Hi Tecuacuicani
Cheating is natural, in that is it found throughout nature.
This is a human concept that falsely and artificially is imposed and projected on the animal world. Most species do not cheat but have other mating practices. If looking truly and truthfully for the same concept as in humans very few animals "cheat". It is the same nonsense as when you open the National Geographic Chanel and a documentary about predators in nature which are hunting for food are described as "deadliest KILLERS/MURDERERS". This is an excellent example how one's own concepts and actually language creates a (false) reality. It is simply BS not science. Hence the very hypothesis of this research is wrong and thus by definition it leads to false results. It is a false example how one asks wrong question and gets wrong answers. Cheating is not natural, is not found in the nature itself as those are much more diverse mating practices than we humans for the reasons I'll state below can accept. By the way, humans can find also different ways to mate and not necessarily fall into the category of cheating. For example, there are couples today that are not married, mate together just for the purpose of having kids, they settle everything before through legal agreements and so on. Personally, I find it horrible and deluded for other reasons. Yet, it is clear and obvious that this is not cheating and after the child is born one can sexually do whatever one wants, whether it is a sexual active life or even being celibate! The problem with this dismal and pseudo – science is that it plays with words, manipulates meanings and this is nothing but for gaining financial advantages through morally deceiving and corrupting people as well as excusing one's own selfishness and entitlement. That's not science. That's a sham. It is the exact moral decadence I mentioned above
Now, that being said let's do some hypothetical exercise as to your previous statement. Let's say it is really about getting better genes which I proved above to be false and a lie. In that case if one wants the best genes as I said above there is no need to marry anyone. As part of the arrangement the female could perform medical check for the potential mate to find the Alfa candidate as you was pointing above, bring a child with him and so on. The problem is that even for most Alfa males it's a too dangerous business in our anti male society with its biased courts, not to speak that few men, Alfa or not, would not agree to that as it is too dangerous. The problem of bringing those children out of wedlock is the question of raising and especially financing them. It's a question of taking responsibility. Hence, most men knowing the danger would not agree, for most women as to the ones that are living the phantasy world of better genes the option are those that they don't want too. If a woman would do what I said without cheating she would either raise her kids on her own if she's decent or on the other side there would be a need in changing a lot of social and political arrangement that will result in women losing their privileges and men stopping being financially exploited. It is the idea of the disposable man standing behind and at the root of the Gynocentristic society
Now, most of the women will naturally not want to lose those privileges and I see no problem in that. Most women are also decent enough and getting the privileges they do not cheat and betray their partners. So, the one option for the woman that you described would be to cheat and deceive the husband to secure her better genes and the other one would be to change our social customs so the arrangement are more men friendly. For example that maybe society pays for the woman's kindness on cheating for humanity and for that heroism of hers. The third one is not to believe in that shit and this is the vast majority of women that don't do this. Once, again let's hypothetically assume she'll do this to "secure humanity's future" so the logical conclusion for men who have some self-worth, self-esteem, do not hate themselves and seek happiness in their life is to do what the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) say and not accept the cheating and being financially exploited but to give up on marriage and any sex or romantic relationship with women to avoid this suffering as a constant style and way of life. Anyway, if society gives so few shit about me and thus I'm going to pass away one so logically I would not give a shit about that society either. You see the ultimate end result of this morally wicked perception and dismal science which leads this everything ad absurdum, if we follow that logic, is the epic fall of society which lives her better genes useless, the need for any genes unnecessary and endangering the very survival of the specie and humankind and the deterioration of any genes or whatever there. Well, the delusion and ignorance for better genes will only lead to their disappearance of them. Wow, that is really science. You see it's based on a very basic flow in the logic as well which lead to those absurd results. My description of MGTOW is not what I personally believe and I used it only to show the absurdity of the claims of this dismal science
Now besides this you wrote also
Monogamy is good for the offspring, not so much for the parents involved
And later wrote that
In our society and culture, serial monogamy is the preferred method of forming families, and has become a foundation for our psychological well-being.
Well, that's another flow of logic which leads to absurd result. The thing is that as humans, whether we are husbands and wives or not, we all seek happiness and want to avoid suffering. That is one of our most deep psychological traits of the mind. This is indeed as you say why monogamy was preferred and set as the foundation for our well-being once we are married. However, once you are married you're not stop ceasing to exist as a human being but wear another hat, one of the many we wear in life (husband, wife, professional, brother, sister, son, daughter, the spiritual being and I could continue more). You still want to be happy also in whatever other aspect there is. Now, if you think you can separate between that everything this is another delusion because reality is not something rooted in dichotomy but is based on none duality.
If you're unhappy as a person, you're unhappy as husband and wife as well and if you're unhappy as husband in wife you're unhappy as a person. If you suffer everyone around you suffer and if everyone around you suffer than you suffer as well. So, no matter who suffers in the relationship the other suffers too if you are basically hold the view you have expressed and therefore there's no such thing that it is good for the kids when it is not good for the parents and if the kids suffer because of the parents stupidity the parents will suffer in return through the consequences of their own actions. Hence, there is no such thing that it is good for the kids but bad for the parents, simply because of your second statement because if I suffer the kids will suffer and so on. Your statement has an internal contradiction because it misses and misunderstands the rule of cause and effect. A very basic scientific rule that the dismal science of infidelity can't accept as it is pseudo-science.
if you look at mate selection vs sexual selection, you will find that there are vast differences in humans--women prefer to mate with males with more "masculine" features with less bodyfat, while prefering to form relationships with men who have softer features. The psychology behind this is quite interesting--the males with the more masculine features are more desirable for sex and reproduction, but the softer--featured males are perceived to be more financially and emotionally responsible--ideal for child-rearing and founding a family unit.
Based on the previous myths and especially false and artificially imposed perception, the traits you mentioned are having less to do with inherent masculine traits and energies as inborn properties of a male body but as I already pointed out those are the ones that can pervasively and largely be acquired through access to medical care, especially life style but even through physical manipulation of the body itself. It is true that both males and females are attracted to those specific traits but not as to the specific issues you were pointing but as to the general overview if a mate, man or woman, is healthy and good for reproductive purposes while in that sense not only there are too many other aspects you have to take into consideration but the bodily one is the least important one. Even the concept as discussed by western science of Alfa male is highly problematic, there are a lot of disagreements and a lot of false perceptions imposed on it. Even if such an Alfa make exists, this is too evolutionary and not as it was in the past, has many other traits and in my opinion and other's too every male has this ability to become and train himself to be an Alfa only that not everyone will achieve it.
The bottom line of this is that you can have whatever traits you have, if you live immorally, if your mental and emotional stability is a mess and you have a lot of mental issues and problems, whether innate or acquired than over time your mental and emotional instability will deteriorate your bodily function. When you have such mental issues than approved by science you with all certainty have at least a weaker immune system and develop a lot of physical medical issues. Having physical medical issues will take a huge toll on biology and the meaning of this is of course obvious to you. A mate can have great physical shape but if he's a mental and emotional mess than all of his great physical traits are of no use and if he has some physical problems but a great mental and emotional strength than he's a better mate. As most humans, even if they are Alfas, have a combination of both, Alfa as well as some Betta traits on various areas, while an Alfa will have more Alfa and less Betta traits and a Betta one more Betta and less Alfa traits, both men and women are attracted to diverse and multi layered personalities and make their preferences based on that. As I said the physical aspect in the mix is today even less important. It is the way how we make choices not only in regard to mating but everything in life. A multi layered person is for the survival of the species a much better mate because he can give more, is a one shop station and has better capabilities to address everything. Therefore, all the sexual versus mate or sexual versus social selection also as I will describe below is nonsense. Those are the two sides of the same coin.
This of course is proven by scientific research on the origin of mankind. If we are talking not in religious terms so the first Australopithecus was a female that after the discovery of her skeleton was given the name Lucy dating some 3.2 million years ago. As research show in the time survival in the nature was much more problematic. The the reasons and the way how Lucy attracted men was less the physical traits but rather those aspects that later distinguished the Homo Homo Sapiens as to his mental capacity namely the ability to use his mind, use his brain and the solving problem capabilities which are one of the very masculine traits. The survival in the nature was less a question of mere physical brute force in humans as they could not compete with other species in that but their other capabilities as developing institutional economy, culture, the development of the script, letters, writing system (education), protection, the domestication of animals, the domestication of plants, housing (architecture), sanitation, transportation and so on. Those males, if you want Alfa males that passed Lucy's natural, sexual as well as the social selection were a combination of physical but especial mental masculine traits and energies. It was of course so not with Lucy but throughout all history. You can't imagine human history especially that in the west without male contribution. If not this, we would still live on the threes and caves today. However, most women know this and appreciate that. Some small percentage does not. Yet, this small percentage is not representative for all women. Once again all of this infidelity research is nothing but dismal and pseudo-science. Anyway, as to the list of the monogamous animals I can't post because I'll have to provide links which is not allowed here. Yet, this is no problem; you can easily find everything on the web
[This message edited by ImGoneByTheDown at 2:07 AM, January 8th (Friday)]
