Again, the above statement makes no sense. The "loser" is not only good at surviving, he is also able to help his children survive.
He's not very good at surviving! If he was, he'd be very popular with most women, as he would have exactly the qualities their genes are looking for. The fact that he's not does mean that he's less likely to stray (after all, where would he go?), but the advantages of this are probably outweighed by the disadvantages - direct and indirect - of mating with someone who's less healthy and less capable.
And I really must ask you, what is so "good" about the genes of a philanderer who does not stay at home ensuring the survival of his offspring?
The philandering bit! They're not "good" in a moral sense, but genes don't have morals. Don't forget, the amount of effort expended by a man in fathering a child is roughly equivalent to missing lunch. It's worth fathering a lot of children by a lot of different women even if a lower percentage would survive than had he fathered three or four children and been a devoted husband and father. Again not "worth" it in any moral sense, simply from the point of his success in spreading his genes. (Of course, the "best" way is probably a combination of both: Marry, but cheat when you can get away with it.)
And let's not forget that the mother's genes are also passed along to her offspring; not just the father's.Of course, and a mother who settles for someone unhealthy and unattractive will likely produce children who do the same. That lineage won't last as long as a combination of healthier, pickier people.
Yes, this debate is still raging. However, there is very strong evidence to support that sexual behavior is highly influenced by social restrictions and cultural conditioning. Look at the Dani of New Guinea who have sex only for reproduction and almost became extinct because of it:
Having sex in such a ritualistic and infrequent way is not a good survival technique, as evidenced by the fact that they almost became extinct.
The Mangaia seem to have a far better method, testing their males for virility before any commitments are made. They have essentially ritualised the philandering phase of youth. Those who "can't cut it in the sack" get the same treatment they get in most societies and cultures. They lose sexual partners. Interestingly, after marriage, females are expected to stay faithful whereas men are not.
And then we have Victorian culture that still influences our society. They are also mentioned on the above link.
Of course, Victorian values are seen by many traditionalists in our society as the correct way to live. Sex within marriage for the purposes of reproduction; women should not enjoy sex. This has of course, proven to be unnatural. Humans - men and women - are sexual beings and behave essentially the same way regardless of culture.
Why cant we also accept that even though we are animals, we are not like all the other animals?
Most people have no problem accepting that. There seems to be more of a difficulty accepting our similarities to other animals.
What I am saying is that if it is advantageous for men to sow their seed for genetic diversity, it is also advantageous for women to have multi-partners although male sociobiologists rarely want to admit that
There is a very obvious way in which it is more advantageous for a man to be promiscuous than for a woman. I've mentioned it several times and it should really be self-evident. But here it is again: There is effectively no limit to the number of children a man can father, if he's fit enough. A few minutes effort with a strange woman gives him a good chance of producing offspring that will never ever cost him anything again. The costs are miniscule; the potential (genetic) benefits enormous. A woman who is promiscuous will likely get pregnant (probably not by her "ideal mate") and will have to spend the best part of the next two decades looking after the child if it is to have any chance of survival. For almost a year after she becomes pregnant, she cannot get pregnant again and thus may miss out on the opportunity of mating with a better partner. Women are generally more choosy about their sexual partners because there is a relatively low limit on quantity, so quality is paramount.
http://my.concordhospital.org/HealthNews/Reuters/NewsStory0708200325.htm
Concealed ovulation has traditionally been seen as a way of encouraging pair-bonding. It can also be a mechanism by which women can cheat and have the best of both worlds. Recent studies seem to indicate that women are more likely to get pregnant during an illicit sexual encounter than one with their regular partner. This latest finding strengthens this case; it appears women can, to some extent, ovulate "at will", although more the "will" of their genes and hormones than any conscious decision. The child has the genes of a sexually successful philandering father but the love and attention of a good provider.
This may well explain why in most cultures it has been more acceptable for a man to cheat than a woman. A woman is not materially disadvantaged if her husband fathers a child with another woman, whereas a man who spends time and effort raising other people's children is likely to find that his lineage ends with him.
What about step parents? I am so glad that most step mothers and step fathers do not feel this way.
People make conscious decisions all the time to do things that are not beneficial to their genes. I'm not denying that. Still, the majority of people would prefer not to look after another person's child as their own, especially for a first marriage (or equivalent.) It is also worth noting that children are far more likely to die at the hands of a step-parent than a biological parent.
It seems to me that you are saying that it is okay for a man to cheat, to leave his children fatherless and not have to pay for or expend energy towards the consequences just as long as he gets a chance to sow his seed.
Not at all. It's a morally repugnant way to behave. But it's a very good way to pass on your genes. Which is all it needs to be to get passed on.
But God forbid if a woman causes him to take some responsibilty. That is not okay. Especially if the child is not his.
Again, it's not about morality. While it may be immoral for a woman to lie about who the father of her child is, it can be a successful survival strategy.
So, let me see if I have this correct, the woman is the one who must pay or be responsible for the sexual choices of both genders while the man gets to do whatever his penis tells him to do, without any sort of responsibility.
What amazes me is that you think that's a cultural construct. The potential cost to a woman of a sexual encounter is far greater than the cost to a man. It's biology, not society that dictates this.
And a man who does take responsibilty to protect his offspring is considered to be a genetic loser?
Not at all. Humans are mostly monogamous because human children do better with both parents around. Nevertheless, it may still be genetically advantageous to subvert this situation to some extent. Men will do better genetically if they father more children, especially if there's a "sucker" to look after them. Women will do better genetically if they seek out the "best" genes for their children, and have someone around to help care for them. That seems to be exactly what happens.
Now of course, being logical beings, we can make choices that are not in the best interests of our genes. We can choose to remain celibate, to use contraception, to marry someone we know to be infertile, or unhealthy or ugly. But, by and large, the majority of us behave in predictable ways. We find the "best" partner we can. Men look for young, healthy fertile women. Women look for strong, capable, powerful men. We do this even when it's not in our best interest to do so. Attraction doesn't follow the rules of logic.
