Note: You can change font size, font face, and turn on dark mode by clicking the "A" icon tab in the Story Info Box.
You can temporarily switch back to a Classic Literotica® experience during our ongoing public Beta testing. Please consider leaving feedback on issues you experience or suggest improvements.
Click herePreface
When I got married the second time, at my bride-to-be's suggestion, we discussed our dealbreakers. Mine were smoking, infidelity, and harm to my children. She replied that she could forgive infidelity but could never forgive giving support to another woman. By support, she meant money.
I didn't understand at the time that "support to another woman" included the mandatory child support that I paid to my ex-wife. I never missed a payment. I did not resent the payments; my ex was doing a good job of making a home for my children. It drove my wife crazy, set off a ruinous spending spree, and led us to divorce.
So that led me to the obvious conclusion: men care about their partner's sexual fidelity, women care about their partner's financial fidelity. It is the asymmetry between men and women that gives us the tension for good stories.
Consider an open marriage. A woman can get all the dick she wants by opening her legs. A man must open his wallet to get all the pussy he wants.
Of course, there is asymmetry in the courts. The court rarely cares if a woman has opened her legs, but her lawyers will try to claw back every penny he spent on pussy.
LW writers, you are missing the point. Cagivagurl, I hope that you read this, because you are a great writer, but you miss the point, too. Extramarital sex for the husband is not compensation for extramarital sex by the wife. The wife can only feel the pain and angst that her husband feels when she gives away their sexual assets, when he gives away their financial assets to other women. If the husbands started lavishing gifts, jewelry, cruises, expensive dinners, and so forth on other woman, then you will have women in a blind rage, depressed, drinking into oblivion, and plotting murder.
These responses are emotional, but we evolved emotions for a reason.
Evolution
Humans breed for survival. They do not breed for happiness, loyalty, honor, or honesty.
Surviving means having viable babies. A viable baby is a baby that grows up to have viable babies. It is a never-ending forward definition, but by the time you have grandchildren, you can be considered to have survived. Great grandchildren clinch it.
Evolution has bequeathed us a set of strategies and behaviors to promote our survival. The impetus to engage in these primitive actions is usually felt as emotion. Desire, lust, anger, and fear. These are all gifts from our forebears. It is the refusal to act on these emotions that drives us into years of therapy.
Simple strategies
Several animals have evolved these simple strategies. If humans were simple nomads, that might be enough. But humans are far more complex. Humans have evolved the tribe.
The tribe
Humans have evolved a very successful survival mechanism called a tribe. Membership in a tribe or at least association with a tribe is virtually essential for survival. Standing with the tribe determines the level of benefit one gets from the tribe. Furthermore, humans have devised a method of control and coordination that has not been matched by other animals: politics.
Revenge
If a gorilla hurts a member of a human tribe, then the tribe will organize, pick up their pointed sticks and hunt that gorilla down. They will stalk him night and day in relays until he is exhausted from lack of sleep. They will kill him, skin him, and barbecue him. Then they will do the same to his children, his mates, his siblings, and every other member of his tribe. This prevents future occurrences. Disproportionate revenge is programmed into our DNA. However, it is not always productive for the tribe. Hence, tribes have developed ways to control it. But yes, we are a vengeful species. It is instinctive.
Survival
Human survival has evolved three main imperatives:
Feelings and emotions such as lust, fear, anger, anxiety, and jealousy are manifestations of millions of years of evolution directing humans to comply with these imperatives.
The relative importance of these imperatives is fluid. Maintaining standing is always important.
A man's seed is cheap and renewable. Successful insemination is low cost to him. A woman's eggs are valuable and scarce. Pregnancy has a high cost and time and resources. In most primates, both sexes can tell when a female is fertile. A human woman may be able to sense when she is fertile, but human men usually cannot, although they may respond to a woman who is responding to her own fertility. As a result, men consider that women are potentially always fertile.
A woman knows her babies are hers. A man hopes his babies are his.
This leads to different survival strategies for men and women.
Producing viable babies
Woman's strategy
A woman's strategy is to have sex when she is fertile. She will choose the most attractive available man (has the best genes). It does not matter whether that man is her mate. The urge is strong, even when the available males are unattractive. Her fertility depends on her cycle and her health. Others cannot tell when she is fertile, but she may be able to sense hormonal changes.
Man's strategy
Support
Woman's strategy
Man's strategy
Standing
Different tribes have different rules for standing, but there are some general rules.
Woman's strategy
A woman's strategy is:
Man's strategy
A man's strategy is:
We can see that item 3 means that promiscuity is built into human instinct. There is no such thing as man or a woman that is incapable of being unfaithful. If a man believes that his woman would never cheat, he is deluding himself.
Humans need other people to survive. They need their tribe. This brings a new level of complexity to human sexual behavior. Although humans have evolved to being part of a tribe, the evolution of the type of tribe is very much in flux. Thus, we have many tribes with different rules.
Most tribes recognize a man's need for strategy number 2 (we will call it M2). Thus, a man is allowed to be belligerent toward other males to keep them away. The tribe may allow a man to rough up other competitors and even his spouse, but they will not accept the loss to the tribe of the services of the roughed up parties. So, you can push, slap, and punch, but do not kill or injure to the point that they cannot carry out normal hunting, gathering, and maintenance activities.
Most tribes recognize that there will be promiscuity, but they also recognize that open promiscuity can be destructive to the cohesiveness of the tribe. They may codify acceptable behavior. There will be different rules, laws, sins, and sanctions but it comes down to this: promiscuity will happen, but it should be kept out of sight.
Thus, a normal woman will cheat, but if she is functional, she will keep it out of sight. Cheating and hiding the cheating are survival skills. If her mate catches her, he may discard her. The survival value of that choice is that the woman who gets caught is less functional and therefore less desirable as the mother of his children. He would rather bind himself to a woman with better survival skills.
Anger that a man might experience upon seeing his spouse having sex with another man or that a woman might feel upon seeing her mate giving support to another woman are the impetus to act upon our evolutionary strategies.
Instinctive imperatives
Cultural imperatives
These are imperatives based on standing within the tribe. These can override the instinctive imperatives. Successful tribes usually suppress promiscuity and belligerence. There have been experimental tribes (communes) that experimented widespread non-monogamy and those that support forced cuckoldry (personality cults). They usually fail, often spectacularly, within a generation.
Paradigms
Normal
Male cuckold
The male allows the female to have sex with other males. The male loses standing in the tribe with compromises his ability to provide support and protection. The female is free to choose the male with the best genetic material when she is fertile. This is usually an evolutionary dead end for the cuckold male, leading to the exclusion of his genetic material from the gene pool. There are very few willing male cuckolds. It could pay off for the male, only if he could assure that some of the mate's babies were his babies and the support that she gets from other men exceeds his loss of ability.
For the male
In primitive society with no contraception and no DNA analysis, it is almost a sure thing that the female will choose other men when she is fertile. The male cuckold is almost always excluded from the gene pool. The willing male cuckold should be considered defective and removing him from the gene pool makes the tribe more viable.
In modern society with contraception and DNA testing, it is possible for the male to know that her babies are his babies. If she gets a lot of support (money) from other men, this could be an advantage, however the male still suffers from loss of standing. The willing male cuckold should still be considered defective.
Highly negative with respect to the normal situation.
For the female
She gets to have a dedicated provider, men on the side, and access to the best genetic material when she is fertile. She may need to hide her promiscuity from the tribe, but not from her mate. The downside for her is the mate's loss of standing which may make him a poorer provider and, bonding with the mate suffers. Overall, this could be beneficial to the female. Higher exposure to disease.
Female cuckold
Swapping
Polygyny
Polyandry
Completely open marriage
Bottom line
Martian Slut Ray
The slut was always there. What changed is the cost/benefit analysis.
Thanks for your in-depth analysis, which I agree with in principle. With one caveat: your conclusions only apply to the period after about 15 000 BC. The end of hunter/gatherer societies not only resulted in new cultural developments, but also evolutionary ones, although of course the original DNA toolbox remained. In paleo-anthropology, it is now considered certain that women were on a par with men in terms of strength, endurance and stature. The idea that the woman sits in the cave and waits for the man to provide the meat is romantic and wrong. There was certainly a division of labor, but apparently not that the women gathered herbs and the men hunted the saber-toothed tiger or mamooth. In fact, the family seems to have gone hunting together in the late Pleistocene and early Holocene: Woman, man, child and dog. And our ancient mothers were as good in hunting as men.
(https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101).
And we should’nt forget the major issue: the last 15,000 years are only a fraction of human history. Or in other words: patriarchy is not God-given, but a fairly recent aberration of the species.
Another interesting study shows that the female orgasm was probably essential for the evolution of the specie, as it seems to have triggered ovulation. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.b.22690). In cats and rabbits this is exactly the case: no fertility without a double orgasm.
Which shows that the evolutionary background of sex is more complex than in your analysis. Which does’nt mean wrong or inaccurate. Because it might be highly accurate for the Holocene. Reproduction strategies before that time might be even more elaborate or accurate.
My 2cents
I share many of your thoughts, and those I don't share I'm simply not thought through fully enough to agree or constructively disagree.
Cagivagurl is on the right track with "steeped in the dark ages" so I'll view that as a positive comment. Except what you're talking about is much older than that and more of a root cause FOR the dark ages. Religious and social/legal traditions worldwide embraced and enforced your bottom line with few (and ultimately unsuccessful) exceptions until the 20th century, because it worked. Now, it's not so clear what the new rules should be when our technical abilities have dramatically changed the survival game. Cagivagurl is correct that these innovations (and it's MUCH more than just contraception) mean our evolved emotional responses no longer fit our world. But we don't just wake up and say "I'm going to act in opposition to my emotions because they don't fit the situation". At least not very often in our personal lives. Instead we are FAR more likely to construct a seemingly logical argument that supports what the lizard brain emotions want. It's going to take many generations before those emotions are much different. And they very well might not go in the direction a lot of people expect---evolution is mindlessly focused on the production of grandchildren. So whatever behaviors maximize that will become our future.
I'm sure there's fodder for some very interesting SciFi to explore how human emotions might evolve in this new world where the "information workers" (who presumably represent the high end of the intellect bell curve) are not reproducing very fast. I suspect we have already passed peak intellectual capacity as a species.
Wandering_Mongol, thanks for the comment. Feel free to ccntact me if you wish to have a conversation.
It's an interesting analysis. I'd like to debate it. My personal experiences have led me to some conclusions, that are... well,... personal.
As far as writing in Loving Wives goes... it's a bear-pit. Watch yourself. Every time I think someone does a good story, there's a legion of people who come along and see it as their 'job' to downvote it.
Your essay is clinical, and I see points I absolutely agree with. I see things I don't. Not that I'm trained in this, but, it's valuable to me to see it broken down like this, and think about it. Thank you for that.
-
Be well!
Cagivagurl, thank you very much for your reply. You usually drive me crazy, but I enjoy the ride. I admit to many flaws and biases and being raised on a crapload of cultural gender (and race) expectations. I try to rise above it.
/
I agree that rationality, with effective contraception available, sex should be a fun, low stress, social activity. It should help us build connections. The problem is most of the time most people are not rational. They simply cannot be talked out of their gut instinct. Maybe in a future utopian sociality with a consistent message delivered from birth, it would work. But the world today is filled with people driven mostly by primitive instincts and emotions. My meager essay is an attempt to understand those emotions. Why, does a man feel humiliation when his mate has relations with another man? Culture you may say. But why can he feel humiliation in the first place?
/
Cagivagurl, your ability to capture and express the typical male’s initial thinking about non-monogamy is unsurpassed. But when he has that change in thinking, I feel two points are missed. 1.) Peer pressure, which I equate to a need to maintain standing in the tribe. It drives him nuts. It may drive him to mayhem. 2.) The essential mating transaction: the man provides his labor, and the woman provides her pussy. When the man finally accepts that the wife can have multiple partners, she still seems to go one receiving the value of his labor. If there were a next chapter, some opportunistic woman would come along and make a proposal to the man: my pussy exclusively for your labor exclusively. Then the whole house of cards would come down. There is no solidarity among women (or men) when it comes to mating.
/
Consensual polyamory is a great idea, but it takes an exceptional group of altruistic humans to pull it off.