Could there be a biologically based reason men may be especially attracted to other men’s wives?
One of my favorite Golden Oldies is “Midnight Confession.†The song’s narrator is a man passionately in love with a woman who is out of his reach: “a little gold ring you were on your hand makes me understand/There’s another before me, you’ll never be mine.â€
A more recent popular song is “Mrs. Steven Rudy.†The narrator desires a married woman and derides her husband as “Mr. Ugly.â€
There has recently been a lot of discussion on Men’s News Daily about James Rhoades, a man who fathered a child in a relationship with a woman married to another man. Rhoades is currently seeking the legal right to be a part of his biological child’s life. The courts have, so far, ruled against him. Glenn Sacks has posted blogs sympathetic to Rhoades while David R. Usher has posted blogs harshly critical of Rhoades. This essay will not attempt to address the particulars of the Rhoades situation one way or another.
Rather, it attempts to explore the possibility that at least a part of the heterosexual male population may have a genetically-based special attraction to women who are “taken,†that is, who are the wives (or girlfriends) of other men.
Before I get into the reasons such a genetically-based tendency may have developed, I must make one thing crystal clear: I don’t advocate men pursuing or engaging in sexual relationships with other men’s wives or girlfriends. I don’t even excuse such activity. As human beings, we are able to rise above our natural tendencies. David R. Usher has written that he has walked away from married women who tried to seduce him. I applaud him for that since such affairs can lead to much pain.
However, I believe it is possible that a special attraction to women linked to other men may be built into the sexuality of at least some men. To understand why this could be so, we have to review the mechanism of natural selection. Organisms pass on tendencies that aid survival and those that lead to more offspring and to offspring that survive to produce more offspring in turn. Offspring that survive to reproductive age and are fertile carry on the hereditary traits of their forbears.
People tend to desire and enjoy sexual intercourse because the humans or proto-humans who did not were not our ancestors. Human males are more apt to be sexually attracted to women of childbearing age than to elderly women because those men in the former category impregnated more females than those in the latter camp.
While men have impregnated females of childbearing age throughout the existence of our species, special problems resulted when the pregnant females were abandoned and had no husband (whether the biological father or another man). The pregnancies were frequently aborted. They were also probably more likely to miscarry than pregnancies within marriage because of the distressed female’s failure to take good care of herself or her lack of access to the resources necessary to do so. While abortion and miscarriage may be very different from a moral viewpoint, their practical result is the same: no baby.
Babies born to unwed mothers were at higher than average risk of not making it to reproductive age. Some were victims of infanticide by their mothers. Many more were likely to perish before reaching puberty because of inferior care and less access to resources than other children.
What became of pregnancies conceived through female adultery? Many of them also did not make it to term. If the woman was discovered, in many cultures she would be killed. Her death automatically terminated the life of the unborn since they naturally depend on the pregnant female for a life support system.
However, the fate of pregnancies conceived in a wife’s UNSUSPECTED adultery would be very different. Such a female would be little more likely to abort than any other married woman. Having access to a husband’s resources, she would be no more likely to miscarry. Thus, such pregnancies would be as apt as those conceived by the husband himself to end in a baby’s birth.
Would the resulting baby be more likely to be neglected or mistreated than a child indisputably conceived with a husband? It is possible. The mother might feel guilty about her adultery and take those feelings out on the child. However, many if not most mothers would not treat one child differently than another because of she was uncertain of the little one’s paternity. The husband who didn’t suspect that the child could have been sired by another man would invariably treat the child just like those he himself had sired.
An interesting point: A child of a faithful wife COULD be neglected or mistreated either by the husband or other people because the toss of the genetic dice landed in such a way that the child resembled neither biological parent and so aroused suspicions as to his or her true paternity.
However, the child born of adultery that was unsuspected by the husband would be just as likely as other children to thrive, grow to adulthood, and create children of his or her own. Thus, if a tendency to be attracted to “taken†women is biologically based, that characteristic would be apt to survive and be passed on through the generations.
I feel like I must repeat: nothing in this essay advocates or even condones engaging in sex with married women. Rather it simply points out the possibility that a special attraction to the wives or girlfriends of other men may have a biological basis and tries to explain why such a tendency could have been transmitted through the process of natural selection.
Your thoughts, readers?
| More from Denise Noe
Stumble It!
May 12th, 2008 at 2:09 am
The major problem with such post hoc reasoning, mixed in with ‘genetic’ speculations, is that it has no scientific basis. Try testing it.
It can almost be passed off as ‘evolution’ or ‘darwinian selection’ or genetic pre-disposition’ or whatever but no evidence is offered to show such ‘pre-dispositions’ in the first instance let alone how it might be passed on, and an alert mind has to say. “Hold them thar hosses, Missy”.
These sorts of speculations abound. Its the partly-intellectual’s version of superstition. Dress up a wild guess in scientific jargon and someone is bound use it to fill a page in a ‘learned’ journal. They all seem to begin with an unstated assumption that our genes are all preselected and our genes determine our behaviour. No thought is ever given to inadvertent artifact of the situations we encounter.
In this instance chap A, you say, fancies chap B’s missus, C. She, C, has chap A’s nipper and the ‘gene’ gets passed on.
What gene?
Chap A likes to bonk. OK, lets say his genes make him do it. He bonks willy nilly whenever a chance arises. (”Honest Officer, it weren’t me, It wuz me genes”) Chap A saw a chance to bonk Mrs C, who was walking by one day with that wiggle, just like any other wiggling woman. Mrs C was amenable. That’s all. Opportunity.
No ‘Chap B’s missus fancying genes’ needed to be the prime mover. No special gene for fancying anyone’s missus to pass on.
You haven’t demonstrated any “tendency to be attracted to “taken†women being (specifically) biologically based”, nor pointed to any particular naughty gene. You haven’t even shown a specific tendancy to fancying another’s missus for that matter.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Whatever attraction married women present to single men I think is purely lust-based, not genetic.
I think it has nothing more to do than the woman “presenting” as if she were available, or still dressing/flirting in a manner that says she still wants to be pursued. I think it’s lust based and nothing more.
However, I think there might be a very strong genetic drive for women to cheat, whether cheating on their vows or encouraging a husband to cheat on his wife.
Wife’s sacrificing their vows has been beaten like a dead horse everyone is aware of the possible genetic benefits of it. I will summarize that with: the woman marries a docile (not necessarily feminized, but child-loving “family” man, and usually industrious) thus ensuring “her” genetic offspring the best chances. Then she beds down with a risk-taker or other form of “alpha male” thus ensuring her children of alpha characteristics: leadership, charisma, looks(maybe?).
What I never thought of before is that a single woman might also have genetic drives to encourage a man to cheat with her.
This way she can get (at least) the financial support of a prime provider. Look at how Amy Fisher attacked Joey Butafuccos wife.
In ancient days the practice of sultans (or whatever nobility) taking many wives was really a female-friendly practice. What? Yes! This enabled a dozen or more woman of fertile child-bearing quality to have royal offspring (with much better survival rates) but meant 11 men had no wives or wives of less-than-optimal fertility.
In this way women with a “cheating” gene were passed down. By cheating gene I mean a woman who would inherit personality traits to look for prime mate selection first, and “availability” second. A wiley woman could always work on the availability part, but you can’t work on the “prime mate” traits.
Research shows they’re biological. I watched a show on TLC (or one of the educational channels) about sex selection in humans. Apparently woman like men with chests bigger than their stomachs, woman like men with facial symmetry. Woman also prefer men with big chins. My understanding is that growing a big chin uses up a lot of the same nutrients and body-systems that fight disease. So, if a man has a big chin and is STILL fit and disease-free it means his children are more likely to have a vibrant immune system.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Little bit of projection going on Denise?
Its WOMEN who are attracted to married men not the other way around (ok there are a lot of women who happen to be married that are attractive to me but being married is a negitive attractive enhancer not a positive)
Its women…..that feel they are the better woman if they can steal the boyfriend/husband from another woman……and that IS genetic.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
the thing about the married women:
1. if they are looking, they are easy. just out for an occasional fling, maybe a one night stand. they want the same things men do. wild sex at a moments notice and no strings. see ya later.
2. they probably do the calling. if both are married there is usually a common meeting place and approx. time.
3. no worries w/ pregnancy either. most married women are on BC/the pill and those who aren’t don’t worry about who will pay. a guy told me the other day that good looking married women usually have 2 men in their lives. one to play and one to pay.
4. and they are sooo much better looking than single women, in general. when you are a single man for a while you come to realize that the good lookers won’t be “out there” for long. husbands are stability $$$ (servants).
heck, everybody wants a servant.
5. she has nothing to lose, except MAYBE a husband. easily replaced if she is a looker. she knows the deck is stacked against the devoted husband at home. automatic custody, CS, house, car, alimony, etc., etc. no worries.
6. a lot of women have husbands who accept their wife’s infidelity for whatever reason. not exactly the alpha male type, but very reliable. he worshipes her and she can do no wrong. no commment.
7. some women are out for a baby w/ a stranger, or a regular lover, for a wide variety of reasons. this part can really devastate the real genetic fathers if a bond is allowed to form w/ the child.
8. a lot of married men are dopes. they agree to one night out w/ the boys and go look in the pubs, that’s where they generally are. playing pool, pinball, and so forth. when wifey gets her turn she really gets decked out. she ain’t doing that for her girlfriends (mostly) and she ain’t in the pubs. she got dressed up for dancing, drinking and probably sex.
9. and off comes the ring. they will lie about their age, name, marital status, hair color, income, kids, heck, you name it, married women on the prowl will lie about it.
a lot of us guys just want to get close to a woman, NOW. any woman that will act interested, tonite.
and that is why it has always amazed me at the guys who would look beyond their wife for somebody to blame for all this. always want to kill and blame the other guy. destroy his life. hey buddy, no one made YOU any promises but YOUR wife.
what can i say? i read a lot. lotsa research time.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I just wanted to post this on a thread that many people had eyes on.
I was ready a thread on mensactivism.org (about the mom who stabbed your 2y/o daughter to death).
I scrolled down and saw this gem:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57710
May 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Yet another idiotic article by Denise Noe.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Could there be a biologically based reason women may be especially attracted to other women’s husbands?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:24 am
shatteredmen said,
Could there be a biologically based reason women may be especially attracted to other women’s husbands?
(Denise) This is a good question. I believe the answer to it is “no.” The sexes play different roles in reproduction: men impregnate and women get pregnant. A woman pregnant by a man who is “taken” by another woman has no advantages but disadvantages because of lower or no access to the man’s resources. However, there ARE biologically based reasons why women might be especially attracted to affluent men and those men are often “taken,” thus so many affairs between single as well as married women and married men.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Denise, as I am sure you know, a third of the children born are not the woman’s husbands so there is nearly as much unfaithfulness on the part of women as there is for men.
I reversed this question because far too often we see all the blame being placed on men while none is placed on women. I also see another problem with this, it seems everyone is looking for a “biologically” reason for what the Bible calls….SIN. I guess if they are born this way, they can excuse their behaviour right?
In reality, we can simply watch a bunch of small children at play to find the root of this adult problem. The root is that we want something that is not ours until it is ours and then we do not want it…until someone else does. In short, we often want something we can not have.
James said it well”
James 1:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
My husband was single a long time before me, once we were together he was suddenly a hot commodity. It is amusing when we go out, if I were the jealous type and didn’t trust the big guy, we’d fight alot. The women are bold, they don’t care that the wife is there either. I don’t see this same behavior in men. Not to say men don’t act this way, only that it is not overt as with women. It is childish behavior, that toy you just gotta have , til you get it and break it.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I’ll just say that I agree with Metalman.Yet another idiotic article.