Re: Male Parental Investment

Tim Benham (
Mon, 14 Aug 1995 12:49:51 GMT

Chris Malcolm ( wrote:
: In article <3ura0d$> (RossWilymz) writes:
: >From: (Barbara Saunders)

: >.Technical point: "monogamously-paired couple" does not necessarily
: >.mean *sexually exclusive couples. Pair-bonding in living, forming
: >.social interactions, etc., doesn't mean limiting *sex to that couple.

: >Yes, indeed. I was amazed about this when I started reading anthro. But
: >somehow my wife doesn't buy into the differentiation.

: It's in the interest of a man's genes to have as many wives
: exclusively bound to him as possible (unless you're very rich this is
: usually one), and have sex with as many other women as
: possible without getting thrown out or murdered.

: It's in the interest of a woman's genes to have one long-term
: monogamous relationship, and to have a long-term affair with a more
: up-market man, such as your boss.

: I'm sure if you're willing to let your wife's genes have their fling,
: she'll be willing to let yours have theirs.

I'm not sure why you are so certain of that: many women have refused
just that proposal from their husbands. However, there is a more
important point to be made here and that is that the situation is far
from being symmetrical. The likely loss to the husband due to the
wife's infidelity is much greater than the converse loss because the
husband can be cuckold and thereby waste a large proportion of his
reproductive investment (or even all of it) whereas in the converse
situation the wife runs only the risk of losing some or perhaps all of
the *husband's* investment. She is at no risk of having her own
resources diverted to the care of offspring who are not hers.

People who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
Tim J.Benham