Here, shiningice
I found this, hope it answers your questions:
Featured Destination: Port Townsend
Copyright © 1998 The Seattle Times Company
Posted at 03:43 a.m. PST; Tuesday, February 3, 1998
Not meant for monogamy? Blame the genes
by Carol M. Ostrom
Seattle Times staff reporter
We're not saying he did or he didn't, OK?
But if it turns out that President Clinton had a sexual liaison with an attractive young intern, evolutionary psychologists say there's a very good explanation.
His genes made him do it.
Robert Wright, author of "The Moral Animal - Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology," says many scientists who study evolution wouldn't be surprised to find that a president - like other "alpha males" in the animal kingdom - has sex with more than one woman.
"To a biologist," says Wright, "that is why men pursue power to start with: because it will lead to sex."
In evolution's terms, the goal is simple, whether you're a naked mole rat, a gorilla or a leader of nations: Get as many of your genes into the next generation as possible.
Robin Baker, an evolutionary biologist and author of "Sperm Wars: The Evolutionary Logic of Love and Lust," notes how evolutionary biologists measure success: by the rate of reproduction.
Some of the theories put forth by these evolutionary psychologists and biologists are controversial both inside and outside the scientific community. But as a group, they appear to have little doubt that humans, like many other species, are naturally polygynous. The word, similar to "polygamous," means that in the "natural" state, one male would mate with more than one female. Of about 1,200 past and present cultures studied, Wright says, in all but about 150 men could have multiple sex partners.
If evolution means perpetuating the species, these scientists reason, sticking with one woman is just not an efficient reproductive strategy for a man - who can, after all, produce enough sperm per pop to fertilize most of the Western Hemisphere, give or take. In that case, what psychological traits might evolution reward?
"For males, it's obvious that indiscriminate lust would help," says Wright.
The switches in a man's brain that help him accomplish his biological imperative - switches that flash "suck in stomach" upon spotting a female with a .7 waist-to-hip ratio, for example - have been fine-tuned over thousands of years.
While women are designed to succumb to men with a big wallet or the hope of one, men are designed to succumb to young women. It's a pattern that University of Texas psychologist David Buss found to be true across 37 different cultures.
Why do women favor men with more spacious caves, bigger herds of cows, Italian suits? Because evolutionarily, these have been the guys who were more likely to have the resources to care for their kids.
Why do men favor women with .7 waist-to-hip ratios, big eyes and small noses? Because those things are tip-offs to a woman's youth, a k a fertility.
Evolution can even be used to explain the connection between cheating and testicle size, scientists say. When sperm from different males must compete to fertilize a female's egg, sheer volume appears to help. So in species where the females mate with different males, males have relatively large testes.
In humans, notes Wright, testes weight falls between that of a chimpanzee (females are quite promiscuous) and a gorilla (one male monopolizes several females), which suggests that human females are "somewhat adventurous."
Using evolution to explain why men and women are different, and why they do what they do, is a relatively new trend in science. And scientists worry that people may misunderstand how the forces of evolution work.
For sure, it's not a conscious thing. It's not that men go around thinking, "I must ensure survival of my genetic material in the next generation." But somewhere in their brains, hormones are being triggered when opportunity arises, Baker says.
Behavior, he notes, is governed by hormones, which are in turn controlled by genes - genes selected by evolutionary forces.
Those evolutionary forces are the ones that can still make a perfectly sensitive, egalitarian 1990s kind of male nearly dislocate his vertebrae when that perfect .7 walks by. "I don't want to look," whimpered one such mate, "but I can't help it!"
You could think of it as your genes "whispering" in your ear, says David Barash, a University of Washington psychology professor and co-author of a new book, "Making Sense of Sex: How Genes and Gender Influence Our Relationships."
What are those genes whispering?
Maybe something like: "If you get to the top, you'll get more sex."
In animal life, the alpha male, the top dog, the big cheese - whether it's a naked mole rat or the big gorilla - gets the females, says Laura Betzig, an anthropologist and research scientist at the University of Michigan.
Not surprisingly, females appear to be attracted to dominant males - the ones who control territory (read: "food") and are in a better position to fight off predators.
In human life, the same logic works, says Betzig. In two dozen studies she and fellow anthropologists conducted on traditional societies, from hunter-gatherers in Africa to fishers in the Arctic, "the guy who has the most resources, higher status, who brings home more meat, almost always gets access to more women and produces more children."
The lure of status means a short, overweight guy with glasses and a lot of money or power can attract comely women. When former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said power is the greatest aphrodisiac, he wasn't woofin': Playboy bunnies named Kissinger as the man they'd most like to date.
Historically, some human alpha males have put gorillas to shame, it seems. "Kings had more power than any animal ever had on earth," Betzig notes. In fifth-century India, one ruler collected 16,000 women in his royal harem, for example.
An evolutionary biologist calls this "enhanced sexual access."
"It's the object of the game," notes Wright. "It's the reason why you fought your way there - it's almost the purpose of politics."
But what's natural isn't always what's best for a society: Just because male infidelity comes highly recommended by evolution doesn't mean it's inevitable, some evolution experts agree.
For one thing, while "cheating genes" may be directing a powerful urge, they aren't the only ones operating.
Evolution also affects our ability to judge the costs and benefits of infidelity, Baker argues. "Genetics tell us to examine the environment and figure out what's best to do," he says. That impulse, he says, though probably not as intense as the impulse to go after any available female, is also genetically determined.
"The evidence is that what humans are is pragmatic," he says. "If they live in an environment where a male can only support one female and her offspring, then they tend to be monogamous," whereas in other environments, under other conditions, males tend to take multiple female partners.
There are lots of good reasons why a man, or a society, might opt for monogamy, Wright says. Truly polygynous societies are often nasty places, because a relatively small number of high-status men monopolize the "sexual resources" of women, shutting out the low-status men, who get surly and violent.
In general, children who don't grow up with fathers are more in danger of economic deprivation as well as abuse or death by stepfathers or live-in boyfriends, says Wright.
Betzig, the anthropologist, argues that there's an even better reason to value monogamy.
Even though the alleged presidential hanky-panky might be "incredibly trivial" by historical standards, Betzig says, polygyny is reflective of a power imbalance - not what we should want in a democracy.
"Sexual power is the tip of this power iceberg," Betzig argues.
These are all good reasons for society to favor monogamy. But these evolutionary psychologists say men will still struggle with that age-old lovin' feeling.
"Speaking as a man, I'm monogamous, but monogamy certainly doesn't come naturally. We have to work hard to be monogamous," says Barash.
It wouldn't hurt if those carping about male infidelity gave monogamous men a little extra credit, says Wright. "It's harder than they might appreciate," says Wright, who calls himself "pretty morally conservative."
"It's easy for men like me to sit around and demand more self-restraint on the part of the president," he says. "But we're not the ones with nubile young things fawning on us."
Clinton, says Wright, was given a copy of "The Moral Animal," in which Wright notes that humans are naturally polygynous. Suppose the president read it and thought: "Who am I to buck thousands of years of evolution?" Even with Americans scoring fairly low on the scientific literacy scale, "My genes made me do it" has the ring of inevitability.
Wright says he's aware some people read his book that way. Interviewing Wright for Playboy, David Sheff quipped, "You've just given some men the excuse they've been looking for."
But Wright argues that genes determine feelings - not behavior.
Behavior is determined by a matrix of forces, including social and cultural influences. "Morality is a complex subject," he says. "It's not like science."
Evidence that cheating has a genetic basis, says Wright, should make us realize how ingrained it is - and how hard it will be to eradicate.
"The point is: If you want to rein in male philandering, understanding its genetic basis makes you realize that the sanctions are going to have to be stiff, either moral or legal," he says. "It's precisely because it's in our genes that the sanctions should be so stiff, because that's what it takes to fight it."
Carol M. Ostrom's phone-message number is 206-464-2249. Her e-mail address is:
[email protected]
Copyright © 1998 The Seattle Times Company
