/sci/ - Science & Math

lel comedy gold

As much as men are looking out for their reproductive success, so are women. As men tend (biologically) to be the providers that maintain the health of their children, it behooves women to make sure men don't cheat. Otherwise their offspring are at risk.

Yeah if you would be living in jungle OP.

evolutionary biology is not a science

>>4614909
obviously you've never read any/ taken classes in/ looked up the definition of evolutionary biology or science for that matter.

>>4614905
This is true, but it's also proven that women are more attracted to guys who already have a girlfriend, so OP's assumptions aren't that wrong. The safety of their children is just more important in the end.

Actually, you are somewhat correct. Women sharing their husbands (especially following a time of low numbers, such as post-war), while not extremely common, is still significantly more common than men sharing their women which is *extremely* minuscule in cultures by (past and present) comparison.

Also, women are natural poachers and do this all the time. See "the good men are all taken!" - of course they aren't all taken and this is a bullshit claim; however, it can't really be argued that sometimes the best way to find good relationship material is by stealing someone away that's already shown to be successful at having one. It's not too different from job poaching.

now all they need is someone who's going to provide for their children

It is proven through observation in nature that monogamous relationships care more for their young than any other. What you are thinking of is fecundity, yes people can spend more energy attracting mates and fucking like crazy but then less energy is spent in the nutrition of those young and as such most of them end up dying.

That is what they do OP. Women don't care about cheating as long as they are with a high status male.

>>4614917

as a serious academic study, it can be a science but questions such as OP's are not even slightly scientific

Female availability is limited. The number of wombs is limited and so is jealously guarded by women and their partners.

Penises on the other hand don't need to waste 9 months every time they get a boner. You can sex any number of wombs.

Apparently, women should be in control since they hold all the resources, but as Dawkins commented this seems not to be so: In humans it is the female who must wear the flashy feathers.

This may be superficial. Women are obviously high in demand, but the qualities sought after in men are resources not withheld in matters of gay appearance.

Actually, there is some evidence that women like men that are good with women, since this is an honest indicator of fitness. Men's self-confidence works like this a bit too.

>>4614957
>as a serious academic study, it can be a science but questions such as OP's are not even slightly scientific

Not sure if questions can be scientific or not, but such questions are definitely being researched by science, primarily evo psych -- a very interesting field.

If men have sex with other women then they're less likely to help raise that child unless they're powerful enough to be able to provide well for all their lovers.

So really from a woman's point of view cheating should be a negative trait unless that can be displaced by the man being extremely powerful.

>>4614889
>Because if men have sex with other women, it means they are healthy and can give them healthy offspring.
Being able to have sex does not automatically make one healthy.

People do not want partners who are unfaithful.

>>4615140
>>4615115
Best appraisal of the ability of others is usually best gleaned from their own selfconfidence, and social feedback.

If someone is popular and confident there will be a good chance that this is based on something of real value.

The truth is more subtle, but as an average measure, it is true.

>>4615133
You forgot another possibility: cuckolding. Women have been shown to like men with indicators of better genes when they are the most fertile. In other words, an adaption for cheating at the right time and getting the most out of it. Look up the sexy son hypothesis, which is IIRC what this theory is called.

>>4615140
Women dislike men who have sex with a lot of women, because the man has to provide for his opffspring. If he has many wives and many children, less food will be available for a single wife and her offspring.

Thus having many wives was a privilge of the leaders, chieftains or kings, who were able to provide for more than just one wife, because other men (his subjects/tribesmen) provided for him.

>>4615178
We do not still live in the stone age.
Women dislike their men sleeping around because it is dirty and dishonest. He might catch venereal disease and infect you, and he obviously does not think much of you if he cares that little about you to go and sleep around.

>>4614889

Women's best strategy is raising healthy strong children who go on to breed, not having lots of them

Unless you're african in which case you have lots and aid agencys ensure they all live...

>>4615194
That does not happen; there is not enough aid and many children still die.

>>4614889
>Shouldn't women ecourage cheating and be attracted to men who have sex with several women?
Rainsing a child is time and energy consuming. Who would help them raise the child if nobody could be sure to be the father, there would be no reson to support her and her child.

>>4615185
>We do not still live in the stone age.

Human psychology thinks that we do...

>>4615206
See my post about cuckolding and the sexy son hypothesis.

>>4615208
No it does not.

>>4615212
Not sure if u are deliberately trying to misunderstand my liberal language. My point is that we are not adapted to modern society, we are adapted to stone age societies and older.

>>4615212
Source?

>>4615185
We are not far removed from the stone age. Security and wealth guarantee the continued existence of you and your offspring.

Being well fed makes you healthier; Taller, more intelligent. This comes back to wealth. Being wealthy is less stressful in many respects, namely the ability avoid tasks or persons that you don't like.

On the other hand, wealth may mean your personal ability is non existent.

>>4615214
In what way are we not adapted?
We are advanced enough that we create our own environment, and it is very easy to adapt to that which we create.

>>4615216
For example, in the stone age we did not have cars. Now we do. We have adapted driving regulations so that we can cope. I do not really have a source, but seeing as you are the one who made the claim that we still have stone age minds, perhaps you should provide the source, seeing as I am playing the part of the sceptic in this exchange.

We have stone age bodies but modern age minds.
Well most of us..

>>4615234
>We have stone age bodies but modern age minds.
Well most of us..

The mind is part of the body, i.e., the brain, which is also stone-age genetically.

>>4615231
>In what way are we not adapted?

I am referring to genes, obviously. Have you not studied biology?

>>4615237
>talks about the mind
>have you not studied biology

>>4615234
Still false.
The body adapts, as well as the mind.
I suspect that we are less physically strong than our stone age ancestors, as physical strength is not so much a part of life nowadays, as we have machines to do our heavy lifting for us, and most people do not have physically strenuous manual labour as their chosen trade; most professions are intellectual in nature, not physical.

Our bodies will also be taller on average.

>>4615237
Not since school.
I am aware that genes do adapt though, and this process has never halted.
We are still adapting even now.

>>4615247
>I am aware that genes do adapt though, and this process has never halted.
>We are still adapting even now.

Of course, but actually it is going slower now since we more or less set natural selection (but not sexual selection) out of order. Actually, there is dysgenetical effects now (genes are getting worse because of lessened selection pressure).

Modern times have not been here nearly enough time for genes to follow suit, and they won't any time soon. This is why evolutionary psychologists say that we are still (almost completely) adapted (this means genetically) to living in hunter-gatherer and perhaps subsidence farming conditions. Not all human populations have discovered farming, there are still hunter-gatherer tribes out there that never made the transition.

>>4615169
>Look up the sexy son hypothesis,
So, you only started this thread because you want to introduce some new hypthesis?

And it doesn't even fit in the topic. If women should be attracted to men who cheat often while most women clearly don't cheat.

Cheating is only acceptable when you really don't like your partner and when you have only joined with him for the material gain.

>>4615265
> If women should be attracted to men who cheat often...
They are not. In fact many relationships break up exactly because of this.

>>4615274
Yes. That's what I wrote.

They are attracted to you having the possibility of cheating but they dont want you to actually do it.

>>4615245
>For example, in the stone age we did not have cars. Now we do. We have adapted driving regulations so that we can cope.
No. Circular argument.
Because we are not adapted to drive cars, we need regulations and law enforcement, because else we would have... well, stoine age men with cars on the lose.
>I do not really have a source, but seeing as you are the one who made the claim that we still have stone age minds
I didn't. And although it was found humans evolve much faster than expected, we didn't lose our ancient traits yet. They dominate our behaviour, especially on the macro scale.

>>4615284
You could say they are attracted to men who copuld easily choose another mate, since other women are also attracted to him.
ITT: "I got the chieftain and you didn't! My babies will have the best future".

>>4615284
>They are attracted to you having the possibility of
How do you know what women are attracted to and how does your opinion become fact?

>>4615265
>So, you only started this thread because you want to introduce some new hypthesis?

I'm not OP, i.e., the guy who suggested sexy son hypothesis is not OP. It is not a new hypothesis. It is quite 'old'. Quoting Wiki:
"The sexy son hypothesis of evolutionary biology was first proposed by Ronald Fisher in 1930. 'The sexy son hypothesis' proposes that a female animal's optimal choice among potential mates is a male whose genes will produce male offspring with the best chance of reproductive success. In particular, the sexy son hypothesis implies that a potential mate's capacity as a caregiver or any other direct benefits the male can offer the female (e.g., nuptial gifts, good territory) are irrelevant to his value as the potential father of the female's offspring. What matters are her sexy sons' future breeding successes (like that of their promiscuous father) in creating large numbers of offspring carrying copies of the female's genes.[1]"

>>4615294
>"I got the chieftain and you didn't! My babies will have the best future".
That would be very very simple minded.

>>4615296
Because I am a girl?
and although I dont have a bf, I understand what is attractive to the majority of my sex.

>I suspect that we are less physically strong than our stone age ancestors
Due to better nutrition, modern people have better chances to build up a large muscle mass if needed '(most choose not to).
If you want a picture of how our ancestors maybe looked like, look at native tribes which are yet unaffected by industrialization. Very lean and thin, haggard, but durable and able to walk for miles.

>Our bodies will also be taller on average.
Again, mostly better nutrition.
If you argue this is a genetic change, what would be the selective pressure?

>>4615309
>Because I am a girl?

Perhaps you are just an unusual girl in this respect. Perhaps the desire is unconscious. Most of these kind of things are. Your introspection does not reveal that much, altho it is a useful guide.

>>4615301
I have never heard of it and I am no behaviourist but it really doesn't sound rational.

There is a miniscule percentile of females who live just by instinct and usually none of them ever reaches a higher social position and their children get ostracised.

A female that mates has to consider more than just genetics when chosing a partner and cheating is too much of a risk. She'll waste all the energy she spent on raising a child when it becomes public she has just been cheating. You can't just ignore human relationships which are also part of human biology.

We evolved along the rules we made to survive. We didn't evolve along the rules of a bonobo like society.

>>4615303
>That would be very very reasonable.
Fixed that for you, no need to thank me.

Why would ensuring the safety of your beloved offspring be simple minded? It's the opposite.

>>4615315
You are saying that I am wrong but then saying I am right and it is an unconscious desire?
It is true and it is unconscious

>>4615312
>If you argue this is a genetic change, what would be the selective pressure?

Altho u are correct about the point about nutrition etc., the selection pressure here is sexual selection. Women universally prefer taller males. Perhaps becus it is an honest indicator of health and ability to acquire food. Many illnesses retard growth and obviously malnutrition retards growth.

But since height also correlates with higher IQ and higher IQ correlates with having fewer children, perhaps there is no actual increased fitness here now. I don't recall specifically if tall men have been shown to have more children. Perhaps I'm right about the IQ effect cancelling out the increased sexual access becus of height.

I did a quick Google search, and it seems that i was right: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15779275

>>4614889

Their survival is/was dependent upon the man taking care of them continuing to do so.

>>4615312
I agree that better nutrition is probably the cause of average height increasing.

>>4615322
>You are saying that I am wrong but then saying I am right and it is an unconscious desire?
It is true and it is unconscious

I never said that you were wrong, becus i'm not the guy that wrote the other message. I simply listed some reasons not to take such survey-ish data too seriously.

>>4615327
>is/was
Just 'was'
Women can live independently now; we do not need to depend on men.

>>4615319
>Why would ensuring the safety
Because chieftains tend to get killed and their offspring too.

The second and third line of power should actually be the most attractive. At least in primitive cultures.

>>4615332
It's true, but your instincts, especially those who are related to choosing your mate, tell you otherwise.
Smell and social standing seem to be strong indicators for a good mating partner.

>>4615318
>A female that mates has to consider more than just genetics when chosing a partner and cheating is too much of a risk. She'll waste all the energy she spent on raising a child when it becomes public she has just been cheating. You can't just ignore human relationships which are also part of human biology.

This was not so easy to detect before DNA testing, blood testing etc.

U shud get more into evo psych if u want to know about these matters. The sexy son hypothesis is actually pretty good and has lots of data behind it.

In case u care, a good textbook (the best) for evo psych is David M. Buss' Evolutionary Psychology.
I posted the PDF on my site here: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=2450

It's proven that women are more attracted to guys who already have a girlfriend, but they won't like cheating because they want somebody who looks for their offspring.

This has evolutionary reasons: If a guy has a gf, it means he's healthy and fit and therefore more diserable for women.

To the tripfag saying we don't live in the stone age: This doesn't matter, our brain still works the same way.

>>4615336
Smell?
I would want them not to smell.
Good hygiene is an attractive trait.

>>4615332
>Women can live independently now; we do not need to depend on men.

Perhaps not in a direct sense, but u actually are (in general), it's just that now there is a father state that the men pay taxes to and the women get money from. Not even kidding. If one looks at women as a sex, they are a net deficiency for the state and men a net positive.

>>4615340
Pheromones.
You really don't know anything about biology.

>>4615340
>Smell?
>I would want them not to smell.
>Good hygiene is an attractive trait.

Obviously, he meant scent/pheromones. It seems that u assumed the negative connotation from the world "smell". He didn't mean that one.

>>4615339
>If a guy has a gf, it means he's healthy and fit and therefore more diserable for women.
No. Not everybody who has a girlfriend is automatically healthy and fit.

>>4615334
You are not arguing towards the "The empire must fall" argument, which is based on evolutionary psychology, do you?

Also >every chieftain ever was horribly murdered, social rank is not a benefit
Uh....

Women are irrational and physically and emotionally weak creatures with disgusting bleeding vaginas.

They are inferior to men in every aspect.


Just saying.

>>4615349
As I said, it's a proven fact.

>>4615339
>This has evolutionary reasons: If a guy has a gf, it means he's healthy and fit and therefore more diserable for women.

And the reason for this is that other women want to be with him, and thus he must have passed their screening (using the same criteria as oneself). This makes good sense as a recourse saving way to evaluate potential partners.

>>4615340
This >>4615348

I am not a native english speaker and I usually refer to the word "smell" in a neutral manner (although I'm aware it sometims means "stink").

>>4615349
>No. Not everybody who has a girlfriend is automatically healthy and fit.

Obviously, he did not mean everybody. Do u deliberately try to misunderstand this? We are talking about generalities. This is how evolution works: probabilities over long periods of time.

>>4615351
3/10

>>4615355
No it is not, and you did not provide a link.
Not everyone is healthy even when they first start a relationship; some girls have low standards.
Some terminally ill patients are married, proving you wrong (Although usually this illness comes later, they may have been healthy when the relationship started, but obviously being in a relationship is not immunity from illness)

>>4615360
>I am not a native english speaker and I usually refer to the word "smell" in a neutral manner (although I'm aware it sometims means "stink").

Yes, so do i. I looked in a dictionary and it agrees that the word is basically neutral, altho it can be used in a bad sense.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smell

>>4615365

But everything I said is true.

>>4615351

It is in fact, true.

>>4615366
I did a quick Google search.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/do-single-women-seek-attached-men/

I'm pretty sure i've read some other studies about this.

>>4615366
>Not everyone is healthy even when they first start a relationship; some girls have low standards.
This doesn't matter.
You obviously don't even understand the concept (or you don't want to understand).

>>4615380
That is not what I am disputing; I know that jealousy of a good boyfriend is real.
I was disputing this.
>If a guy has a gf, it means he's healthy and fit and therefore more diserable for women

>>4615390
>That is not what I am disputing; I know that jealousy of a good boyfriend is real.
>I was disputing this.

I gave the reason for that in >>4615356

>>4615390
>If a guy has a gf, it means he's healthy and fit and therefore more diserable for women
But this is true though in the biological/evolutionary sense and the explanation why women are attracted to guys with girlfriends.

>>4615356
>>4615396
Passing one womans 'screening' does not mean that he is automatically attractive to all women. We do not all like the same qualities.

>>4615399
No, but it makes him more attractive because it's in the genes.

>>4615399
>Passing one womans 'screening' does not mean that he is automatically attractive to all women. We do not all like the same qualities.

No one said anything about "all women". This is generalities we are talking about. This is how evolutionary works. Probabilities over time. Now i am curious as to what ur education background is.

>>4615338
>U shud get more into evo psych
no

>if u want to know about these matters. The sexy son hypothesis is actually pretty good and has lots of data behind it.
Then give me a short summary please. You see, when I am done reading the file the thread will be done and it will be another few months until the topic returns.

>>4615407
Probabilities, I suppose.
A man who has managed to attract and keep a woman is probably more desirable than one who has not.

>Now i am curious as to what ur education background is.
I am studying Psychology at university and I am in my final year. I also have GCSE's and A-levels.

>>4615413
>studying Psychology
Okay.

>>4615350
>Also >every chieftain ever was horribly murdered, social rank is not a benefit
Social rank is a benefit but not the top spot. The top spot is always the most vulnerable position with dozens of equally capabale individuals in the second row who are eager to get to the top.

It puts a lot of stress on your body or some second row guy thinks it's his time and you should die already.

>>4615411
Download the book i linked to earlier, do a search for "sexy son hypothesis", or read the Wikipedia page.

>>4615413
>I am studying Psychology
I don't think /sci/ is the right board for you. Try these.

>>>/x/
>>>/lit/
>>>/h/

>>4615427
Psychology is a branch of science, troll.

>>4615413
>A man who has managed to attract and keep a woman is probably more desirable than one who has not.

Yes ofc. The correlation is not perfect, obviously, but it only needs to be a bit stronger than pure chance for evolution to catch on.

Does ur university not have classes on evo psych or?

>>4615419
I'm not saying you are wrong, but in relation to the thread, I still insist women would rather go for the guy with the biggest hat than for number 2.

>>4615431
Yes, it was one of the options but I selected otherwise.

>>4615429
>Psychology is a branch of science
tfw

>>4615419
>Social rank is a benefit but not the top spot. The top spot is always the most vulnerable position with dozens of equally capabale individuals in the second row who are eager to get to the top.

I think there is cross species differences here. In some species the alfa male stays that for long periods, many years sometimes. I don't recall the numbers for our nearest relatives, but i imagine that they are like that too.

>>4615437
>Yes, it was one of the options but I selected otherwise.

I think that is a very strange choice. It is impossible to understand human psychology without understanding evolution and its effects. There has been adaptions for the brain that affect behavior just as there have been adaptions for all kinds of other things. Evo psych is the only grand theory of psychology capable of uniting all the other fields of psychology.

>>4615413
No, there were studies.
If it would only be probabilities, it would be the same with men but it isn't.
Wheter or not a woman has a boyfriend isn't important for guys, whereas it (subconsciously!) is for women because of evolutionary reasons. In general, a man with a girlfriend seems automatically a bit more attractive (but they don't actively think "Oh look he has a gf, he's attractive).

>>4615432
I'm not white knighting women but this thread is obviously wrong.

The amount of children raised by men who were not really their fathers has only increased in recent years.

Even without paternaty tests the women of earlier generations didn't cheat on their men. The risk is too big to destroy you cost you your position in society.

>>4615446
Even if he is considered more attractive subconsciously because he has a girlfriend, flirting with him would be extremely socially unacceptable.
We accept that he is off limits do not dwell on it.

>>4615446
>Wheter or not a woman has a boyfriend isn't important for guys

U sure about that? Have a cite?

>>4615447
>The amount of children raised by men who were not really their fathers has only increased in recent years.

Cite please.

>Even without paternaty tests the women of earlier generations didn't cheat on their men. The risk is too big to destroy you cost you your position in society.

Cite please.

>>4615456
>Even if he is considered more attractive subconsciously because he has a girlfriend, flirting with him would be extremely socially unacceptable.
>We accept that he is off limits do not dwell on it.

This is just wrong. Since the man is also interesting in extra-coupled sex, he is probably interesting in running the risk. U do realize it is possible to have an affair.. without getting caught, right? Many people do so.

It is simply not true that women just 'accept' it.

>>4615446
>Wheter or not a woman has a boyfriend isn't important for guys,
I always back off the moment they tell me about their boyfriend.

Maybe that's why I am still alone.

>>4615476
Of course it's important... but it doesn't make girls more desirable.

>>4615473
>This is just wrong. Since the man is also interesting in extra-coupled sex, he is probably interesting in running the risk.
Most men do not do that; only immoral men.

>U do realize it is possible to have an affair.. without getting caught, right?
You can also potentially commit a crime without getting caught, this does not make it right, not does it make it a wise thing to do.

>It is simply not true that women just 'accept' it.
For the most part we do.
It would be very unusual for a woman to flirt with a man that she knows is in a relationship. Everyone in the vicinity would view her as a homewrecking bitch.

>>4615476
>I always back off the moment they tell me about their boyfriend.

Quote out of context. His comment was about men not caring about it in a good way, as in, men does not think that it is a good thing if the woman has a partner. At least, that is what he thinks. I'm not sure. U shud work for the same reason it works for women, just to a lesser degree. It is easier for men to evaluate whether a woman is a good partner: does she look nice? Any children around/pregnant? Good to go!

>>4615480
>Most men do not do that; only immoral men.

What do u live in, a fairy tale world? Srsly?

>You can also potentially commit a crime without getting caught, this does not make it right, not does it make it a wise thing to do.

Why do u keep talking about morality? This thread is not about whether it is right or wrong. Only what is the case. Altho the morality questions and interesting and not nearly as straightforward as u seem to think, this thread is not about them.

>For the most part we do.
It would be very unusual for a woman to flirt with a man that she knows is in a relationship. Everyone in the vicinity would view her as a homewrecking bitch.

U seem to have forgotten the comment about the privacy thing. They wud obviously do it in private. Even chimps understand that when one is having an extra-couple relationship, it is good to do so in private and watch out if one is being watched (cite: Good Natured, de Waal).

>>4615493
>Altho the morality questions and interesting
→
Altho the morality questions are interesting

typo

>>4615493
You think that the majority of men cheat on their partners?

>Why do u keep talking about morality? This thread is not about whether it is right or wrong. Only what is the case.
Fine.
I accept that it is true that some men cheat.

>U seem to have forgotten the comment about the privacy thing.
And how do you suppose that this woman stranger would get this man alone without arousing suspicion?

>>4615499
>You think that the majority of men cheat on their partners?

Didn't say so. And no, since the majority of men don't even have partners... Most men are evolutionary losers, historically speaking.

>And how do you suppose that this woman stranger would get this man alone without arousing suspicion?

U ask the most strange questions. This happens all the time, even in our society with lots of surveillance "mate guarding" technology? It was much easier back then to be in secret. Hard to find people without mobile phones, maps, GPS, cities, artificial light, etc.

>>4615493
>It is easier for men to evaluate whether a woman is a good partner: does she look nice? Any children around/pregnant? Good to go!
In fact, it's much easier I think since men want as much children/partners as possible. Of course, this isn't really true anymore today, but still part of our instincts.

>>4615520
>In fact, it's much easier I think since men want as much children/partners as possible. Of course, this isn't really true anymore today, but still part of our instincts.

I also forgot to include health, fysical and mental. I was talking about long term potential mates. For short term mating, it is much closer to anything goes.

>>4615515
>Didn't say so. And no, since the majority of men don't even have partners

You seemed to imply you were mocking my post when I said "Most men do not do that"
But you agree, then?

It does not happen all the time.
In this scenario, we are talking about a woman who knows the man is in a relationship, and she wants him anyway. So she is the one who is going to try to initiate the affair.

I think this is highly unusual; almost all affairs are initiated by men.

>>4615520
Men don't want children, men want sex. Two entirely different things.

>>4615534
False, on both counts.
Some men do not want sex at all.
Most men want children eventually.

>>4615531
>You seemed to imply you were mocking my post when I said "Most men do not do that"

No no. I was mocking ur comment about immoral men, which is a gross generalization. Hence my comment about a fairy tale world. ;)

I dunno if i agree that most men do not cheat. Are we talking about in each relationship or over life time? I wud think that over the entire life time, it might be that >50% of men that have ever had a girlfriend have cheated on at least one of them.

-

>n this scenario, we are talking about a woman who knows the man is in a relationship, and she wants him anyway. So she is the one who is going to try to initiate the affair.

>I think this is highly unusual; almost all affairs are initiated by men.

I wasn't talking specifically about that. It cud be that the man initiated contact and flirted and she indulged it in even tho she knew he was cheating on his partner.

Yes, most relationships cross sex are initiated by men. No surprise there.

>>4615534
>Men don't want children, men want sex. Two entirely different things.

I think Harriet is right about this. However, now a days, men don't want children when they are cheating on their partner (perhaps they did earlier? at least some of them did, e.g. high status men). But there is a difference between why a specific behavior is there and why people consciously engage in that behavior. Sometimes there is a gross mismatch between these two. This is why survey data about "what women want" etc. can only take one so far.

>>4615534
>Men don't want children, men want sex.
As OP said, male animals and humans want to spread their seed and secure the existence of their species. The best way is to mate with all females they can, whereas females are more careful to only mate with healthy and fit males.

This isn't as important in a modern civilization anymore as it was thousands of years ago.

>>4615598
>As OP said, male animals and humans want to spread their seed and secure the existence of their species. The best way is to mate with all females they can, whereas females are more careful to only mate with healthy and fit males.

Careful. This 'want to' is the evolutionary reason why men want sex (the reason why the sex drive evolved). It need not be any conscious reason on the part of men.

>>4615605
That's what I said.
They want children and therefore they want sex.

>>4615616
>That's what I said.

Ur way of saying it is confusing.

>>4615531
>all affairs initiated by men

Most relationships are initiated by men, but women have a part to play in the initial part as well.
Women do have affairs as well, so at some point married women do display signs that they're willing to get in an affair, they aren't passive.

>>4615669
>Most relationships are initiated by men
I'll always stay virgin.

>>4615616
Sex drive > childcare, illiterates.

Men don't want children, men want sex.

Which behaviour is more likely to have genes :
a) mate with a limited number of women/ limited times, have children and care for a limited number of them
b) fuck everything that's not on a tree by the count of three and THEN care for a woman and her offspring; let the tribe/other men take care of the rest and hope for the best

http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/socsex.html
Use google, it's not that difficult.

>>4615669
U cited her wrongly and misleadingly, she wrote:

>I think this is highly unusual; almost all affairs are initiated by men.

And she is right about that. At least, if by "initiated" we mean, made the first verbal contact. Usually, women do some other things like looking at men that makes them try their luck.