Wed, 16 Aug 95 23:09:32 -0500

Tim Benham expounded...

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

The rationale of that I understand.

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

The rationale of this escapes me.

It is in the interest of a woman's genes to have as few husbands to whom
she is exclusively bound as possible (if she is rich enough, this means
none), and to choose to have sex with the highest ranking available male
to be found at the time she wishes to conceive (in a technological
society, artificial insemination works great here). It is in the best
interest of a woman's genes for her to have brothers who know without
doubt that the same genes they inherited from their common mother are
present in the sister's children. That is really quite the only
descendant relationship a male can be absolutely sure of, and a
husbandless sister will almost always invite him into her home for
dinner and care for him when he is wounded or old.

NE>important point to be made here and that is that the situation is far
NE>from being symmetrical.

Uh, oh, I'm afraid that we are about to be told about how unfair the
world is to males. <g>

The likely loss to the husband due to the
NE>wife's infidelity is much greater than the converse loss because the

Yep, I knew it!

NE>husband can be cuckold and thereby waste a large proportion of his
NE>reproductive investment (or even all of it)

He was investing most of it elsewhere, remember, scattering his seed to
the wind, so to speak? Sometimes a very risky method of investment
indeed, but you began by asserting that was the man's best strategy, so
we took you at your word on that. Would you like to reconsider your
first postulate?

whereas in the converse
NE>situation the wife runs only the risk of losing some or perhaps all of
NE>the *husband's* investment.

Most often an insignificant pittance at any rate.

She is at no risk of having her own
NE>resources diverted to the care of offspring who are not hers.

Which one is putting up 99% of the resources, devoting in fact ALL her
physical, social, and economic resources to this endeavor? Which one
is taking the most risk, risking, in fact, life itself? And yet you
complain that there is some other risk that she is not taking?

I find that I quite agree with you that the "situation is not
symmetrical." Did you wish to negotiate a different deal? What have
you got to offer that my brothers can't provide?


Say Tim, are you related to Flip, by any chance? <BG>

€ OLX 2.1 TD € Never let TRUTH get in the way of DOGMA!