1) are physically unable, i.e. society restricts contact between men and women
2) are threatened with harsh repercussions
I will back this theory with data below:
Women change their answers depending on whether or not they believe they will be caught out not telling the truth, the researchers found. The number of sexual partners a woman reported nearly doubled when women thought they were hooked up to a lie detector machine.
Fisher and Alexander surveyed over 200 unmarried, heterosexual college students aged 18 to 25.
One group filled in questionnaires having been told the researcher might view their responses. A second group filled in the survey completely anonymously, alone in a room.
A third group had electrodes placed on their hand, forearms and neck and were told they were being attached to a polygraph or lie detector machine - although there was in fact no working machine.
Women who thought their responses might be read said they had had an average of 2.6 sexual partners, compared with 3.4 partners for those who thought their answers were anonymous. But those who thought they would be caught out by the polygraph reported an average of 4.4 partners.
In contrast, men's answers did not vary significantly. Those attached to the lie-detector reported an average of 4.0 partners compared with 3.7 for men who thought their answers would be read.
Fisher & Alexander employed a clever way to test how much fudging about the number goes on by randomly assigning heterosexual U.S. college students to one of three survey conditions. The first group was told that the investigator might eventually view their responses to a written questionnaire, and the investigator sat outside the room with the door open while they completed the survey. The second group was alone in a room with a closed door, and was told their answers would remain anonymous. In the third group subjects were attached to non-working polygraphs and told they were being tracked by working lie detectors.
Interesting gender differences were revealed across conditions. The men's responses to questions about masturbation, age of first intercourse and porn exposure did not vary significantly with survey mode but the women's did. Women admitted to higher masturbation, earlier first intercourse and greater involvement with porn in the lie detector condition. Their average number of lifetime sex parters increased from 2.6 when they thought their responses might be seen, to 4.4 in the lie detector condition. Men increased marginally from 3.7 to 4.0. So when everyone thought a lie would be detected, women's numbers slightly exceeded men's!
Younger women, under 25, and women over the age of 60 are cheating more than ever before. Male infidelity, estimated at between 50-60% of all males across a lifetime, has remained relatively steady. But female infidelity has progressively increased, to the point where current estimates put it between 45-55% for lifetime risk of infidelity by a woman, and some researchers suggest that female infidelity may one day rival male cheating. So why have we seen such a dramatic increase in such a relatively short period of time?
For thousands of years, women have suffered horrific social punishments when caught in infidelity. Unfaithful women were raped, prostituted, beaten, mutilated, ostracized and killed by brutal means, from strangulation to stoning.
In a survey by the AARP, only around 22% of respondents felt that infidelity was wrong, compared with a rate of 41% when this question was assessed in 1999.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wom ... ating-more
Today, research is clear that women who have higher education, and higher individual incomes, are at greatest risk of infidelity. To put it simply, these women have the least to lose. Their money is their own, their future is independent, based upon their own skills and experience, rather than that of their husband.
The most conservative statistics say that at least 65% of males, and close to 50% of females admit to sexual infidelity at least once in their life. These numbers are growing, and are still widely viewed as underestimates - despite the decreased stigma and fear attributed to sexual infidelity, many people simply won't report that they've cheated, even in anonymous surveys. If asked about their views of sexual infidelity, most of these same people will describe that is wrong, immoral and damaging to a person and a relationship. So why do these people do it?
In my book Insatiable Wives, I speculate that this transfer of excitement explains why many nonmonogamous couples report that extramarital sexby the wife reignites sexuality within their marriage.
Sex with this new lover is often described as incredible. A male with a new lover is able to have more sex, for longer, more frequently, more vigorously and he ejaculates harder, with more sperm in that ejaculate. His body is attempting to compete against any other men his new lover might be sleeping with. His body starts acting like the body of an alpha male, flooded with testosterone. For a woman, leaving her husband at home as she takes a new lover, she is intensely orgasmic, her body responding sexually and physically to this new man in a way she often has not felt in years. Her body is responding to this new male, and to the chance of having children with him, her children who will have the benefit of the new, diverse genes he carries. When she is at the most fertile point of her cycle, the wife finds herself attracted to men she would normally avoid. Men not like her husband, who is a good caregiver, stable, calm, and nurturing to her and her children. When she's tempted to cheat, the wife is drawn to men who have an edge of aggression and dominance, men who will never truly commit to monogamy, to being tied down. And her body responds powerfully to these men, her sex becoming aroused, her heart quickening, her skin longing for his touch. She achieves orgasm with this new man within moments, and often has more orgasms with him than she may have believed possible.
In Insatiable Wives, I interviewed many couples where such women, driven to cheat, had reached arrangements with their husbands, supporting the wife's extramarital adventures, creating a permissive context for her choice to sleep with other men.
Hicks and Leitenberg's research suggests that about 80% of married women will sexually fantasize about men other than their husband, while 98% of men fantasize about women other than their wife. Environment and context has much more effect on female fantasies, than it does on men's. In women, things like how long they've been married and whether they are actually having extramarital affairs increased the chances that women will fantasize about someone other than their husband. These factors don't predict fantasy in men - in men, simply being male predicts that they will fantasize about people other than their wives or partners - length of relationship, happy or not, cheating or not, doesn't have any predictive value. In other words, it's hard to go higher than 98%.
Men and women also differ about who they fantasize about. Women tend to fantasize sexually about known individuals - past boyfriends, coworkers, friends, or their tennis coach. Women's sexual fantasies tend to include aspects of intimacy and relationship, so it makes sense that their fantasy lovers are those with whom there is some relationship, past, present or future.
Now, other research has shown that most people never, never tell anybody about their sexual fantasies, including their primary partner. People fear rejection and judgment.
*Your girlfriend doesn't love you.
* Your girlfriend is a slut with no morals.
* Your girlfriend will cheat on you with a man that can kick your ass and she will love every moment of it.
* Your girlfriend will not feel bad about cheating on you.
* Your girlfriend will think that you are a loser.
* Unless your girlfriend wears a burqa all of the above apply.
Is your girl intelligent? She'll cheat.
In fact, data from the General Social Surveys do suggest that more intelligent men (and women) are more likely to have affairs. The mean IQ of men who have had an extramarital affair is significantly (though only slightly) higher than that of men who have never had an extramarital affair (102.4 vs. 100.5). Among women, the difference is slightly larger (104.6 vs. 101.5).
The association between IQ and extramarital affairs remains significant, for both men and women, even after I control for education, income, and social class, as well as race, age, current marital status, number of children, religion, and religiosity. The effect of IQ is much stronger for women than for men. It is not clear to me why more intelligent women are more likely to have affairs than less intelligent women. Interestingly, as is quite often the case, intelligence and education, which are positively correlated with each other, have opposite effects on extramarital affairs for women. While more intelligent women are more likely to have affairs, more educated women are less likely to have them.
a) Does the data support that women cheat at approximately the same rates as men? Yes, the lifetime probability of female infidelity in a relationship is around 50%.
b) Do women lie about sexual issues? Yes, women understate the number of partners that they have had sex with, masturbation habits, age of first intercourse, their arousal from pornography.
c) Do women consistently demonstrate bad judgment in sexual practices? Yes, female teachers sleeping with male high school students are an example.
d) Is there evidence that supports that women prefer to have extra marital sex with high testosterone males? Yes, in fact there is a sexual subculture which focuses on this type of sex (Cuckolding).
A prison nurse romped with a convicted rapist while colleagues stood guard and sent him text messages on his contraband mobile phone telling him 'you're generous, sensitive and dead sexy', a court heard.
A jury was told Karen Cosford, 47, had a sexual relationship with lifer Brian McBride and topped up his mobile phone for him.
The court heard Cosford sent the serial rapist a catalogue of texts including telling him 'you are my world', 'miss you so much' and 'can't wait for you to get out'.
The court heard that McBride, a who was serving a life sentence for multiple offences of rape and violence, was in the healthcare centre as an in-patient and worked as a cleaner while he was there.
Richard Wright, prosecuting, told the court it was here that the defendants started entering into 'corrupt relationships' with McBride.
Mr Wright said: 'In the case of Karen Cosford, she had a sexual relationship with him.
The jury heard that, during the search, McBride became agitated in his cell so a number of negotiators working in the Prison Service were called - and by chance one was Darrie Cosford, Karen Cosford's husband.
One read: 'I'm trying to ring, engaged. D [her husband] home soon, can't believe how we get on sometimes especially this morn. We need to be really careful will try and ring later. Love and hugs me.'
Another read: 'Hope you still love and miss me like I do you. Can't wait for you to get out. Want the first time to be so special me and you xx.'
Another read: 'You are my world now don't let me down. Miss you so much. It's been a difficult journey. You're generous, sensitive when you want to be and dead sexy.'
As you can see this woman preferred to have sex with a convicted rapist instead of her husband, even though the risks were substantial.
The logical conclusion from this, which is that if you want to limit women's cheating, there needs to be repercussions. Historically this has been the case.
the Beta-cuckold mentality wants to believe women are all sweet angels.many cultures reconized this isn't the case.they thus limited the ability for women to cheat.
they knew you literally have to make it physically impossible for a woman to cheat if you want her faithfull.but of course everyone thinks:not me,not my sweetheart.we are so close!
stats say otherwise boys.
do you know why your penis is shaped like a plunger?because in the past,before patriarchy it literally acted as a plunger of other men's sperm!nfedility and sluttiness is just a part of female nature.
But according to evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup of the State University of New York at Albany, the human penis is actually an impressive â€œtoolâ€ in the truest sense of the word, one manufactured by nature over hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. You may be surprised to discover just how highly specialized a tool it is. Furthermore, youâ€™d be amazed at what its appearance can tell us about the nature of our sexuality.
The curious thing about the evolution of the human penis is that, for something that differs so obviously in shape and size from that of our closest living relatives, only in the past few years have researchers begun to study it in any detail.
In addition, only our species has such a distinctive mushroom-capped glans, which is connected to the shaft by a thin tissue of frenulum (the delicate tab of skin just beneath the urethra). Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have a much less extravagant phallic design, more or less all shaft. It turns out that one of the most significant features of the human penis isnâ€™t so much the glans per se, but rather the coronal ridge it forms underneath. The diameter of the glans where it meets the shaft is wider than the shaft itself. This results in the coronal ridge that runs around the circumference of the shaftâ€”something Gallup, by using the logic of reverse-engineering, believed might be an important evolutionary clue to the origins of the strange sight of the human penis.
This â€œsemen displacement theoryâ€ is the most intriguing part of Gallupâ€™s story. We may prefer to regard our species as being blissfully monogamous, but the truth is that, historically, at least some degree of fooling around has been our modus operandi for at least as long weâ€™ve been on two legs. Since sperm cells can survive in a womanâ€™s cervical mucus for up to several days, this means that if she has more than one male sexual partner over this period of time, say within 48 hours, then the sperm of these two men are competing for reproductive access to her ovum. According to Gallup and Burch, â€œexamples include, group sex, gang rape, promiscuity, prostitution, and resident male insistence on sex in response to suspected infidelity.â€ The authors also cite the well-documented cases of human heteroparity, where â€œfraternal twinsâ€ are in fact sired by two different fathers who had sex with the mother within close succession to each other, as evidence of such sexual inclinations.
So how did natural selection equip men to solve the adaptive problem of other men impregnating their sexual partners? The answer, according to Gallup, is their penises were sculpted in such a way that the organ would effectively displace the semen of competitors from their partnerâ€™s vagina, a well-synchronized effect facilitated by the â€œupsuckâ€ of thrusting during intercourse. Specifically, the coronal ridge offers a special removal service by expunging foreign sperm. According to this analysis, the effect of thrusting would be to draw other menâ€™s sperm away from the cervix and back around the glans, thus â€œscooping outâ€ the semen deposited by a sexual rival.
s Scicuriousâ€™ mom points out, penises are funny lookinâ€™. As long as humans have been humans, men and women have looked down and thought, â€œnow what could be the possible reason for that?â€ The question no doubt vexed our early ancestors so much that they simply had to evolve larger brains to think about it more.
Weâ€™ve even looked at the penises of other species and pondered their functional anatomy. The chimpanzee penis, for example, is long, skinny, and kind of pointy at the end. Chimpanzee penises are designed to dislodge hard little plugs of semen left in the vaginal canal by a previous male. When a chimpanzee female comes into estrus, she will mate pretty much non-stop until she comes out of it. Lines will form at the base of a tree in which she dwells, and the chimpanzee males will simply wait their turn, ascend the tree, and rely on their penis and sperm to do all the competitive work. Their copulatory plugs form and basically seal off the cervix from the incoming sperm of later males, and may also help to keep their own sperm in there, so that when ovulation actually occurs your sperm is right there and ready. Copulatory plugs are pretty common in primates, and if they work, they obviously have a pretty big effect on an individual maleâ€™s fitness. Males who have pluggy semen and pointy penises have sons with pluggy semen and pointy penises, and a pointy little arms race is born.
I suspect that the above hypothesis (Which I call The Crowbar Hypothesis) for chimpanzee penis shape was the inspiration for one of the most-often discussed hypotheses for Human penis shape: The Plunger Hypothesis (TPH). TPH is basically the idea that the bulbous shape of the glans in humans acts as a plunger which scoops a previous maleâ€™s sperm out of the vaginal canal, while at the same time delivering his own sperm to an optimal position for insemination. At least, until the next competitorâ€™s plunger penis scoops it out. Some insects actually do exactly this.