Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?

Bryant (
28 Aug 1996 07:23:45 -0600

Note: Matt & Bryant both misused "cuckold" in this thread--we meant to refer
to the guy doing the cuckolding (=cuckolder).

In article <4vukuo$>,
Matt Beckwith <> wrote:
>>>So it isn't that cuckolds are superior by virtue of being cuckolds, but
>>>that women sleep with men who are attractive to them, and the >>attractive
>>>men become cuckolds because so many women want them.
>>[bryant replied:]
>>Think so. Of course, they could be wearing two hats--having secured a
>>mate, they're seeking sex on the side, like males in all those bird
>>species we once thought were monogamous.
>Women tend to be pragmatic, men idealistic. (Perhaps because women have
>had to do all the work, leaving men free to play.) Like the way some
>women gain weight once they're married, no longer having the motivation
>to stay thin.

Maybe a tad over-generalized; we're all idealistic as it suits our
needs, at least to some extent. Display is incredibly important in
social species. We're designed, I suspect, to show as many potential
allies as possible just what splendid reciprocators and altruists we are,
just as women are designed, I suspect, to show potential mates was
splendidly fertile mates they would make.

But what happens when we are manipulated and deceived by folks who use
our desire to display/be liked against us? We grow "cynical" and
bitter. What happens to the women who are rejected despite their
investments in pleasingly deceptive make-up? They become contemptuous of
men or the "Beauty Myth/Ethic."

Ideals are not, IMO, arrived at rationally and objectively.

>>>So how would we get an attractive, faithful man? The cuckold would >>have
>>>to finally want more from a relationship, and realize that you can't >>get
>>>that without commitment.
>>A bitch, ain't it?
>In what way? The losers here are women looking for faithful, sexy men to

And that's a bitch for the nice women who cannot secure such mates and the
nice guys who are not sexy or resource-holding.

>On the other hand, women bring it upon themselves by being willing to
>have sex with men who are incapable of commitment.

There's a whole lot of deception on the guy's side, often. Cues of
commitment, etc... until she copulates.

>>Well, orgasm ain't necessary to conceive--it just
>>improves a fellow's odds when many guys' sperm are co-mingling in a gal.
>What a repulsive thought. But since sperm can live up to five days
>inside the female reproductive tract, you're probably not being

Sorry, I forget to word things less crudely, sometimes. Baker & Bellis
just wrote a book you may be interested in: Sperm Competition, 1995.
Oxford published it, I think.

>>Also, the attractive guys only inspire more *copulatory* orgasms. No
>>evidence that committed fellows cause fewer female orgasms during
>>foreplay and posplay than the symmetrical guys. That should seem >hopeful
>>to women.
>Now wait just a minute here. You're making so many assumptions that I,
>personally, disagree with.
>Orgasms are not caused by the man.

Well, they are patterned in a way that suggests (strongly!) that the man
is involved. It may not be what the guy does, exactly, but fellows with
greater developmental stability (disease resistance, etc.) (measured as
fluctuating asymmetry) inspire significantly more copulatory orgasms in
their female mates than less symmetrical guys. That, and the
sperm-retaining characteristics of female orgasm, suggests
that female orgasm is indeed a facultative sperm-retention mechanism.

>Also, there are attractive, committed, faithful men. You make it sound
>like women have a choice between sexy cuckolds and dull family men.

I know, that was an overgeneralization. But women who mess around on
their faithful mates, according to Baker and Bellis' studies, orgasm more
frequently with their illicit lovers than their husbands. So they appear
to be securing sperm from outside their marriages.

>>I think this stuff speaks to the age-old question women ask themselves
>>about why they're attracted so often to "assholes." The most attractive
>>guys are least willing to give what most women seem to want--commitment.
>Yes, but there are men who have both qualities.

There are indeed. But they're rare. In their couples study, here at UNM,
Thornhill & Gangestad found that the guys inspiring all those orgasms in
their mates were investing the least in their "relationships" and were
cheating the most on their primary partners. The guys who were most
investing materially were somehow less sexually satisfying to their mates.

Compensation, maybe? Dunno.

>The answer, it seems to me, is for each woman to decide what she wants.
>If she wants both wild and crazy sex and faithfulness, then she should
>make sure that the man she drops her drawers for has those same ideals.

Yep--that seems applicable to all of us, of both sexes.

>To the woman who says she's searched and searched without finding such a
>man, I would ask whether she's ever had sex with a man who she knew in
>advance was incapable of commitment.

Or ask if she's more often dated shallow, selfish but good looking guys, or
thoughtful, kind, but average or unattractive men.