# Women are 'genetically programmed to have affairs'



## LucasJackson (May 26, 2016)

'Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating patterns of humans,' says Dr David Buss from the University of Texas

Women are 'genetically programmed to have affairs' | Love & Sex | Lifestyle | The Independent

................................

What do you think? Personally I think every time some yahoo posts an OPINION piece like this that the author is probably a cheater trying to justify their behavior as natural.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

I don't know about the author being a cheater, but given the fact that humans are now living longer than ever it is an interesting theory. At no point in our history have people lived as long as they have today. Divorce among those over 50 years old is increasing. Marriage among 20 somethings is falling. It stand to reason the perhaps humans are not meant for monogamous relationships that we had come to expect as the norm. it may be simply a case of outliving love and/or postponing it in order the have as many partners as you can?


----------



## confusednAlone (Aug 15, 2016)

Society tends to follow society. If a new thing comes up than society follows suite. We are not programmed for it as we are conditioned for it. You are not guaranteed a happy long marriage because your s grow up in a home with one. It really boils down to what it considered okay and right now cheating is everywhere so people figure why not! Everyone else is doing it. My sxw, was going to church more than I did and the moment she stopped going I should have known. The guilt of what she was doing made her fear going to church and god. I didn't put it together until much later and it makes sense. Her family was plagued with cheaters and siblings with failed marriages. She figured what the hell, I might as well not look at it as a bad thing

Society makes society. 

Who needs a signature?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*That academic theory is a sheer load of unadulterated horsecrap!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

I have no problem with monogamous relationships no longer being the norm. I DO have a problem with people not ending the one they are in before they begin the next one. Male or female. Either or both genders may well be prone to non-monogamy. I don't see why we are programmed to be dishonest and hurtful about it though.


----------



## Dyokemm (Apr 24, 2013)

LucasJackson said:


> 'Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating patterns of humans,' says Dr David Buss from the University of Texas
> 
> Women are 'genetically programmed to have affairs' | Love & Sex | Lifestyle | The Independent
> 
> ...


Biologically and genetically, he is right.

That said, we are not MINDLESS animals with no control over our instincts and behaviors.

We are THINKING animals with the capacity for deep abstract thought, the ability to anticipate/predict the consequences of our actions, and the ability to communicate to interact peacefully and responsibly towards each other.....

In other words we can 'override' our natural impulses and refrain from doing sh*tty things.

A good example is the fact that we are also violent and territorial in our instincts, much like other primates.

But if we have the capacity to control those impulses, then we can learn to live by our sworn word too.

So, if someone tries to use biology/genetics to EXCUSE cheating....I call bullsh*t.

We have the ability as social and thinking animals to refrain if we choose to.

My .02


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

We've heard for a long time that men were genetically programmed to cheat... to sex with as many women as possible. If it's true, it's seem to just be a human trait.


But, most people never cheat. So apparently they are either not programmed to cheat or their self control is stronger than this supposed 'genetic programming'.


----------



## TaDor (Dec 20, 2015)

Uh, both men and women are above 50% in the cheating area... sometime(s) in their life.


----------



## NoChoice (Feb 12, 2012)

We are also genetically programmed to defecate and urinate at will however, we have overcome that genetic predisposition with cognition and therefore do not do so while walking down the street. It is not evolution if we fail to evolve.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I'm genetically programmed to chase antelope, yet I manage to not do so when I go to the zoo.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

I think it's just that society have slowly accepted and even embraced more relaxed morals. When we were growing up, no one could imagine that we'd see commercials that encourage people to have affairs, and yet that has happened. Now some are trying to link this to science. They think that if they affix a "science" label to something, that it automatically becomes gospel. "We might as well have affairs, because science." That's bunk, as we are so much more than our biology.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

Dyokemm said:


> Biologically and genetically, he is right.
> 
> That said, we are not MINDLESS animals with no control over our instincts and behaviors.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. But morals have to play a part also. 

Einstein was the most abstract thinker of the last 200 years, but that did not stop him from cheating on his first wife with six or seven other women and treating her like garbage.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

becareful2 said:


> I think it's just that society have slowly accepted and even embraced more relaxed morals. When we were growing up, no one could imagine that we'd see commercials that encourage people to have affairs, and yet that has happened. Now some are trying to link this to science. They think that if they affix a "science" label to something, that it automatically becomes gospel. "We might as well have affairs, because science." That's bunk, as we are so much more than our biology.


Commercials extolling affairs? Hmm. I must be out of the loop.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

uhtred said:


> I'm genetically programmed to chase antelope, yet I manage to not do so when I go to the zoo.


Yeah, like you would stand a chance, you aren't Usain Bolt ...


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Want everyone to be and do nothing more than what we're "genetically programmed" to be or do?

That's cool. Be ready to see a lot of really brutal sh*t on the news.

As in even more of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

becareful2 said:


> I think it's just that society have slowly accepted and even embraced more relaxed morals. When we were growing up, no one could imagine that we'd see commercials that encourage people to have affairs, and yet that has happened. Now some are trying to link this to science. They think that if they affix a "science" label to something, that it automatically becomes gospel. "We might as well have affairs, because science." That's bunk, as we are so much more than our biology.


At least we should be.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LucasJackson (May 26, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> We've heard for a long time that men were genetically programmed to cheat... to sex with as many women as possible. If it's true, it's seem to just be a human trait.
> 
> 
> But, most people never cheat. So apparently they are either not programmed to cheat or their self control is stronger than this supposed 'genetic programming'.


I think the fact that most of us don't cheat is an indication that we have evolved past the time when humans operated solely from instinctive thinking into an age where we operate predominantly with intuitive thinking. We are no longer wild animals roaming about the countryside looking only to satisfy our most primal instinctive needs (food, procreation).

I also firmly believe that not all humans are on the same rung of the evolutionary ladder. Some are a little ahead. Some are a little behind. People ruled by instinctive thinking over intuitive thinking are a little further behind.


----------



## LucasJackson (May 26, 2016)

GusPolinski said:


> Want everyone to be and do nothing more than what we're "genetically programmed" to be or do?
> 
> That's cool. Be ready to see a lot of really brutal sh*t on the news.
> 
> ...


I feel ya. If we only lived by instinct then my wife's AP(s) would be long dead. That's how instinctive human beings dealt with mate poachers.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Genetic programming in humans is at a much lower level - the concept of relationships and such is a bit too evolved to fit. 

Ultimately those traits originally defined as GP have evolved into conscious behaviors for practical purposes. If you're a cat you love higher grounds. My cat routinely naps on top of the kitchen cabinets. We liked caves due to GP, but have evolved to houses. 

Sex is obviously part of GP but sex specifics, #partners, and such are way too culture and so on dependent to be considered parts of GP.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

The article is completely correct, but poorly written and lacks depth. That said, human sexuality (including "cheating (a _social_ construct)," promiscuity, and gene shopping) are undoubtedly influenced by genetics and evolution, but there are NOT causal relationships between genetics and cheating.

For example,


> researchers found 50% of those with 7R+ - a genetic variation of DRD4 - had been unfaithful to their partner, compared to 22% of these without 7R+.
> 
> The impact of 7R+ on infidelity and/or promiscuity in males and females appeared to be about the same.


And,


> As the relationship is associative, "The study doesn't let transgressors off the hook,"


Genetics can strongly influence behavior, as seen by the more than double rate of cheating in those who have a particular gene variant.

This is also an interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/sunday/infidelity-lurks-in-your-genes.html



> Forty percent of the variation in promiscuous behavior in women could be attributed to genes. That is surprising since, as Dr. Zietsch points out, there are so many other factors that are necessary for promiscuous encounters, like circumstance and the availability of a willing and able partner. Although this is the largest and best study on this, it’s not clear why there was no relationship between the vasopressin gene and promiscuous behavior in men.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Well I personally think that many have been thrown off the track by the article's title and assumptions that non-monogamous equals cheating. But the author of the study the article is based upon was quoted as saying ""Breaking up with one partner and mating with another may more accurately characterise the common, perhaps the primary, mating strategy of humans." IOW, the study did not allege that women cheat because of genetics, it simply said that multiple partners over time may be more the norm. The part about cheating was injected by the author of the article. Something that has been repeated in many of the comments here. Again, given the statistics, we see that divorce rates among those over 50 have increased. Today's 50+generation are among the first to not only survive to this age, but also do so in a relatively healthy state. The study seems supported by these trends.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

uhtred said:


> I'm genetically programmed to chase antelope, yet I manage to not do so when I go to the zoo.


There was a time that I did do this....chase deer. When training to run in marathons I heard about the Native American Indians in Mexico, The Rarámuri or Tarahumara. 

They are reputed to be the ultimate long distance runners. They are said to have hunted deer by running them down.

OK, that sounded like fun. I tried this and succeeded in a long, high walled valley. I chased one buck for 10 miles or so. When he got tired of running from me he turned the tide. He attacked. I held onto his antlers and kept backing up. Reaching a tree, I let him chase me around and around the tree until he got bored.

Yea, I know, I am a dumb azz!


----------



## LucasJackson (May 26, 2016)

SunCMars said:


> There was a time that I did do this....chase deer. When training to run in marathons I heard about the Native American Indians in Mexico, The Rarámuri or Tarahumara.
> 
> They are reputed to be the ultimate long distance runners. They are said to have hunted deer by running them down.
> 
> ...


Yeah but that's one hell of a great story/life experience. It would be hard to top that at the bar with the fellas swapping war stories. It might rival the time I almost got captured/killed in Iraq in 1991.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

@Married but Happy quoted:



> Researchers found 50% of those with 7R+ - a genetic variation of DRD4 - had been unfaithful to their partner, compared to 22% of these without 7R+.
> 
> The impact of 7R+ on infidelity and/or promiscuity in males and females appeared to be about the same.


7R+ ? That is the weaker Gene Autry.

Latest researchers have found that this gene is strongest when time-incubated and epi-genetic altered to the 7yearR+itch variation.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Are you sure? On the internet you never know who anyone is.

No one said I had to chase the Antelope on foot.....




EllisRedding said:


> Yeah, like you would stand a chance, you aren't Usain Bolt ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I've heard that, but its really interesting that you tried it and it worked. 



SunCMars said:


> There was a time that I did do this....chase deer. When training to run in marathons I heard about the Native American Indians in Mexico, The Rarámuri or Tarahumara.
> 
> They are reputed to be the ultimate long distance runners. They are said to have hunted deer by running them down.
> 
> ...


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

My observation is that women are genetically programmed to replace a relationship that is deemed unsatisfactory for whatever reason. Like car shopping, cheating is a conscience or subconscience means of test driving another model before deciding to replace the one you have. 
I can buy into that folks are genetically programmed to find the "best" mate to produce the "best" kids, but not programmed for multiple partners to produce kids sired by multiple men.


----------



## Good Guy (Apr 26, 2016)

I am genetically programmed to have sex in any way possible with any reasonably desirable fertile female. However I also have a thinking brain, morals and a sense of right and wrong that overrides this instinct. That's what makes us human.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Good Guy said:


> I am genetically programmed to have sex in any way possible with any reasonably desirable fertile female. However I also have a thinking brain, morals and a sense of right and wrong that overrides this instinct. That's what makes us human.


But not everyone thinks much or has learned to behave ethically. Yet, they're still human.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

I think this statement - _Despite anecdotal claims about cheatng, no study has shown that humans are predisposed to monogamy or *non-monogamy*._. Along with the total lack of actual evidence and an apparent expert using the word womb as opposed to uterus leads to me to be believe this article is somewhat made up. This is not to suggest humans are not selfish, but to blame it on all on genetics seems a bit bs. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> The article is completely correct, but poorly written and lacks depth. That said, human sexuality (including "cheating (a _social_ construct)," promiscuity, and gene shopping) are undoubtedly influenced by genetics and evolution, but there are NOT causal relationships between genetics and cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And if they had included a pedigree analysis study rather than random females, the statement would carry more weight. Yes, our personality can be influenced by genetics, in-utero influence and other developmental (environmental) cues. So, which of these are greatest in influencing the cheating trait?

If it appears women are more prone should the studies concentrate on mitochondrial DNA? They don't mention it. 

Third hand studies are always suspect


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Married but Happy said:


> But not everyone thinks much or has learned to behave ethically. Yet, they're still human.


Sure, but..........

Carry this further down the road.

Being human means *we can choose*. Yes or No, on this subject.

That said, not being human; and being a "lesser" animal, we would mount any *willing* female, naturally!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> We've heard for a long time that men were genetically programmed to cheat... to sex with as many women as possible. If it's true, it's seem to just be a human trait.
> 
> But, most people never cheat. So apparently they are either not programmed to cheat or their self control is stronger than this supposed 'genetic programming'.


Most men don't have the ability to have sex with a lot of at least moderately attractive women, so even if they wanted to cheat they couldn't.

Most women do have the ability to have sex with a lot of at least moderately attractive men, so they have an easier time cheating if they want to do it.

However, this doesn't mean that either sex should cheat.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

SunCMars said:


> Sure, but..........
> 
> Carry this further down the road.
> 
> ...


Being human means lots of people make lots of really bad choices! 

Some humans are more in tune with their animal nature, it seems.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> Forty percent of the variation in promiscuous behavior in women could be attributed to genes. *That is surprising since, as Dr. Zietsch points out, there are so many other factors that are necessary for promiscuous encounters, like circumstance and the availability of a willing and able partner.* Although this is the largest and best study on this, it’s not clear why there was no relationship between the vasopressin gene and promiscuous behavior in men.


*This *is surprising only to those who don't realize that most women have very little trouble finding willing and able partners for cheating, whereas most men have a lot more trouble with that requirement.

And of course the same explanation serves for the second point about why the vasopressin gene doesn't correlate with promiscuous behavior in men: most men don't have that option.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Good Guy said:


> I am genetically programmed to have sex in any way possible with any reasonably desirable fertile female. However I also have a thinking brain, morals and a sense of right and wrong that overrides this instinct. That's what makes us human.


It probably helps your moral stance that it is unlikely that you could have sex with many women even if you wanted to. >

(Just going by probabilities, of course; you may be highly attractive to women, so this wouldn't apply to you.)


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

tech-novelist said:


> *This *is surprising only to those who don't realize that most women have very little trouble finding willing and able partners for cheating, whereas most men have a lot more trouble with that requirement.
> 
> And of course the same explanation serves for the second point about why the vasopressin gene doesn't correlate with promiscuous behavior in men: most men don't have that option.


Yes, you have found {a} hole in their thesis. I am sure there are others.

Given that vasopressin has a half life of 16-24 minutes in the bloodstream and that one must have this specific genetic alleles [variant] for the promiscuous and non-bonding effect to occur,
one can conclude that [it] should be evident, minus societal/cultural influences. 

It is a short-lived chemical occurrence. So, its effect is also short lived...hence, sporadic. Being short lived means that it is not a constant nag, or blue-ball condition in men. Other factors cause that! Sh!t. 

The other issue is that our body is a chemical superstructure; one that is subject to a multitude of chemical actions/reactions. 

To prove your point. In those societies where men dominate, [totally] this variant behavior would be very evident in males. 

If we were to study present day [and throw back] ISIS controlled Iraq, we would find many examples of "overly" promiscuous behavior in males. And, with some having NORMAL arginine vasopressin genes.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

tech-novelist said:


> Most men don't have the ability to have sex with a lot of at least moderately attractive women, so even if they wanted to cheat they couldn't.
> 
> Most women do have the ability to have sex with a lot of at least moderately attractive men, so they have an easier time cheating if they want to do it.
> 
> However, this doesn't mean that either sex should cheat.


You have got to be kidding me. Both of my ex's had no problem finding all the women they wanted to cheat with them. And no they were not movie star gorgeous men... just average fairly good looking guys.

Before modern divorce laws that gave women the same divorce rights as men, it was pretty normal for most men to have a woman on the side. There have always been women who were not 'marriage material' and they had affairs with married men. And today it's even easier with the hook-up aps, online dating/cheating sites, etc.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

tech-novelist said:


> *This *is surprising only to those who don't realize that most women have very little trouble finding willing and able partners for cheating, whereas most men have a lot more trouble with that requirement.
> 
> And of course the same explanation serves for the second point about why the vasopressin gene doesn't correlate with promiscuous behavior in men: most men don't have that option.


Yet men cheat at a rate a bit higher than women do.

It's a myth that men do not have an option to cheat. Who do you think all those women are cheating with? Why men of course.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Ikaika said:


> . Along with the total lack of actual evidence and an apparent expert using the word womb as opposed to uterus leads to me to be believe this article is somewhat made up.


Bingo. The only thing I disagree with you on is, " somewhat made up". I'd have to leave the word "somewhat" out of the sentence.


----------



## Bongo (Aug 24, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> Yet men cheat at a rate a bit higher than women do.
> 
> It's a myth that men do not have an option to cheat. Who do you think all those women are cheating with? Why men of course.


I agree. In my younger days, I was approached regularly by both single and married women. I am no George Clooney, nor were they super hot. It is out there if you want it, regardless of gender.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Yet men cheat at a rate a bit higher than women do.


My life experience and this website seem to indicate quite the opposite. No "study" will ever be worth the paper it's printed on because people lie about deceitful behavior. Even in anonymous studies.



EleGirl said:


> It's a myth that men do not have an option to cheat. Who do you think all those women are cheating with? Why men of course.


This is true however women by and large have far more options and opportunity because it is far easier for a woman to get laid than a man.


----------



## Bongo (Aug 24, 2016)

I agree studies are unreliable due to the self reporting requirement and societal influences on women's willingness to disclose the magnitude of their sexual desire.
From what I have read, the only reason the stat may slightly favor men cheating more is due to a remnant of society, women over say 70, who cheat less than men. Viagra and ED drugs factor into this, now, too. 
This could be due to a number of reasons, like they way they were raised, the fact that male arousal, frequently, requires visual stimulation of the type that a 70 year old body is unable to provide, and the fact that hypergamy allows for younger women to be drawn to older men regardless of the mortification of the flesh( wallet and power/status providing the requisite arousal stimuli).
But, I have read that in younger females, with the rate is at least equal to that of males.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

BetrayedDad said:


> My life experience and this website seem to indicate quite the opposite.


This website has a strong support system for men who are cheated on. Thus more male BS’s stay on TAM. It’s a self-selected group. There are other forums out there were most of the BS’s are women. Female BS’s don’t stay on TAM often because the support for them is no tall that strong here.



BetrayedDad said:


> No "study" will ever be worth the paper it's printed on because people lie about deceitful behavior. Even in anonymous studies.


Yes, people lie, even on anonymous studies. But it’s the only info we have. 


BetrayedDad said:


> This is true however women by and large have far more options and opportunity because it is far easier for a woman to get laid than a man.


Yes because women are just going to go into places like bars and announce that they want to get laid. So it’s easy. Or maybe it’s really not all that easy for women to get laid because they don’t just walk into bars and announce that they want to get laid. Instead women mostly look for men who want to have a relationship and then sex follows.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Bongo said:


> I agree studies are unreliable due to the self reporting requirement and societal influences on women's willingness to disclose the magnitude of their sexual desire.
> From what I have read, the only reason the stat may slightly favor men cheating more is due to a remnant of society, women over say 70, who cheat less than men. Viagra and ED drugs factor into this, now, too.
> This could be due to a number of reasons, like they way they were raised, the fact that male arousal, frequently, requires visual stimulation of the type that a 70 year old body is unable to provide, and the fact that hypergamy allows for younger women to be drawn to older men regardless of the mortification of the flesh( wallet and power/status providing the requisite arousal stimuli).
> 
> *But, I have read that in younger females, with the rate is at least equal to that of males*.


I agree that in the younger generation, women are as likely as men to cheat. I think it's about equal from what I've read.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> You have got to be kidding me. Both of my ex's had no problem finding all the women they wanted to cheat with them. And no they were not movie star gorgeous men... just average fairly good looking guys.


Who said anything about having to look like a movie star? About 20% of men are attractive, for one reason or another, to most women. I would guess that only about 5% are so gorgeous that they get by on looks alone, but most of the attractive men are attractive at least partly due to their personalities, dominance, etc.



EleGirl said:


> Before modern divorce laws that gave women the same divorce rights as men, it was pretty normal for most men to have a woman on the side. There have always been women who were not 'marriage material' and they had affairs with married men. And today it's even easier with the hook-up aps, online dating/cheating sites, etc.


I would like to see any evidence that it was *ever *the case that *most *men had a woman on the side. I have never even *heard *such a claim before you just made it.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Yet men cheat at a rate a bit higher than women do.


I don't know how anyone could know that with any degree of confidence. People lie about such things, and it is known that men tend to exaggerate their sexual activity whereas women tend to minimize them.



EleGirl said:


> It's a myth that men do not have an option to cheat. Who do you think all those women are cheating with? Why men of course.


Of course women are cheating with men. But not with all men; they are almost exclusively cheating with the top 20%.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

LucasJackson said:


> I feel ya. If we only lived by instinct then my wife's AP(s) would be long dead. That's how instinctive human beings dealt with mate poachers.


We must come from totally different genetic backgrounds. If I lived only by instinct my XWW's AP would have been bought a steak dinner.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

tech-novelist said:


> *This *is surprising only to those who don't realize that most women have very little trouble finding willing and able partners for cheating, whereas most men have a lot more trouble with that requirement.


I can't argue that women are more discriminating than men when it comes to who they sleep with but the reality is that it goes to the old saying that, "women control half the money and all the p---y"
During my life I've see a lot of females with faces and bodies that would turn you to stone but had their standards set for Adonis whereas men would easily settle for much less than the proveribal 9 or 10. To many men, all women have the same plumbing.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

VladDracul said:


> I can't argue that women are more discriminating than men when it comes to who they sleep with but the reality is that it goes to the old saying that, "women control half the money and all the p---y"
> During my life I've see a lot of females with faces and bodies that would turn you to stone but had their standards set for Adonis whereas men would easily settle for much less than the proveribal 9 or 10. To many men, all women have the same plumbing.


I'm sure not all women can find someone who meets their standards, even for cheating, but if they have even vaguely reasonable standards compared to their own attractiveness they won't have much trouble meeting them. The same is not true for men, of course.


----------

