I think the answer is rooted deep in the past when societies started becoming patriarichal and womyn took on a "mother" role.

Perhaps also the influence of Christianity and their translation of the pagan Goddess who was all about fertility and thus sexuality into the more palatable (for the Anglo-Saxon's) Virgin Mary.

[Link]

The ideal situation was to own a prim wife who closed her eyes and thought of England while you plugged away, and to keep a whorish mistress elsewhere if you had the means.

[Link]

Likewise, again in issues of pregnancy, parents do not want to rear the consequences of their daughter's promiscuity. All her problems follow her home.

The new testement concept of sex as a base desire is much to blame, as well. Males are observed to have "no control" over their physical needs from toddlerhood. Thus all the control must be in the hands of females who have no observable arousal. If a male gives in to his base desires, it is only natural and is obviously the fault of the women who tempted him with their UNnatural desire. Sex is bad, but women are the ones who tempt men into being bad, so all the fault is with women.

[Link]

It's rooted in our patriarchal society by the male gaze: objectification of women as property, specifically sexual objectification. A father must protect his daughter from all the wanton wolves out there. He knows how they view her feminine form and the arousal it triggers. So the attitude persists. A son says to his mother that she looks slutty if her skirt is too short.

I like sexually promiscuous women. I'm sexually promiscuous too. I've never cared for the prudish sort. I have never been one to deny woman the right to express themselves sexually. A word of caution though. Flaunting your feminine charms with the sole intent of teasing can be dangerous. 'Tis a fact, men are aggressive.

[Link]

I always think of elk, the bull gathers his harem and breeds as many as he can each season. I sometimes wonder if the human animal back in the days before "civilized society" emerged, also followed a similar pattern of breeding many females. Based on the hormonal differences, in humans, it seems plausible.

[Link]

Since it could easily happen that the blood type of a lover could be the same or compatible with the blood type of a husband, the true figure is probably higher than this.

It would seem from this that for many women, it is the appearance of monogamy or chastity that is important, not the actual condition.

Geneticists refer to this as a "mixed reproductive strategy". It has been observed to happen in other species too. It makes evolutionary sense because a woman has more chance of propagating her genes if she mixes them with a variety of male partners. (A single partner may be carrying a dud gene that results in all his children dying before they reproduce.) However, the appearance of monogamy is useful, as it encourages one male to assist in providing food, shelter, defence etc. for what he believes are his own children.

This may be one reason why humans evolved concealed ovulation. (The jury is still out on that one.) It is possible for a male to guard a female during a few days of obvious estrus, but if he has to devote his whole life to jealousy, he can't do it. He would simply starve to death. Thus concealed ovulation opens up new reproductive options for the woman. AFAIK, concealed ovulation is not common among the other species of great apes. I'd be interested to know why.

Much of what we call "civilization" seems to be an effort by the thinking parts of our brains to overcome the physical imperatives of our genetic inheritance. My feeling is that civilization is winning, but progress is oh so slow, and the setbacks are heartbreaking.

Edited for spelling & clarity

Edited by - licker on 4/3/2004 12:41:18 AM

[Link]

There was a nice article in Smithsonian July 2003, called Close Encounters of the Sneaky Kind about the reproductive strategies of 'sneaker males' in various species. The illustration for the article shows a large, ferocious, rhinocerous-horned dung beetle guarding the entrance to his abode, wherein his dainty wife is entertaining, unbeknownst to him, a male of lesser status but no doubt possessing a few charms of his own.

Tee hee.

Nature is full of these sneaky fellows, who avoid the trappings of the white picket fence and a driveway full of tricycles, but still manage to spread their seed.

And the world is full of females who want a nice roof over their childrens' heads, provided by perhaps a mechanical engineer, whilst on the side they enjoy athletic romps with a few alpha males, maybe some bad boys with Harleys. Or perhaps the grocery clerk who bears an uncanny resemblance to a son who has already departed for college. Mmmm-hmmmm. Yes indeed!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by - lindi on 4/3/2004 9:53:57 AM

[Link]

They have DNA tests of redwing blackbirds that show that the longer the resident male spends away from the nest gathering food, the greater the odds that his offspring turn out to have been fathered by another bird. Awwww, the reward for being a diligent provider. In one species of wren, tests showed two-thirds of the younguns were fathered by someone other than the mate.

Here's an abstract of the article.

[Link]

People tend to want the best of both worlds, it just seems a task to juggle them.

[Link]

BTW - How do you define alpha male? Is it the aggressive, violent, gangland leader type that they are after? I have often suspected this.

[Link]

lindi wrote: And the world is full of females who want a nice roof over their childrens' heads, provided by perhaps a mechanical engineer, whilst on the side they enjoy athletic romps with a few alpha males, maybe some bad boys with Harleys.

So True! I've worked with so many industrial scientists and engineers over the years, and they may be staid and boring, but they have steady incomes with good benefits - in other words, they're good providers, and they do make good fathers, without all those messy habits like being alcoholics, gamblers, cheaters, etc. They're not the sort of man that I'm attracted to (though I have known a few here and there that are more interesting), but plenty of women do want a man like these guys, because they want a stable home life for their children (darn near 95% or so of these men become fathers).

I'm not certain if many women in these situations ever have affairs, or if they simply fantasize via romance novels and soap operas about Mr. Handsome.

The few men in industry who don't generally fit this 'staid and boring' mold are the ones who rise to be in upper management. These guys are naturally more extroverted and aggresive, and either they seek out affairs or they simply wait until women throw themselves at them, attracted to the big salaries these guys have.

[Link]