No, cheating is not just "biology"

[Parkingmoan1]

I've just had to block somebody on another forum for continuously spamming me with comments about how cheating is simple biology, is acceptable and inevitable, and the real problem is "people like me" who want monogamy.

Its because of people like me and the majority in society (who don't agree with infidelity) that men feel "forced" to take vows that go against their basic biology.

Apparently all of our husbands are at it, will have been at some point, or will be in the future.

She isn't a troll, just an aggressive twit in a polyamorous relationship who thinks those of us who don't want to be - are fools.

What's your take?

(Disclaimer, I have nothing against polyamorous people - power to them if that's what makes them and their partner(s) happy. What I have an issue with is how people like this person believe that their way is the right way and the rest of us are fools)

Biology isn't so relevant though. Cheating DOES exist because of a 'contract' if they can't stick to very simple terms (that aren't hard this isn't some HUGE overwhelming instinct it is AN urge, that people CHOOSE to act on or not). I just feel bad for her if sex is just something she feels compelled to engage in out of instinct, I like to involve more of my brain than that.

It doesn't matter if its biliogy or not. I don't think heaps of men are off weeping in corners because they've got a stable supportive relationship

Well men are biologically designed to impregnate as many women as they can as quickly as they can, over around 60+
years, whereas women can only have one birth every 9 months or so over a much more limited reproductive span.
That much is true BUT the bonding of Love was designed by nature to get the man to stick around his mate, to provide and protect mate and offspring.

If males had just fucked then fucked off the women and children could not have survived, so a bonded family unit was imperative for the survival of the species.

Now of course males can indeed fuck and fuck off, by and large society will help provide for mother and children if the father is unwilling or unable or unfindable.

Is he right? Well if the survival of the species depended on men like him then he wouldn't gave come to exist as we'd have died out.

So really all she's advocating is men not having any responsibility. More fool her.

replied to say that instead of looking for excuses to cheat just don't bother getting married in the first place.

It's not just married people that cheat;people in any kind of relationship can cheat.

My friend is in a poly relationship;she doesn't shout it from the treetops;close friends and family know;it works for her situation;I respect that and she doesn't try to convince anyone else they need to be in a poly relationship;she thinks it's shit when monogamous people cheat on their partners;she doesn't justify their behaviour.

It's not biology to cheat;it's just people behaving badly and doing stuff they should they shouldn't be.

But women didn't depend on specific man for survival. Nuclear family is a fairly new concept. For majority of human history people lived in tribes. Both men and women hunted /gathered food and everyone depended on a whole group. Nobody could easily survive on their own.
If a father of a child died there would be others to support the mother plus she co could still gather food while carrying a baby. And often women did not even know who the father was. Child rearing was responsibility of the whole tribe. Not just a mother and father.
Also contrary to popular belief hunter gatherers knew how to avoid pregnancy and that with extended breastfeeding ensured there was space of few years between having children.
So many assumptions about human pair bonding and evolution is based on short period of patriarchy.

Now there is lots of benefits to monogamy and sex for human beings is about much more then passing gens. We have sex for intimacy, bonding, stress relief etc etc. Humans are very complex and there is no simplistic answers when it comes to our behaviours.

DH asked me to get married, I went, “ok then”. I’m going to complain that he forced me into a social construct of serial monogamy.

Also I have a lot of instincts, I instinctively feel like kicking Peter every time I see the bastard but I manage to not do it. EVERY.SINGLE .TIME. And I promise you the urge is overwhelming plus I have impulse control issues. So if I can manage I think most people could actually not cheat if they applied themselves.

Personally I think the poly doth protest too much. She probably doesn’t actually like it and is externalising her anxiety about it, if enough people agree it’s a good idea it’ll probably make her feel better,

Biology may lead some of us to want more than one partner.

Nothing in biology makes it inevitable that one person lies and deceives another in order to facilitate that desire!

I struggle to believe this. I imagine males were more invested in children if they were certain of parentage. Yeah a tribe would share tasks like child rearing etc etc but lineage and bonds of “marriage” through tribe would only work if you knew who everyones dad is. No point in creating an alliance with another tribe thinking you are getting the chiefs daughter if no-one knows who the chiefs daughter’s dad actually is. Things like jealousy, rivalry, possession would also exist and monogamy would keep relationships within a tribe stable wouldn’t they?

Works for bonobos.

This
Cheating is different to biological urges.
And it's not overwhelming. It's an urge the same as alot of urges that we control.
Even our goats can control their biological urges when they want to.

I don't really see the value in justifying human choices using the "biology/evolution/look at the rest of the animal kingdom" argument, personally. If you want to be polyamorous, go for it, but "it's ok because chimps do it" seems like the own goal of intelligent argument to me. Chimps throw shit at each other and all.

I personally find it incredibly interesting to consider how we were originally designed to live and there’s nothing stupid about looking to our closest cousins for a reference. However, that doesn’t mean lying to someone is justified and just as other species don’t respond well to certain (natural) behaviours within their own species, we don’t have to either.

I 100% agree OP. This is what my Ex tried to excuse himself from constantly cheating on me, whilst I was pregnant, with a young baby, with our disabled child. That is was somehow just ‘nature’ and him being a virile, sexy guy… 🙄

There is no proof that we men are biologically primed to cheat, lots of theories and lots of interesting views.

There is as much evidence that we are NOT primed to cheat, and worldwide the norm is that culturally we as societies do not seem to function well outside monogamy, and children do not get the best deal. In almost every religion and culture long term monogamy is the norm, and it was not normal that people married but then cheated (that was mainly the reserve of the very rich).

Cheating also is risky biologically, carrying the risk of sexual diseases. It is risky in other ways, cheating with another mans wife for example.

This is because the survival of the species goes not lie in the drive of an adult male. It is the survival of our children. Children have more of a chance biologically if they have a mother and father who are completely dedicated to them, and who are not ‘spreading themselves thinly with multiple women and babies that they cannot support’. If we are talking about survival of the fittest than this is it. And this is why wealthy people in cultures could afford to break that rule, they could afford to support more children.

We men… oops!

Also, in the animal kingdom, many animal species mate for life and are monogamous.

With monkeys, there are huge variations.

However in most animal examples, it is not that all the males get to have sex with any female if they are not monogamous. It is that ONE dominant male gets to only have sex with the other females. While the other males look on hopelessly or are outcast.

So if biology is the excuse, is it that ONE dominant male in our society can have as many women as they like and the others just have to put up with it?!

This is true, I can’t think of any species where the males all fuck around whilst the females are monogamous. How would it even be possible?! The men who think this are just sexist fuckwits.

stealing And violence are biology too. So I guess she would be in favour of getting rid of our legal systems.

Aren’t they all basically bi and mate constantly to smooth social interactions. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t be standing up in a meeting during tense negotiations and go “we’re all a bit stressed, how about a bonobo peace fuck” .

Well you're both sort of right. Biologically speaking there's more than a grain of truth in what she says. Men are designed to "cheat" in the sense that their reproductive destiny is to have sex with as many women as possible. Historically women have cheated less, partly because their security and that of their children tended to depend upon their sexual fidelity and frowned upon cheating. But a lot of them have done it anyway.

But the whole point of a committed relationship is supposed to be that you renounce the primacy of your biological urges and many people do remain sexually faithful for life. Clearly if its something you want to do and commit to doing you can do and a lot of people, both women and men, are genuinely happier in a monogamous relationship.

The fact remains, though, that there is a lot more cheating in society than most people will allow themselves to admit. It might not be all of "our husbands" but statistically it is likely to be more than we might think.

Could you possibly elaborate, I’d be interested to hear your take on it.

Right I'm an idiot but there is so much about all of this I just don't get - For instance I have known men that do not want children, definitely use protection - but they also say they have biological urges to have sex with as many women as possible? Men can have thousands of children - but today they would pay for them or hold responsibility for them - so they wouldn't. Are they saying primal biological urges are stronger than common sense?

I get a primal urge (well that's what it feels like) to eat a whole chocolate cake when I'm hormonal - but society doesn't go "there, there - have a massive binge" - I would be judged for it if I did. Why is okay for some urges to be recognised and others ostracised - Especially when the cake hurts me, and infidelity hurts others.

how interesting I'm glad someone has the brains to back up the bold statements finally. the students in your class are bloody lucky

Men are designed to "cheat" in the sense that their reproductive destiny is to have sex with as many women as possible. You see I think this is a myth, or at best just a theory.

Our reproductive destiny as men and women are to have children who survive to reproduce. That is how the gene survives.

So if one man, call him Henry, has sex with loads of women, in prehistoric times say, probably those women are also having sex with loads of men, so Henry may only cause one pregnancy. He doesn’t know which child is his. He doesn’t look after it as his own, the child doesn’t survive.

Another man, call him Fred, has sex in prehistoric times with one woman. Stays with her. Has 4 kids. Most survive as he knows they are his and gives them extra meat and fights off predators.

So the gene for monogamy will survive for Fred more than Henry.

Well that’s my theory anyway!

She's not wrong in the sense that from a reproductive standpoint, which is all that nature cares about, it makes sense to shag multiple people. However, we as humans aren't dictated to by our biology. It also makes biological sense to start having babies at 14, but that would be illegal in most Western countries. If someone feels they are unable to resist their 'biology' then noone is forcing them to be in a monogamous relationship. Cheating is not inevitable.