Research is showing that females 'cheat' as much, or more, on their mates as men do. That number of spousal cheaters is apparently in the 70 percentile according to recent research. Ever wonder why?
Well, I figured it out this week. One of those ‘Aha-Insights’ that make you thump your forehead when you realize how perfectly obvious it is. . . . . . Once it finally dawns on you.
We have been told for decades that a man has a better chance of his genes being carried on down the historical gene pool if he successfully inseminates multiple women.
Well, if that reasoning works for men, it certainly works for women too!
Think about it. The women’s genes are also passed along with the babies she produces. So if she produces babies from more than one male (whether her mate knows it or not) her genes, in combination with the various encroaching males’ genes, are often superior to the genes of her spouse. If they ARE superior, then her gene line has been enhanced.
But even if the encroacher’s genes are inferior to her mate’s, the “legitimate baby” she produced with her mate still enhances her chances to pass her genes to succeeding generations. Kind of like having TWO six-shooters in a street gun battle instead of only one.
So here we are in the 2000s. And after millions of years, the most prevalent female genes remaining are from ancestors that “cheated” on their mate. Women who accepted non-spousal genes into her body and produced a non-spousal baby are by far the predominant female gene pool. It appears that “Cheating Genes” are Dominant Genes, and non-cheating genes are recessive.
As the woman’s offspring grew up, passing the predisposition to be promiscuous into the next generation, the more dominant “cheating genes” often made the superior humans in the next generation. Women mated with a good protector, but then enjoyed the males with the more dominant physical traits. Their offspring were then cared for by “Mr. Good Provider” but were genetically, more often than not, biologically from other men.
So the predisposition to fuck around on your mate is built into us. The biological drive to “fuck around” is obviously more than just sexual urges, even though that may be the apparent trigger. It comes right down to the ones that fuck around have a better chance of having surviving offspring several generations down the gene pool.
Why else would Mother Nature make us women so sexually responsive to males-not-our-mates? In fact, why would Mother Nature make women less and less sexually responsive to their mates as time passes? Yet when she is with a male-not-her-spouse, her libido suddenly springs forth full force again. The exhilaration of cheating, of accepting non-spousal sperm into our body, is so eternally erotic that we go to great lengths, often at great risk, to participate.
So my sexy sisters, should you accept your genetic predisposition and enjoy your sexuality? It is in your genes! It is in your genes to spread yourself around! It enhances the gene pool!
“Hey baby, come here honey. Your wife is gone for how long? . . . . . . . .. OH GOOD! My husband is gone too! Wow, let’s make beautiful baby music together! Come here honey, put him right inside here! OOOOooh been SO long since I had good sex!” Giggle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Hey Deni!
Great piece! I really love your blog...keep making us think!
Cliff
Can you believe someone used this comment space to advertise ??
Anyway, this premise here is 'horse hockey'. Females and males, being animals--are going to look for the first available opportunity for reproduction--basic instinct. Morals and upbringing and religion have had some slowing of that effect. If you think for minute that most male animals are thinking "humm, I'd like to make a baby this afternoon"--then you are not being realistic. We know that the thoughts are a little more basic--without getting graffic--we want sex. Females are different ??? They plot to take in as much semen as they can--like a rescue ship hovering around a drowning ocean liner???? NOT LIKELY !
While I agree that females create life where there was none before--and they have powers over reproduction that no man possesses--I want to see the statistics of the premise that the "most prevalent female genes remaining are from ancesors that 'cheated'".
Since the facts are that about 105 females are born for every 100 males--and that at least 12% of males die world wide before the breeding age--and less than 5 percent of females do because they are more hardy at birth (you can look those numbers up--)there should be more females in the world-either legitimate or otherwise.
One the other hand--after all that ranting--Please enjoy 'fucking' around--cause we do--LOL. Love Larry
Hm... I don't think Larry gets evolutionary theory or natural selection. These theories don't suggest that we walk around THINKING about creating babies before having sex. They state that if, at the beginning of time, there were 100 men, and 50 had a gene that caused them to mate widely, and 50 had a gene that caused them mate narrowly, the first 50 will pass on their genes to later generations, so over time, more men who mate widely would exist in the world than men who mate narrowly.
Anyway, as a feminist, I do get concerned with evolutionary theories for supposed differences in male and female mating behaviors. And I like where you are going with your thoughts. I think its interesting how evolutionary theorists ignore the fact that polyandrous societies (where men have multiple male sexual partners) produce healthier more viable children. In other words, it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to have multiple partners. So much for traditional evolutionary explanation for "naturally selected" female fidelity.
um.... I meant "polyandrous societies (where WOmen have multiple male sexual partners)" Oops!
I've been reading Deni's thoughts and advice for many months now. Because much of her advice is based on her sexual experiences and that she is affording the casual surfer sex advice she is a bit irresponsible for flagrantly suggesting that we give into our base instincts.
Inasmuch as she has taken on the mantle of "love doctor" and her blogs are popular because of it, her errant suggestions may contribute towards instability and breakup of what could be a beautiful relationship. The ideas being proffered here, I know, are anecdotal at best and not scientifically validated so anyone taking any blog entries seriously should have their head examined.
In reading her other entries I laugh and I cry and get horny just as any other reader here would because she's had some great experiences that she shares but the entries that are framed in such a way as to advise is premature and irresponsible.
Mankind may be predisposed to do many things if the structures and restraints of modern society never existed but then those behaviors could be attributed to many other behaviors that may be questionable. Just because we have free rein to act out we can't always give in to our carnal instincts. That is why the anonymous internet,phone sex, voyeurism, and other assciated activities are so popular.
As much as we feel trapped and restrained living today because God knows there are whole businesses catering to fantasies of all varieties; in literature, in relationships, in desiring things that you don't have, mankind also is conferred with the distinction to know the difference. There is also an ingrained thought-process called right and wrong or morality that governs our behaviors. This I argue has also grown, alongside the primitive, primordial urges that seems to be the prevalent topics here.
The moral: Think before you act. Be careful of what you wish for because it may ruin you financially and emotionally.
Post a Comment