Cheating Nature

Despite what you might think from the media, it is quite unlikely there are any behaviors that map to single genes. Yet between 2002 and 2005 the media was swept with stories about genes for homosexuality, aggression and violence, intelligence, and, yes, even infidelity, as if our complex behaviors were switched on and off by small fragments of DNA.

The infidelity stories were predominantly triggered by a recent study of twin females. Putting aside the general issues of studies that rely on self-reported behavior, the actual data has only circumstantial support for an infidelity gene. The data does, however, support the notion that infidelity is an inherited trait. It is still difficult to segregate the inherited and learned characteristics in twin studies, but we could assume it is true, that there is some genetic predisposition to infidelity. Does that make sense? Seemingly so, because even more compelling than the human twin studies are studies of animals, where the gamut of lifelong pair bonding to promiscuous behaviors are seen, but are always strongly associated with a species, that is, a genetic type. For example, marmosets are monogamous and the orgy-loving bonobos are most certainly not.

Variations within a species are interesting, but more likely merely factors rather than inherent behaviors. So let’s look at species behaviors for some insight about infidelity: as I wrote about elsewhere, prairie voles and meadow voles have very different fidelity characteristics, but inject vasopressin antagonists into male prairie vole (or into mice that have a similar neuroanatomical V1a receptor pattern) and you can get them to stray.

Even among species that are thought to be monogamous, such as swans and wolves, most of them “cheat” on the side even while they stay with their mate for life. Indeed, although it was conventional wisdom that 90% of birds were monogamous, new radio tracking and DNA based evidence indicates that this is more than 90% incorrect. In one study, 20 or more percent of chicks taken care of by bonded bluebirds — once considered among the most faithful of birds — are not fathered by the attentive male.

Humans fall somewhere in the middle of primate behaviors in terms of fidelity. The evidence is legion: ranging from social anthropology studies including harem management behaviors, to serial mating behaviors, to fertilization competitive features including the sperm count per ejaculation and female internal geometry changes.

The point is that fidelity is unnatural. It is in our nature to cheat.

So the challenge is: can I cheat nature?

The only tool I have to cheat nature is my mind. So let's see if it is up to this challenge.

To understand the nature of this challenge to nature, so to speak, let us delve into the goals and assumptions a little further.

Certainly there are examples of stable life-long pair bonding. For animals this is mostly about social pair bonding (e.g harems), resource management (e.g. hunting packs), and child rearing. The fact that most of those so-called “faithful” animals cheat is interesting (and sensible from a population dynamics and selfish gene perspective), but really a different issue: promiscuity, sex without the stable pair bonding, is different from polygyny and polyandry, sex with multiple partners. So the type of pair bonding is very important and can be quite distinct from sexual fidelity or monogamy.

And humans are not animals: on top of our having greater control over instincts, we also have many more daily distractions — Life Tasks — that are not about our survival. Most wolves don’t have to worry about how to manage the budget for their next startup, create long-term strategies to save up for that new car, deal with their children’s education, or vote in the next election. Also, relationships among humans include emotions: because we have risen above being sexually controlled by pheromones (we do not go into heat), we have these crazy things called emotions that drive us to create our social and sexual patterns — and as a bonus create new classes of mental health problems rarely seen in other animals. There is even the joy of intellectual sharing, something not present in animals but very much so in humans — an interesting discussion, learning and teaching, debate, co-creation tasks, and the like are not activities shared by other animals. These, too, could be a part of a “relationship fidelity.” Certainly high end courtesans today are providing intellectual and self-image stimulation, and not better sex, assistance in life tasks, child rearing, or (usually) social status improvement; their pricing premium reflects some value to intellectual interaction in a male-female relationship.

So our relationship goals can be likewise dissected:

1. Social or resource management based fidelity or pair bonding
   
   
2. Child rearing fidelity or paid bonding
   
   
3. Life tasks fidelity or pair bonding
   
   
4. Intellectual fidelity or pair bonding
   
   
5. Emotional fidelity or pair bonding
   
   
6. Sexual fidelity or pair bonding
   

When discussing this with Jenny, we narrowed down the important components to emotional, life tasks, social, sexual and intellectual, child rearing being irrelevant in our case (more on that later.) Jenny and I have different orderings, however. From most important to least important:

Jenny	Me
Emotional	Sexual
Life Tasks	Emotional
Sexual	Life Tasks
Social	Social
Intellectual	Intellectual

Well, at least we have the bottom of the lists the same! We both value intellectual discussion, but fidelity there is not that important. I guess she can accept that I am an intellectual whore, willing to talk to anybody who shows some conversational leg! We also have some distinct social circles, a side-effect from different upbringings in different countries. So fidelity there is not that important, with one exception: that society at large should view us as a pair. That is not subject to negotiation.

For Jenny the emotional commitment has to be 1 on 1. That is also important to me, but I take the view that I can’t support all of Jenny’s emotional support and don’t mind if she is finding support elsewhere. Jenny wants to provide all my emotional support. Without going too much into my personal life, I think it will be a challenge, but she feels up to it. The point is that she wants a commitment from me that I will not turn to others for emotional support, unless, of course, it is about issues generated by her.

I have written before that I am a fairly jealous person, perhaps surprising to women I have dated who were providers or strippers. I have a fairly hard switch, however, between dating and loving, and in the latter case I am an owner. The intensity of this feeling is surprising to me, but I revert to the plains ape mentality, with a desire to kill threatening males. Jenny actually loves this. I don’t fully understand why, but rather than being defensive or offended when I am jealous, she likes it. Not enough to purposefully trigger jealousy, but, go figure.

Doing this kind of deconstruction is interesting to me, but crazy for most others with whom I have discussed this. Why not live a simpler life, like Tucker Max? Just show off, bang gals you like and are willing, and live it up? Why fight evolution?

Just not my way, sorry. I go the road less travelled (and less popular, judging from the attention garnered by the Tucker Max’s of the world.)

But having said that, I do know such behavior is within me. It is written in my evolutionary heritage. But I can’t use evolution as an excuse. I have to keep in mind that I have cheated in relationships in the past. Perhaps not egregiously, but well on the slippery slope. I have also avoided temptations. This is a key area where I need eternal vigilance: I previously wrote about some of these nightmare scenarios and issues with avoiding temptation.

As I develop this blog, I will be interleaving my regular entries with stories of Why Did I Cheat along with stories of Temptation Avoided. Stay tuned.