Recently
Dim And Her
I'm having a whirlwind romance with a man I met online on Thanksgiving. I moved across the country to live with him on December 20, and we're now building a life together. The problem is I have a high IQ (137), and he's very unintelligent and …Read more.
Shove Thy Neighbor
My commitment-phobic boyfriend of several years is also my neighbor. I resolved to make it work with him and then caught him on FriendFinder exchanging numerous messages with some woman in Tijuana. He claimed he was just being friendly. I asked if …Read more.
Code Goo
I'm a 33-year-old nurse in a five-month "friends with benefits" thing with a doctor co-worker. I am only 18 months out of an abusive 10-year relationship and wanted something fun and light. We get along well, but he rarely asks me ahead …Read more.
Witchful Thinking
I'm a retired pastor in my 50s. A nearby church wanted my help with their Christmas musical, and I asked my wife of five years, who played bass at my church, to join me. She became angry at this suggestion and said I should do my own thing on …Read more.
more articles
|
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Drag
I love how you write about the evolutionary psychology driving us, like your recent bit on how women across cultures prioritize money and mojo in men. So, what do you think about the Tiger Woods scandal? Was this just a man being true to his genes? Or, is there more to it than that, since most other men aren't running around to the extent he was? — Curious George
People are speculating that Tiger has a "sex addiction," when all the ordinary guy can usually be accused of is a porn addiction. What separates the sex addicts from the porn addicts? Being rich enough to get the girls in 3-D.
You'll hear people sneer that gay men are promiscuous. And they are. All men are. Unfortunately for straight guys, women's timeline for putting out is typically three dates, not three minutes or whenever the stall is free, whichever comes first. Men evolved to want sexual variety far more than women do. Evolutionary psychologists Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa write in "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters" that a man who has sex with 1,000 women in a year can potentially produce 1,000 children. "In sharp contrast, if a woman has sex with 1,000 men in a year, she can have only one child (barring a multiple birth)." In other words, "there's little reproductive benefit for women in seeking lots of sex partners," while, as my blog commenter "sterling" put it, "Men like sex the same as women like shoes. No matter how many cool shoes you already have, you want different shoes."
So, Tiger's really no different from Henry the Eighth or Fred, the fifth guy on the left. Henry had to practice what could be called "rolling monogamy" — beheading one wife before marrying the next. Fred might cheat with the occasional cocktail waitress — if he gets really, really lucky. But, beyond being a bazillionaire, a golf virtuoso, and boyishly handsome, Tiger's famous. Really, really famous. And even just being borderline famous seems to be a wildly potent aphrodisiac (after all, women chase Gary Coleman).
It isn't wrong for a guy to want his sex life to be all "I love a parade"; he just needs to figure that out before he marries the nice Swedish woman and makes babies with her. George Clooney, for one, sets a good example. If media reports are correct, he tells the ladies he isn't the committing kind, and when it's over with Francesca he moves on to Elisabetta — with no need for apologies before the international press and his mom.
Of course, Tiger had to publicly apologize for the bimbo malfunction because he isn't just Tiger the guy who plays golf, but a role model who has countless people depending on him for their livelihoods. If he weren't, he could either have said nothing or said what I suspect is the truth: "I'm not sorry for having sex with all those models, escorts, and busty wafflehouse waitresses. I loved every minute of it. I'm sorry I got caught. But, I'd do it again. And, hope to in the future."
Is there a lesson in this? There is, for the ladies. Women who marry rich, powerful men should recognize that there's a strong temptation for those men to cheat — especially during the horndog 20s and early 30s. Women can ignore this if they want, or tell themselves their love will make the difference. Or, they can decide the homes, the cars, the yachts, and annual trips to the cheating husband section of the diamond mine are compensation enough.
Aisle Give It To You Two Years Later
Since many marriages fail, what do you think of the idea that wedding gifts should only be given after the two-year mark, to celebrate a couple making it past the "honeymoon stage." — The Realist
Don't stop there, Mr. Realist. Avoid giving Christmas presents to family members in high-risk occupations: "No iPod for you, electrical line worker!" Keep tabs on friends with unhealthy habits: "Oh, wait, you're smoking again? Gimme back that sweater." Wedding invitations generally say something like "Come celebrate Don and Donna's happy day," not "Take the risk that your investment in their marriage will be a lasting one." Pragmatism is wise if you're getting a new transmission, but in certain areas of life, it's plain ugly. Could you maybe do the warm, generous thing, and extend your good wishes in the form of a toaster? Even if they end up hating each other, it may still come in handy (maybe one can throw it out the window at the other). If you're just cheap, and prefer never to be invited to another wedding, give the happy couple a beautifully wrapped package with a note inside: "If you don't hate each other in two years, call me and I'll buy you a lead-crystal turtle."
Got a problem? Write Amy Alkon, 171 Pier Ave, #280, Santa Monica, CA 90405, or e-mail AdviceAmy@aol.com (www.advicegoddess.com). Alkon is the author of "I See Rude People: One Woman's Battle to Beat Some Manners into Impolite Society."
COPYRIGHT 2010 AMY ALKON
DIST. BY CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
15 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
I can't disagree with you more. First of all, evoluntionary psychology that promotes what you are promoting goes completely against the main tenet of evolution which is that the species is getting better and better. Here we humans are, supposedly millions of years removed from our chimp ancestors, yet evolutionary psychology says men are incapable of acting responsibly. These ideas further prove and demonstrate the fact that evolution is completely invalid.
The inability for men and women to remain faithful and monogomous is nothing more than a lack of self control and basic morality. Your advice would be much more effective if you slpoke truth and not keep promoting outdated and useless ideas.
P.S. There is not and never has been one single shred of proof supporting evolution, not in over 150 years.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Todd
Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Todd. Amen. Not to get bogged down in the scientific merits of Darwinian evolution, but you're correct. I suspect the real reasons for infidelity are much simpler than this; we don't have to go looking at "proto-hominid ancestors" for the answers. It's probably more related to elements of human psychology which cause people to wonder about what they're missing out on by being committed to only one person. Besides, Alkon's answer (and the hooey about "evolution") doesn't address the observation that women also cheat on their partners. It probably doesn't happen as often as male infidelity does, but it does take place with some percentage of women.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chainsaw
Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Amy and the two posters Todd and Chainsaw are correct. By actual measurement, using DNA testing, more than 80% of men are married to faithful wives. Using Amy's statement about women having few partners that means more than 80% of married men are faithful. This is true to the Darwinian evolution Amy uses. Throughout the world men marry women, and help raise the resulting children. Chimps do not. Thus we know that there is favorable selection for men to be faithful to their wives.
Warren Beatty illustrates this point beautifully. Like George Clooney, Beatty is famous for his love-em and leave-em life style, about which he was very up front with the ladies. Then Beatty met and married Annette Bening. They have four children, and I have been unable to find anything to suggest Beatty has been unfaithful to Bening.
In addition I and my married male friends all agree that we get extra pleasure from knowing that we are faithful, and after all these years our wives still want to be with us. Evolution in action.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Nick
Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Once again, Amy is absolutely right-on. Just because you guys don't like what she's saying, doesn't mean she is incorrect., although you've come up with some mighty twisted logic to make it seem that way. The evolution of any species is geared toward its survival - what separates humans from the others is that we have the ability to define, interpret, and shape our behaviors with social pressure. We're also the only species that takes notes and remarks on itself. Sure, plenty of women cheat, but the sexual opportunism of men is an observable given. And, just so you know, the world is also round and revolves around the sun.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:30 AM
|
|
|
|
I'd say one reason Warren Beatty is faithful to Annette Bening is that the guy is OLD! If he'd married her in his 20s/30s, there's no way he'd have remained faithful.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Joannakathryn
Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:16 AM
|
|
|
|
No proof of evolution. Wow. In science there are theories, and are always adaptable based upon further continuing observation. Your book is stuck in the past. Since you are uninformed, one of the evolutionary reasons for desiring multiple partners could be explained by the benefits on increasing variety in the gene pool. This ensures the spread of different traits which may be passed down to offspring. Many psychological desires we have are programmed responses to help ensure survival of our species.
Comment: #6
Posted by: jp20sd
Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Todd
The main tenet of evolution is not that we are getting "better and better". For one, "better and better" is so incredibly vague that I cannot imagine any serious scientist using this as descriptor. What exactly constitutes "better" and how do you measure it? Nor does evolutionary theory state anywhere that men are incapable of acting responsibly. Having the drive to spread their genes = / = being unable to act responsibly.
The bit about there being no proof of evolution? COMPLETELY WRONG. Evolutionary theory is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. It has more evidentiary support than the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the theory that we get sick because of germs. We have the fossil record, the genetic record, atavisms, ERVs. We have directly observed genetic mutations that add information to an organism's genome. We have directly observed speciation (aka macroevolution) dozens of times. That's right, we have seen new species evolve. If you argue against evolution, you are arguing against observed fact.
Your post only reveals that you have an incredibly poor understanding of what evolution even is. Try doing some real research on the subject before writing things that make you look foolish and ill-informed.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Lola
Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Amy is absolutely wrong, both men and women cheat and for the same reason - they don't want to exit safe present relationship but they are bored and want something/someone new and exciting, they are missing something in the current relationship or they have low self-esteem and need to feed their ego with fresh attention. It seems that nobody let Amy know that most men and women don't have sex in order to reproduce so this theory is funny. There are people, both men and women, who are promiscuous and there are those who are not, depending of their individual personality. Writing "all men are promiscuous" or "all women like shoes" has as much sense as writing "all people are identical".
Comment: #8
Posted by: Dana
Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Very well put Maggie Lawrence. I agree completely and you saved me all that typing. Thanks : )
Comment: #9
Posted by: Rick
Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Women who claim it's given that all men are promiscuous cheaters must be really bitter, but some men comparing themselves to monkeys to justify their own cheating - now that's hilarious! :)))
Comment: #10
Posted by: B.C.
Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:23 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lola. YOU are the one who needs to do some research. It's very, very far from "one of the best supported scientific theories we have," and it certainly isn't better supported than gravity, atomic theory, or any of the other things you mentioned. For one thing, unlike those others, there's no ongoing proof of Darwinian macroevolution to speak of - moths may change color and bacteria may develop thicker walls, but that's MICRO-evolution, not macro like you mean. They're still moths and bacteria, not antelopes, ferns, or iguanas. Furthermore, contrary to what anthropologists and paleontologists would have you believe, the fossil record is spotty, shows each species appearing suddenly and then dying off. There are no transitory forms as one would expect to fine. Second, Darwin's theory is a blatant contraction of one scientific theory - the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Random energy and matter does not give rise to more complex structures, but only to greater chaos and disorganization. Finally, the theory contains no explanation of how life would have arisen in the first place - how nonliving matter changed to living matter. To start on the research that YOU need to be doing, I recommend "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler (http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267512474&sr=1-1) and also that you rent Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/). Don't mouth off about things you do not understand or call others uninformed when you yourself do not have the facts.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Matt
Mon Mar 1, 2010 10:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Matt,
Your ignorance is eclipsed only by your confidence.
All the organisms that have every lived are transitional forms (but for the water-to-land variety, see <i>Tiktaalik</i>), and as Lola said speciation has been observed.
You completely misunderstand the 2nd law of TD.
Evolutionary Theory does not address the origin of life nor is it meant to - that's a completely different sandbox.
"Expelled" was an utter joke; but I still think Stein is a fairly entertaining guy.
Comment: #12
Posted by: DaveG
Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Matt,
Everything you wrote is incorrect, but your ability to be so confidently wrong is impressive.
Comment: #13
Posted by: DaveG
Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Matt
Everything you wrote is wrong, but your confidence in doing so is impressive.
Comment: #14
Posted by: DaveG
Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:25 AM
|
|
|
|
I think it's as simple as the fact that being in a committed relationship does not turn off feelings of attraction for the opposite sex. It takes self-control to deny these feelings. Some have more than others.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Deft
Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|