Posted on 11/01/2002 5:42:36 AM PST by shrinkermd
Women with steady partners may still be tempted to sleep around - but mainly on certain days of the month, say researchers.
A BBC documentary to be broadcast on Wednesday explains how human sexual instincts are so strong that some women's preferences may alter significantly while they are ovulating.
While her partner might be a better bet to bring up children and support her, another man might carry genes which mean healthier, stronger children.
Morgan Wise, a train driver from Big Spring in Texas, found this out when his youngest son was found to have cystic fibrosis, a devastating lung disorder caused by a single faulty gene.
Morgan Wise found he had fathered none of his sons
Both mother and father must carry the gene to produce a cystic fibrosis child, and Morgan duly went for a gene test to confirm he was a carrier.
The test proved negative - effectively proving that he was not the child's father.
He told the BBC: "The doctor said: 'You are not a carrier of cystic fibrosis.' I couldn't believe it."
There was worse to come. Subsequent DNA tests revealed that not one of Morgan's three sons was fathered by him.
One in 10
However, researchers suggest that this is by no means an isolated event.
One study suggested that one in 10 children are being raised by men who are unaware that they are not the father.
A more "masculine" face - better during fertile period
A study at the University of Stirling seems to pinpoint the instinct which might tempt some women to stray around the time of the month they are fertile.
Two groups of female volunteers were picked.
One was tested during their ovulation, the other at another point in her cycle.
Each was shown a computer image of a male face which they could adjust electronically to make appear more or less masculine, using features such as the thickness of the neck and the squareness of the jaw.
While the group not ovulating tended to prefer their men with slightly more feminine feature, at the point of ovulating, the women strongly preferred their men masculine.
This, say scientists, is down to instinct - while more feminine features might signify a man with less testosterone who is more likely to prove a steady partner, the stronger features they preferred at ovulation might indicate a better set of genes, producing a stronger or healthier child.
Selfish liberal think tanks are always coming up with excuses for bad behavior. Why should this be any different?
Did you ever watch your hand pull away from a hot spot preventing you from getting burned before you could even think about it?
Sure, you have choices, but there are powerful forces at play in your body, that you have no control over whatsoever. Hormones control a lot of a person's personality and behavior. Were this not so, there would be no market for Prozac, or even alcohol for that matter.
Your behavior is largely dependant on the chemical soup effecting your brain. If you dont believe that, then I guess we should all be free to drink and drive?
You cannot deny that behavior is not strongly dependant upon the chemical makeup in your brain.
Uh, this study was done and conclusions drawn in the UK. You'll just have to slam all of western civilization on this one, I guess
"Morgan Wise, a train driver from Big Spring in Texas, found this out when his youngest son was found to have cystic fibrosis, a devastating lung disorder caused by a single faulty gene."
The husband didn't father this child. If the scientists' 'assumption' is that this 'wanderlust' is caused by some sort of 'natural selection' that drives women to select the most genetically perfect men to father their kids, their assumption is obviously incorrect.
What a complete load of crap. Yeah we have urges. Human beings are different from animals specifically because we can control ourselves. Adultery is just about the worst non-violent thing that one person can do to another. Some men and women lack consideration in this area. Most men and women do not lack this consideration. This article is simply making excuses for the sluts of the world. I have seen similar articles for men. I have no use for anyone who strays.
Read the article carefully. The university study only found that women view men differently at different times of their menstrual cycle. It is the writer of the article who made the giant leap that this is an excuse for cheating.
Maybe that is true of you and Chris Rock, but there are many of us who have actual morals and standards which are not in place simply because we can't get any anywhere else.
Can we? I doubt it. If we could, there would be no need for state-sanctioned marriage, would there? I mean, it basically boils down to a contract against adultery, right?
Beyond that, you might have a problem finding a distinction between an excuse for cheating, and an explaination. I dont see anyone making excuses for adultery, I see someone trying to explain adultery.
The fact is that Adultery has been around forever, regardless of it's obvious negative impact on families. Why is this? It is lazy thinking to just call everyone who cheats a "slut".
It is fine to make a moral judgement against cheaters if you wish, but there are valid reasons for trying to understand WHY people cheat as well. Bottom Line: People cheat, and will continue to do so.
I'm sorry, what is the point of this statement? It sounds as though you are saying if people are not driven by 'chemical soup' then they should be able to drink and drive. Huh?
If we are only driven by 'chemical soup' over which we have no control, then laws are pointless - we can't blame anyone for any action they take. But if, as I would asset, we are much more than 'chemical soup', having laws is a valid endeavor and we CAN hold people accountable for their actions.
It's not physically violent, but it is most certainly emotional 'violence'.
How does a 'contract' suddenly make one able to control him/herself? Your statement is extremely illogical.
Any thinking person would have to admit that laws do not prevent crime. That doesnt make them pointless. We can certainly blame criminals for their actions.
You fail to raise a distinction between explanation, and responsibility. No one said that if cheating could be explained, that it would sease to be wrong, nor did anyone say that because cheating exists, that it should be excused.
You are projecting.
IT DOESNT!!
That is my point! Marriage does NOT prevent adultery, nor do laws prevent crime.
Both occur regardless of any moral standard one would hope to impose. I'm not excusing it. I am only pointing out facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.