"Women don't cheat on Alpha males"

paigexox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Posts
1,048
Media
37
Likes
56
Points
83
Age
38
Do you happen to know of any research supporting those theories regarding infidelity? I am genuinely curious and would appreciate links or sources.

I won't be able to devote any time to digging up articles until the back-half of this coming week, but I can certainly do that for you.

I am not super savvy on this topic, but my general impression is that given all the convergence from various studies, there must be some genetic basis for promiscuity and/or "minimal fidelity." At the very least, one would have a tough time explaining how these things are consistently observed not only across cultures, but species as well.

Here's an article I recently read that has to do with the possible evolution of sperm competition in men as a result of female infidelity: Sperm Competition
 

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
I won't be able to devote any time to digging up articles until the back-half of this coming week, but I can certainly do that for you.

I am not super savvy on this topic, but my general impression is that given all the convergence from various studies, there must be some genetic basis for promiscuity and/or "minimal fidelity." At the very least, one would have a tough time explaining how these things are consistently observed not only across cultures, but species as well.

Here's an article I recently read that has to do with the possible evolution of sperm competition in men as a result of female infidelity: Sperm Competition

Sure, evolutionary forces keep each other in check. When a prey develops an advantage, the predator develops one in response, and off they go, runaway* evolution. The same with any theory regarding male vs. female evolutionary advantages. If it's to the female's advantage to be unfaithful, it's to the male's advantage to keep her faithful so he can pass on his genes. That checks and balances schema means that there would be legacy systems still in existence that favored one evolutionary force or the other. My argument was in regards to which won out in the end. :wink:

*Oops, science fail. Runaway evolution would be a feature that the female selects for, not one in response to a contrary evolutionary force. It has been too long for me... better hit the books again. :tongue:
 
Last edited:

D_Dick_S_Lapp

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Posts
934
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the discover channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the discover channel
Getting horny now

ha sorry couldn't resist.
 

B_blairitchproject

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Posts
28
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I would imagine that in order to foster a legitimately productive discussion on this topic one would need to establish what precisely is meant by "alpha". QUOTE]

(New here--apologies for the formatting problem I messed something up. I've edited it to make my comments more apparent by underlining them. If someone wants to msg me to let me know how I screwed up my attempt to quote two messages, I'd liek to knwo so I don't do it again. Thanks.)

Thanks for writing something that I was about to write.

But there's much more lacking here for a productive discussion.

My question is: How much of a productive discussion can be had here? The discussion might have been over before it even started given the strengths and weaknesses of this medium of dialogue and debate.

One major, virtually ignored thing standing in the way of a productive discussion is that, for the bigger picture, whatever "ranking or ordering" one wants to invoke for Males (you can see my comments below on Drifterwood's failed attempt to clarify that issue if you want to get into that issue more deeply), it is being done in a fairly unidimensional way here.

There are multiple dimensions that go into any ordering/ranking/ for "existing stereotypes" used to calculate some sort of "rank" for a given Male (alpha vs. beta, for one). E.g., facial attractiveness, body-type issues--height, weight, build, money, work position/level of authority/influence, other social positions and authority influence, confidence, attitude, wit, intelligence, accomplishments, reputations of various sorts...have different kinds and degrees of effect on cheating.

So, maybe obese and ugly but still "overall Alpha males" are cheated on more than handsome, fit "overall Alpha males" --or not--maybe finances or any factor X play a bigger causal role than other factors....

And of course, it all varies for a given woman as many women here have made clear.

On Drifterwood's commentary:

QUOTE=Drifterwood;3953963]
This thread is frankly a bit of a mess. When people talk of Alpha Male, they mean this stereotype of "successful, authoratative, charismatic" etc etc. It's bullshit as I have said a few times IMO. I think some of you are confusing the concept with your own realities of your number one male and therefore getting a bit pissy about the charge that you would cheat.

However, there is data that suggests that non paternity rates are considerably lower the higher you go up the social pecking order. I think this is worthy of debate. Maybe a new thread - "Why are non paternity rates lower, the higher up the social pecking order you go?"

Drifterwood, you're on target with your first paragraph, but I will note you commented multiple times invoking the Alpha Male concept without definition. You refer to the social stereotype as bullshit, yet you used it as uncritically as virtually everyone else. But people evolve.

However, in your second paragraph, you beg the question, re-creating the mess, where you restate the original, substituting the concept of being higher/lower on a "social pecking order" for the Alpha/Beta Male--here in my own words, not yours to illustrate the issue--"pecking order." This undefined "social pecking order" you refer to is just another social stereotyping classification, and you used it without explanation as if we'd all understand and agree what that order is, the definition of a stereotype.
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
That's because there is some research which uses the social pecking order as a relative reference point for paternity discrepancy. There is none, not unsurprisingly, defined by the presumed alphaness of the men.

I have been asking a few simple questions, and none of them have been answered.

FWIW, the guy you think is an alpha male at college or in his twenties, can be a done nothing nobody in his thirties and beyond. I would say that you need to wait until a guy is in his forties before you can start claiming some self delivered status achievement. I would also say that you shouldn't talk too much about fdelity and genetic monogamy until you have delivered it for a considerable period of time.

Edit - just read Silver's link to the Urban Dictionary definitions. I am saying something very similar about the "Alpha" game.
 
Last edited:

Gecko4lif

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Posts
2,232
Media
5
Likes
93
Points
83
Location
Pensacola , Fl
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
FWIW, the guy you think is an alpha male at college or in his twenties, can be a done nothing nobody in his thirties and beyond. I would say that you need to wait until a guy is in his forties before you can start claiming some self delivered status achievement.
I agree with this statement

the of course obvious exception would be the rare independently wealthy 20 something