Why Men Relate to Governor Sanford
... And Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Bill Clinton.
We can't understand why these guys handled the aftermath of their affairs with such monumental stupidity, but, inject us with truth serum, banish the women and you'll get a rather inconvenient truth: We understand why they did it.
We understand the aching, overwhelming desire to shut up the new girl at the office (or the new guy at the gym).
We know that having sex outside the relationship doesn't mean we don't love our spouses.
We know there isn't some deficiency in our spouses that drives us into the arms of strangers.
We understand the Mark Sanfords of the world because we've either done what they've done, are currently doing it or hoping to do it.
And it isn't because we're bored, depressed, unhappy, not being treated right at home, going through a mid-life crisis, looking for adventure, need validation or...
Wait, wait, here's my favorite: Because we have a fear of intimacy.
Bull. That's what people (especially women) say to themselves so that they don't have to face the ugly truth: Men are not meant to be monogamous. We are beat into monogamy by unreasonable moral codes. And much to the dismay of society, temporarily beating something into submission doesn't change the nature of what you're beating.
The reason most people (and by that, I mean women) can't understand why so many men would risk their relationship and careers for sex is that they try to apply logic to a biological imperative.
Statistical evidence, not just anecdote, reveals that men are intrinsically motivated by youth and beauty while women are driven to wealth and status. The anthropologists of a 37-country study of sexual selection believe the results don't show that we're all just a sack of shallow snits, but that we're acting out our biological imperatives. For men, to bear as many offspring as possible; for women to have their offspring survive.
As Matt Ridley writes in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, casual sex for a man has always been a low-risk activity with a huge payoff: "A cheap addition of an extra child to his genetic legacy... We are by definition descended from prolific ancestors rather than barren ones, so it's a fair bet that modern men possess a streak of sexual opportunism."
Women, on the other hand, faced massive risks when it came to casual sex. As Ridley notes, "These enormous risks were offset by no great reward... Women who accepted casual sex left fewer rather than more descendants, hence modern women are likely to be equipped with suspicion of casual sex."
If you want to see Ridley's biological theory of casual sex in action, you only need to look at the gay community. Studies show that gay men often have up to 100 or more partners in their lifetime. Lesbians? Fewer than ten.
This isn't some "Men are Pigs" or "the poor-dears-can't-help-themselves" rationalization of why men go outside of their primary relationship for sex. It's the simple truth. If you want to know why men cheat you might as well ask why men breathe.
Trying to make a man monogamous is like trying to make an artist into a mathematician. You can lock him into a room full of numbers for eternity, but let him out and the first thing he'll do is draw.
The real tragedy of the Sanford affair isn't just that yet another powerful man destroyed his career, that yet another woman is betrayed or that yet more children are hurt. It's that we refuse to change the terms of our committed relationships so that they allow for our fundamental natures. And that traps us into an endless maze of hurt for everyone.
Follow Mike Alvear on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikealvear
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yeah right, men cannot help themselves LMHO! Any promiscuous male/female can find excuses to continue this habit. If you don't plan to be faithful, don't marry period, and please don't bring into this world more innocent little children to suffer. I am so sick of all these births to irresponsible people that only want to act out se x ually , I now believe in sterilization of certain segments of the population.
I had to laugh at the sheer nonsense of this blog. Just another boys will be boys excuse. Hate to break it you young man but you have a lot to learn. I wonder if either women or men are meant to be monogamous. Also my young brother you're relying on sexist stereotypes -- people are individuals.
"People" are not hardwired for monogamy -- though I believe some are more innately faithful than others.
But, conservative Patriarchies have always been interested in suppressing female power and sexuality by limiting her mobility, earning power, education and ability to have sex without reproduction and disease (to keep her "pure and virtuous") because they want her to remain monogamous in spite of everything.
This is changing, thank goodness but is still a problem.
Progress is happening but is slow.
Just a few observations. First, I think using biological determinism as the reason for multiple partners overlooks that, as far as we know, humans are the only sentient beings on the planet. What other animals do instinctively, humans can analyze, quantify, make up customs for, impart meaning to, etc. This means that biological "imperatives" don't control us any more than the devil makes us do bad things.
Second, this 37-country study that's mentioned - it isn't stated which countries were in the study. In countries where women still do not have equal civil, political, social, and economic rights as men, certainly they may be more focused on wealth and status for their partners than on youth and beauty. Having a strong partner might be the only way they can live comfortably.
But in countries where women are on more equal footing with men, I see plenty of evidence that women don't care nearly as much about social and economic status of their partners as they do about how they're treated. Which is why, when a guy cheats on them and, furthermore, risks exposing them to drug-resistant STDs and AIDS, and STILL can't be bothered to pick up his dirty socks, they get pretty darned angry.
Hate to break it to you, but women call the shots when it comes to sex, after a few thousand years of it being otherwise, women now get to decide who, what, how and when,
the golden rule of wall street seems to be " he who has the gold makes the rule"
The same thing applies to sex. Women have the gold, so we get to make "the rules."
Give us a few centuries of running things based on female evolutionary instincts, and then we'll compare the results.
Women do indeed decide who, what, how and when - and until the women who knowingly provide these opportunities to a married man (with or without a family) acknowledge their culpability and (in the case of high-profile infidelity) don't get anything but excoriated in the media (instead of becoming on object of intrigue and being offered book deals, centerfolds, tabloid interviews, what have you) for their actions, I think we will only continue to see such cases. Even in "everyday" instances of adulterous affairs, women who knowingly pursue and encourage the attentions of a married man should recognize the damage they inflict on his family -- and both she and her "mark" should be held accountable. I have to brokenheartedly agree that most men are "only as faithful as their opportunities" (Chris Rock). Ladies, stop providing opportunities to a man who has voluntarily committed his love, emotions, and yes, assets to his wife and family -- and built a prominent and/or successful career with their support. If you still love him after he is stripped of his reputation
Actually, as a woman, I understand this point of view and agree with it. Men were probably not meant to be monogamous. Women probably were not "meant" to be monogamous either, and we're both trapped by the morals of our society, but then when weren't people trapped by the mores and morals of the society in which they are born? I chose to be faithful in my marriage for the sake of our vows and our children. I assume my husband has remained faithful, but if he did not, I wouldn't really hate him for it. I think he has stayed faithful to me because our marriage and children and home together have meant more to him than the biological imperative to spread his pollen to every flower he sees in the garden. He is a grownup, and he is capable of making rational decisions.
What the love gov did is easily understandable. Beating someone over the head with a stick is understandable too, because we're "meant" to be agressive or possessive. Doesn't mean we have to act on it.
I wish the love gov well, also Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, and other men who betray their families because the "just can't help it." Since most men stop maturing emotionally past the age of 16, we can only pity them, not hate them.
Mike Alvear is right on!!! We, as modern humans, have divorced ourselves from what we actually are, animals!! Just like 99% of every other mammal species, the male has multiple partners for one reason only, which is survival of the species and to not reproduce continually within the same group to avoid inferior offspring within the species. We are hardwired for the survival of the species and as much as the rules of society would like to continue to try and crush that fact with their foot, it's not going to change the fact that we are animals of the homo sapien species.
Excuse me, but in 99% of "every other mammal species", the female has multiple partners too. (Female chimps play choo-choo when they're in heat, if you get my drift. "Line up boys, 'cause Lulu's back in town.")
The main difference between humans and other mammals is that the only males who have sex, be they deer, lions, wolves, squirrels and so on, are those who have what it takes to dominate a group (predators) or control a territory during the rut (prey animals). As for females, it seems that they have a "nature-given" right to fornicate.
Vickster, thank you. Hopefully these men who think they are the only ones with a promiscuous instinct will learn something. Why do you think that females can achieve multiple orgasms so easily -- certainly not to wait around for the lone male lover to "regroup."
Women are hard-wired too, to generate male interest and response. Only difference is that women are subject to monthly hormonal changes that will affect their sex drive.
Boy, this story was doomed to nothing but hostile responses, wasn't it? My position is slightly less pessimistic than Schopenhauer's: like him, I believe that we are who--and what--we are from birth, and that all the resolution and reflection in the world won't change that in any significant way. (Or, to borrow the language of an earlier poster, we are simply the sum total of our drives. Not just human males, though...f
Having said that, Mike Alvear is right. There isn't a man on earth who doesn't think about having sex with the secretary at the office, the woman across the street, and the girls who walk past his table at the food court in the mall. It's just how we are, and people shouldn't kid themselves about that. And you know what? It really isn't much fun. It's a compulsion that I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of.
In my opinion, the only difference between men and women is that men fantasize about the "girl next door" while women dream of a "demon lover".
Oh please. And women haven't been "beaten into monogamy by unreasonable moral codes"?
Genital mutilation.
Purdah.
Suttee.
Witch crazes.
Scarlet letters.
Menstrual huts.
Homes for unwed mothers. (Anyone out there old enough to remember those "halls of shame"?)
Then there are those codes of behavior, meaning the boob jobs, bikini waxes and all the other fashion trends that discourage a natural relationship with one's body if you happen to be female.
Thank-you, I was thinking the same thing when I read this article...
Sheesh. Legalizing or culturally sanctioning polygamy/open marriage would accomplish nothing. Not enough women with any choice in the matter would say "yes" to that. Not to mention that it would quickly become self-evident to most guys that such a societal structure would leave them out in the cold, to the benefit of a relative few. 10 women have, historically, shared 1 man. Can you picture that the other way around? Barring a "Handmaiden's Tale" scenario where society takes away women's right to earn independently and to vote, I just think evolution's lag behind practical realities will continue to cause stress, and probably, ultimately, favor the guys who can pretty much make do with one woman at a time. These are not unrealistic guys, just guys who get that one good woman who actually cares if you live or die beats a spotty progression of women who won't be available much if you don't have the loudest bellow and the longest tusks out there on Seal Beach.
The real lie is that 'men have stronger sex drives than women'.
This is absolutely not true. It cannot be. Biologically speaking,
women bear almost the entire cost of childbearing and most of the cost of raising children.
If women did not have very strong sex drives, the human race would die out pretty fast.
And why compare what hetero males do with the '100 plus lovers' of the average gay guy ?
All that goes to show is that whatever it is that gay males do, it is inherently unsatisfying.
If men had to put up with half the crap women do for sex the species wouldn't have survived because they would have all become cave monks back in Pleistocene. At least that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
What this argumentative plea essentially sums up is that men are no more then a sum of their drives - putting them on par with the other creatures with whom we share the planet. We all have innate tendencies - and behaviour (such as eating, grooming, sex etc) that can be controlled through cognition more then other characterististics (such as height and skin colour). One may argue that some genetic blueprints may make it more challenging for certain people to control certain behaviours, but I think it is both a great disservice and a fallacy to say that it is useless to attempt to modulate behviour. Even Mark Ridley doesn't buy into genetic determinism - and I recommend his other book - Genome: a species autobiography in 23 chromosomes. Men may start to fear the X chromosome after reading this fantastic work.
This is too much armchair psychology for me, reminding me of why I gave up psychology but never completely forgave myself for setting out to become another "god player" and a smarmy Dr.Phil. This argument is full of facile reasoning that by reductio ad absurdum would conclude, yes I relate to these guys because they all have penises. Normal men are hunters and when a man sees a woman he finds attractive the biological imperative wants to know what she looks like naked and AVAILABLE. To argue otherwise is as useful as arguing men should not have been given penises I take offense when I am told I "relate to" a man like Mark Sanford turning sensitive lad and waxing poetic about the pain of love in disregard for those he has injured..t
Interesting, not very scientific, but interesting.
In my experience, women are no more naturally monogamous than males. Because they have more financial disincentive to have numerous sexual partners, doesn't mean they don't want to. MOST humans are non monogamous. Some are. Try to be honest. Try to know yourself before you get married and trap someone in your life who has a different set of values.
-So stick n move for males is natural and monogamy and celibate priest are unnatural.
That's what he's sayin'.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
