes free, she is punished for being a "bad" wife but she can't object to a "bad" husband. 

Its dangerous to be a woman, one mistake and a horrible death awaits her. It's a wonder that woman have not revolted yet.


----------



## Cloaked (Sep 15, 2013)

Not sure the name of the study but women are more likely to cheat than men the more sexual partners they have. It was something like a man who have had ten sex parnters before was 70-75% to cheat while a woman being with the same amount was 90-98% likely to cheat.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shoto1984 (Apr 11, 2009)

drerio said:


> :scratchhead: You have to help me with that one... Developmental Biologist hat on.


I've seen wolf and lion females steel off to mate with rouge males as examples.

As for the twins part....just that there was sperm from two different males present and thus eggs were fertilized by different men. Again, the rate was surprising among the population being studied.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> Don't the female apes mate with non dominant males on the side? Not all of the little apes are fathered by the alpha male. Genetic diversity and protection.


When the alpha male is not looking the females will turn her backside to other males waiting on the side.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Shoto1984 said:


> I've seen wolf and lion females steel off to mate with rouge males as examples.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the twins part....just that there was sperm from two different males present and thus eggs were fertilized by different men. Again, the rate was surprising amount the population being studied.



So an ovulated ova from a H sapien can last about 24 - 36 hours tops after which fertilization is impossible. It would also mean that not only would she have had to have coitus with two males within that given time period. The integral functional analysis suggest that only 1.2% success of dizygotic fertilization if this activity is carried out over a three day period (based on sperm longevity). So this would suggest some interesting behavior.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

drerio said:


> So this would suggest some interesting behavior.


Very diplomatic, Doc.


----------

