RSS Feeds
Male infidelity
Infidelity: biological urge or poor choice? Discuss today's Blowback.
Comments will close after two weeks.
1.
You both make the mistake of implying that our "higher capacities" allow us to escape biology. The ability to think and make counterintuitive decisions is actually part of our biological makeup.
As in many species, reflexive "instinct" is not the only level of behaviour in humans.
It is unfortunate that religious moralists fail to understand that understanding how biology and the universe works has nothing to do with telling fundamentalists how to behave.
But in general it must be disheartening to start a scientific discussion and have many of the same people who thank you be so obviously ignorant.
2. It's useful that you point out that "infidelity" is just as naturally female as male. As one perceptive reader pointed out, they are necessarily statistically identical. It's true that recent genetic research has shown to what point other animals as not as "faithful" as we once mistakenly observed. Thank God no one is publishing the genetic data on human offspring that shows a similarly large percentage of kids are not their father's children. You both make the mistake of implying that our "higher capacities" allow us to escape biology. The ability to think and make counterintuitive decisions is actually part of our biological makeup.
3. Great article, Jennie! I cracked up at the line about the writer on whom you were commenting producing his piece unedited from his reptilian brain. Emlyn (Comment #17), you're just plain wrong -- women are almost as likely to be unfaithful as men. But I'm pretty sure you're mistaken on one point, too, Jennie. The group of Americans who have just one partner at a time and are completely faithful to them aren't a "large majority." Last I heard, about 60 percent of either gender (in the U.S.A.) were unfaithful to their mates at least once.
4. From seemingly cooperative, preserved on now archived film in acts of quite obvious "pedophilia", pgmy chimpanzees...to "neck-pecking, "waterboarding" gaggles of male ducks routinely gaggle- raping their female duck partners, the question remains: what kind of evolutionary advantages do/would these kinds of unortohodox behaviors bestow?
5. Second, the remark about male ornithologists was unnecessary- ALL scientific fields were male dominated through the mid- 2oth century, why is it remarkable that ornithology was too?
6. Biologists didn't just assume, with no support, that particular birds were monogamous. They inferred it from observations of species throughout the animal kingdom and when they found that male blackbirds were territorial, they figured that the females within their territory stayed there- a natural hypothesis, since that was how it worked more often than not in other species. That they couldn't test it until the 70's doesn't mean it was wrong to operate on that idea until it could be tested.
7. Oh- wow. It's always interesting. when people, in trying to shutter another person's biases, shows their own. I won't comment on anything pertaining to the original article, as I haven't seen it, but two things caught my attention in this response.
8. Great work, Jennie! And to Emlyn: the evidence you see to the contrary isn't evidence, it's anecdote. To achieve the status of "evidence," events must not only be seen, but also counted, measured, analyzed, and understood in a methodical fashion--which is what Jennie's sources did with what they saw blackbirds doing.
9. I believe that the real question in all this is: even if it's "natural" for humans to behave like animals, is that any excuse? Some would argue that our ability to overcome biological drives through the power of reason is what makes us human. Anyway, great response.
10. Who is Eliot Spitzer? What is an Eliot Spitzer, is it a bird? Is Eliot Spitzer worth talking about? Let's move on folks!! Eliot Spitzer is yesterdays tabloid news.
Submitted by: Richard
2. It's useful that you point out that "infidelity" is just as naturally female as male. As one perceptive reader pointed out, they are necessarily statistically identical. It's true that recent genetic research has shown to what point other animals as not as "faithful" as we once mistakenly observed. Thank God no one is publishing the genetic data on human offspring that shows a similarly large percentage of kids are not their father's children. You both make the mistake of implying that our "higher capacities" allow us to escape biology. The ability to think and make counterintuitive decisions is actually part of our biological makeup.
Submitted by: David Vaughn
3. Great article, Jennie! I cracked up at the line about the writer on whom you were commenting producing his piece unedited from his reptilian brain. Emlyn (Comment #17), you're just plain wrong -- women are almost as likely to be unfaithful as men. But I'm pretty sure you're mistaken on one point, too, Jennie. The group of Americans who have just one partner at a time and are completely faithful to them aren't a "large majority." Last I heard, about 60 percent of either gender (in the U.S.A.) were unfaithful to their mates at least once.
Submitted by: Jan Steckel
4. From seemingly cooperative, preserved on now archived film in acts of quite obvious "pedophilia", pgmy chimpanzees...to "neck-pecking, "waterboarding" gaggles of male ducks routinely gaggle- raping their female duck partners, the question remains: what kind of evolutionary advantages do/would these kinds of unortohodox behaviors bestow?
Submitted by: Harvey
5. Second, the remark about male ornithologists was unnecessary- ALL scientific fields were male dominated through the mid- 2oth century, why is it remarkable that ornithology was too?
Submitted by: westrim
6. Biologists didn't just assume, with no support, that particular birds were monogamous. They inferred it from observations of species throughout the animal kingdom and when they found that male blackbirds were territorial, they figured that the females within their territory stayed there- a natural hypothesis, since that was how it worked more often than not in other species. That they couldn't test it until the 70's doesn't mean it was wrong to operate on that idea until it could be tested.
Submitted by: westrim
7. Oh- wow. It's always interesting. when people, in trying to shutter another person's biases, shows their own. I won't comment on anything pertaining to the original article, as I haven't seen it, but two things caught my attention in this response.
Submitted by: westrim
8. Great work, Jennie! And to Emlyn: the evidence you see to the contrary isn't evidence, it's anecdote. To achieve the status of "evidence," events must not only be seen, but also counted, measured, analyzed, and understood in a methodical fashion--which is what Jennie's sources did with what they saw blackbirds doing.
Submitted by: Merry
9. I believe that the real question in all this is: even if it's "natural" for humans to behave like animals, is that any excuse? Some would argue that our ability to overcome biological drives through the power of reason is what makes us human. Anyway, great response.
Submitted by: Antenora
10. Who is Eliot Spitzer? What is an Eliot Spitzer, is it a bird? Is Eliot Spitzer worth talking about? Let's move on folks!! Eliot Spitzer is yesterdays tabloid news.
Submitted by: JAC
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT