A new report suggests there's a genetic reason why some men are born to cheat

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
September 4, 2008
Alexandra Blair, The Times.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article4668864.ece

Why are men unfaithful?

A new report suggests there's a genetic reason why some men are born to cheat. But experts argue that's just a convenient excuse - family, culture and communication are also key factors.

Cathy is blonde, 5ft 2in and in her early forties. Living in London with four children, her world fell apart two years ago when Dave, her partner of 20 years, left her for a girl half his age.

She had found receipts for jewellery that she had never been given, overheard furtive phone calls and he had been flirtatious with other women over the years. But it came as a shock when a friend asked her round for lunch to tell her that he was having an affair and that most of her friends knew about it.

At first he denied it. Then he promised to change. But by Christmas, almost nine months later, it became clear that his mistress was a major part of his life.

“What struck me was that it was just like his dad, who'd done exactly the same - and left his wife of more than 20 years for a girl who was younger than his youngest child,” said Cathy. “Dave was always the favourite and closest to his dad. And maybe subconsciously he thought that it was OK. When I put it to him, he denied it, but I do wonder.”

What makes men unfaithful

This week a report by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden suggested that the love rat is not a homespun myth but that a man's tendency to stray from the marital bed may be in his genes. The study found that men who inherit a genetic variant that affects an important attachment hormone, vasopressin, are more likely than usual to have weaker relationships and marital problems.

So it is not Dave's fault, nor Cathy's, because he was born to bed-hop. Cathy, certainly, is convinced that his father's example had predisposed Dave to doing the same. It sounds like the holy grail of many a thrusting young male, scrolling through his list of dates on his BlackBerry. But can there really be a “divorce gene”?

It may be the case for randy meadow voles, as scientists proved in 2004, but are changes in the human vasoprassin receptor really to blame for turning some men into roving lotharios? “The critical thing to remember is that genetics are important, but they're not the whole story. They will determine a man's height, but that's also determined by his nutrition,” says Susan Quilliam, psychotherapist and co-author of The New Joy of Sex.

“You can say that some men are predisposed to stray, but once the genetics are set, you have the culture into which they are born, the media influences, family and society. So it's not a done deal that some men are always going to be unfaithful.” What is clear, says Quilliam, is that nurture is key. While men do have a tendency to have more partners than women, it is also true that if two people are in an unhappy marriage, one is more likely to be unfaithful. And it's not always the man. In the past, marriage was more of a contract. The woman stayed at home with the children, while the husband went to work. Infidelity often ended in the divorce courts. Now the roles have changed and, as more women go out to work, so they have more opportunity to stray and consequently women are more often becoming the unfaithful partner, says Quilliam.

Last week, official figures for 2007 revealed that the divorce rate in England and Wales is falling and that couples of almost every age are more determined to stay together. The divorce rate fell to 11.9 per 1,000 married people in 2007 from 12.2 per 1,000 in 2006. This was the third consecutive fall and brought the rate back down to the 1981 level. The number of divorces also fell to 128,534, a drop of 3 per cent on 2006 and the lowest number since 1976.

However, according to the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, more than twice as many women initiate a divorce as men. In 2005, 96,855 women petitioned for divorce compared with 44,583 men. Of those, 17,915 women cited adultery as the main reason compared with 10,077 men. Gary Neuman, who has been a psychotherapist and marital therapist in the United States for 20 years, was determined to discover why men cheat. For his new book The Truth About Cheating (Wiley, £13.99), Neuman interviewed 200 men from 48 US states, including 100 men who had cheated and 100 who had not, and concluded that genetics had little to do with most marital breakdowns. In fact, his book - which caused a stir this week when critics accused Neuman of blaming male infidelity on women - reveals that, far from men seeking younger, prettier and more athletic models, more men blame being under-appreciated by their wives and an “emotional disconnect” in the home than a need to find a newer partner.

“Women have been made to believe that the emotional part of the relationship is not as crucial to men,” said Neuman. “But I found that they are highly emotional and that only when they feel disconnected do they begin to stray.”

In his research, Neuman found that just 8 per cent of those questioned blamed sexual dissatisfaction as the main reason for the breakdown of a relationship; only 12 per cent said that their mistress was in better shape or better-looking than their wife; and 77 per cent of men who cheated had best friends who were unfaithful, as opposed to faithful men, of whom less than half had a best friend who cheated on his partner.

When it came to sex, it wasn't that the sex was poor, but the lack of it. Women were often too tired, their lives too busy and preoccupied for sex and were not able to find pleasure in it.

Although 69 per cent of men felt guilty for straying, they said that their marriage was like a battle they could not win: their mistakes were recognised but little positive was acknowledged - while their mistress was full of admiration and appreciation.

“When a wife is given a bracelet by her husband, she says, ‘You shouldn't have'. But she should say, ‘Thank you, you should have', because a husband wants to feel he's hitting the mark,” says Neuman. “A lot of men are very insecure, they need to be bolstered and feel they're winning at home.”

The main cause of affairs, he says, is that couples spend too little time talking to each other: in the United States, the average couple spends only 12 minutes a day in conversation. When he is asked for advice on how they might improve their relationship, Neuman suggests that couples set aside at least 45 minutes four times a week, to talk uninterrupted. After that they should go out for a two-hour date and not talk about money, work or children.

People often laugh at the suggestion, but Neuman points out that in most cases a couple would never have got together if they had simply talked about work and children.

He insists that a relationship breaks down because of a lack of communication and that in any other field, a person will work on a problem to solve it. “Successful marriages have alone time,” he says. “They spend enough time with the children, but they turn it off at 10pm. We would find the time for anyone else, but when it comes to a spouse, taking care of the relationship falls to the bottom of the list.”

When Cathy was asked whether she paid Dave as much attention as she could have and if, rather than a genetic temptation to be unfaithful, that might have been the key to the breakdown of her relationship, she says: “Possibly, because I was enjoying my job and of course the kids always come first, but clearly I wasn't the centre of his attention either.”

According to the experts, the divorce gene is no excuse for straying. We are human beings after all, not voles, so can control our instincts and take a long-term view of the consequences of our actions.

For those who will blame genes for their serial affairs, Neuman has little sympathy. But after his study, he admitted that for a handful, there was little to be done. Of those he spoke to, 12 per cent said that they would have cheated no matter what. And for that minority, there is little hope either for them or their partners.

“When I counsel women, I'm on the lookout to see if they are with that 12 per cent and if they are, I tell them they will have to get rid of him,” he says. “Because he is cavalier, has no remorse and will do it again.”
 

chazz_matzz

Member
Sep 14, 2003
266
0
16
There is a lot of truth to the above article. I see it all the time.........ppl that dont appreciate or respect each other anymore
 

genintoronto

Retired
Feb 25, 2008
3,226
3
0
Downtown TO
renteddesign.com
How convenient to have 'genetics' on ones side.

I wonder why there aren't more guys who find this kind of 'research' offensive and insulting. It either implies that those genetically-cheating men are forever child-like, or animal-like, ie, incapable of making moral choices.

I prefer to think of men as grown-up human beings capable of respect and of accountability for their choices.
 

Berlin

New member
Jan 31, 2003
11,410
1
0
why some men are born to cheat
Not that women are lesser cheaters, but I do believe that men are born to spread seeds as much as they can, basic instincts. Whether we choose to or not is a different matter.

The oldest profession in the world did not get that title by chance.
 

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,571
11
38
What is it with the voles?

I thought this was about men who leave their wife for a woman half her age. Obviously, voles don't do that. The old voles don't prefer the young cuties.

IMO, a lot more should be made of the incredible fact that human males prefer young women. No other species of mammals have that preference. Why have human males evolved to find young healthy women more attractive? Why haven't voles evolved that way? The thing is so hugely rare, in evolution, that it cries out for an explanation.

Our ancestors have varied a good deal, in a great many respects. But every single man jack of them, going back billions of years, has had one thing in common. They have all been parents. Apart from the immediate past generation, they have all also been grandparents. They have all produced offspring, and have all succeeded in raising those offspring to the point where the offspring could produce offspring. Every species evolves by the competition between individuals as to who will become grandparents.

So, how come human males evolved so that those who prefer young healthy women have the best chance of becoming grandparents? If our chance of becoming a grandparent was just as good mating with any female, we'd be like voles.

Tell me if you can come up with a better answer than this one.

Human offspring are very precious, as individuals. The investment of time and effort needed to raise a human child to maturity is unmatched in the animal world. The best chance of your becoming a grandparent, man or woman, is to be a partner in a bonded parental relationship that lasts at least long enough to raise a human child to maturity. In these modern days of independent women, we can lose sight of the fact that throughout our evolution, the chance of a single human parent raising a child to maturity was, practically, zero. Those parents whose genes made them want to form a long term bonding relationship had the best chance of becoming grandparents, and of passing those genes on to future generations.

What if your genes gave you a preference to avoid long term partnerships with women? Your evolutionary chances of becoming a grandparent, and of passing on those genes, would be reduced. Also, what if your genes gave you a preference to form long-term bonding relationships with old or unhealthy women? Again, your chance of becoming a grandparent is reduced.

But the man whose genes have given him the desire to form long-term bonding relationships with young healthy women has the best chance, evolutionarily, of passing on the genes that make him like that.

So, the reason men prefer women who display unfakeable signs of youth (like smooth skin) is that our genes have given us a preference for forming long term bonding relationships - and the younger the woman is at the start of the relationship, the more likely she is to be able to make it over the long term. The reason we prefer women who display (non-fakeable) signs of good health (like even features and a slim waist) is that they have the best chance of producing healthy babies.

Sometimes, obviously, the male preference for young women who display signs of good reproductive fitness doesn’t always work out for the best. But generally, the fact that men have evolved to have a preference for young healthy women is a sign that we have evolved to want to form long-term parental bonds -- and surely that, by any measure, is a Good Thing.
 

DATYdude

Puttin' in Face Time
Oct 8, 2003
3,762
0
36
Your theory about successful reproduction is linked to the likelihood of long terms PARENTAL bonds can't be right because it presupposes a nuclear family structure which is relatively recent in human history and evolution.

Most children historically were raised in extended families. Sucessful passing on of genes shouldn't have anything to do with whether the father bonds to the mother, but should depend on the health of the mother and the people around her, perhaps including the father but not dependent on him.

The article makes an interesting read. Some days I'm definitely a vole!
 

Never Compromised

Hiding from Screw Worm
Feb 1, 2006
3,840
38
48
Langley
buttercup said:
What is it with the voles?

I thought this was about men who leave their wife for a woman half her age. Obviously, voles don't do that. The old voles don't prefer the young cuties.

IMO, a lot more should be made of the incredible fact that human males prefer young women. No other species of mammals have that preference. Why have human males evolved to find young healthy women more attractive? Why haven't voles evolved that way? The thing is so hugely rare, in evolution, that it cries out for an explanation.
The voles left to find voles that could reproduce. It is not the age that is the determining factor, it is the fertility.

Same with guys. A 45 year old male probably has a wife that can't reproduce anymore. A woman in her early 20's is fertile and physically capable of producing children.

The guy may not think of it in those terms. He may think "hot young chick vs middle age", but his genes are telling him reproduction vs useless fuck.
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
It’s quite simple.

In Darwin’s theory of natural selection, successful traits get passed on to the next generation and unsuccessful traits don’t.

What can a guy do to increase his chances of his genes being passed on? Have sex with as many women as possible.
 

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,571
11
38
Cinema Face said:
It’s quite simple.

In Darwin’s theory of natural selection, successful traits get passed on to the next generation and unsuccessful traits don’t.

What can a guy do to increase his chances of his genes being passed on? Have sex with as many women as possible.
I just argued against that very point. If it had been a good strategy, evolutionarily, for human males simply to have sex with as many females as possible (which is a good strategy for voles), we would not have evolved a preference for young healthy women.

The best evolutionary strategy for any species is the one that gives individuals the best chance of having grandchildren. For human males, the "love em then leave em" strategy is a mugs game. The proof of that is our preference for females that display unfakeable markers of youth and health.

IMO, anyway.
 
Toronto Escorts