You talkin' to me, Sara?!? YOU TALKIN TO ME???



Nah, I was just noticing that this is one of those exceptional discussions with a lot of interesting analysis going on a pretty deep level, if you think about it. Pretty cool.



A few have tapped into the sociobiological implications of women's attraction to macho macho men -- and yes, some might even be attracted to the Village People, but I hope not seriously, or you're in for some heartbreak, I'm sure.



One of these theories suggests, for simplicity sake, that there are two types of men (although I do think it equally applies to women) -- those who tend to be monogamous, and those who tend to be more promiscuous. I am avoiding the "macho" category, because as the Village People prove, there are many versions of that concept, and I don't believe most of those involve abuse. I have known seemingly submissive men, who can be extremely passive aggressive, and take out their pent-up aggression physically on their partners. I have also know traditionally "macho" men who ride motorcycles, talk gruff, and are teddy bears inside who could never hurt a fly. I've also know macho men who were abusive. I'm really not sure the two are linked at all.



Anyway, the theory says that there are "provider" men, who are stable and responsible and are excellent providers for their woman, and of course, their children. These can be very attractive men to women. Then, there are the guys who ride through the outskirts of the forest, passing through, on their horse, who excite them. Call it novelty, call it mystery, call it a sense of excitement... even call it crazy, cuz the guy might be a "jerk" since he's not emotionally available to them.



Whatever it is, women might be attracted to these guys because the sex is amazing, and this results in the possibility that these limited relationships can lead to genetic diversity of their children. Yes, that is called cuckholding, and it might sound bad, but for SOME women, they might be predisposed to this, because it is genetically adaptive, and that trait then carries on successfully.



People used to think Swans were monogamous their whole lives. Then a very clever study revealed that while Swans had lifetime mates, Swans of both sexes were quite clever in arranging less than minute-long "hookups" with other Swans.



Where this behavior is not adaptive, is with dealing with the (yes, sometimes deadly) consequences of jealousy from either gender, uncurable STD's that could make people very sick before there were cures, and the possibility of losing mates. To greatly simplify, there's a reason we feel jealousy -- to insure our DNA passes on (for men), and to insure our support system and protection stay intact (for women).



Ultimately, our social systems tend to encourage stability, so we don't devolve into anarchy, and so that we can focus our energies on productivity toward improving the quality of all our lives.



Alas, we still have war. :(