full story
Quote:
Is infidelity ‘natural’ for men?
Study sharpens debate on men, sex and gender roles
By Shankar Vedantam
THE WASHINGTON POST
Aug. 1 — A fierce debate about whether jealousy, lust and sexual attraction are hardwired in the brain or are the products of culture and upbringing has recently been ignited by the growing influence of a school of psychology that sees the hidden hand of evolution in everyday life.
FRESH SPARKS flew last month when a study of more than 16,000 people from every inhabited continent found that men everywhere — whether single, married or gay — want more sexual partners than women do.
“This study provides the largest and most comprehensive test yet conducted on whether the sexes differ in the desire for sexual variety,” wrote lead researcher David P. Schmitt, an evolutionary psychologist at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. “The results are strong and conclusive — the sexes differ, and these differences appear to be universal.”
The idea that male promiscuity is hardwired — and therefore “normal” — drew swift and furious criticism. Scholars who assert the primacy of culture in shaping human behavior charged Schmitt with choosing his facts, making his conclusions less about science than “wishful thinking.”
The debate won’t be settled soon, if ever. For the real arguments are about social mores, gender roles and sexual politics. The real question isn’t about evolution, but society’s view of appropriate behavior for men and women.
Ohio State University psychologist Terri Fisher said she knows the new study will be misused. Each year, when she teaches her college students about the research into sexual variety, the young men smile and nod and the young women look appalled.
“I bet a lot of males might leave class and talk to their girlfriends and say, ‘You know what I learned in class? It’s natural I don’t want to commit to you and that I feel attracted to other women — it’s because I am a man,’ ” Fisher said.
|
Found this article immensely interesting.
At a basic level, I agree with many of the points raised, and can't really fathom an argument against their viability.
Men and women are built different on a hormonal level. It only makes sense that one gender would be programmed as more sexually active then the other.
However, I also feel that the power of nature is subordinate to the influence of environment. I think it would be next to ridiculous that one would assume that biological impulses adopt a role of supremacy over socially generated characteristics. If this were true, the child of an alcoholic (which is said to be biologically addicted to alcohol) would be unable to resist following in his parent's footsteps.
Thoughts?