Picture a boy. Let's say he has a long-time girlfriend. One day he learns that his girl is very close to another boy. She isn't having a sexual relationship with this second boy, but the two of them have a very strong friendship. For all intents, they're best friends. How do you think the boyfriend feels about this?
If you're a boy then you know the answer already. He might be a little pissed off, he might feel insecure, jealous or envious. Or he might not care. It might make no difference whatsoever. It has the potential to be a small problem or no problem at all. It's certainly not going to be a deal-breaker.
Now imagine the girlfriend gets drunk one night and has sex with a stranger she meets at a party. Now all bets are off. The boyfriend could break it off with her, he could become violent, angry, he might even do something drastic. It's not uncommon to see horrific stories on the news that are motivated by sexual jealousy. Compared to the first hypothetical, this has a strong chance of ending badly.
The conclusion? Boys feel more strongly about sexual encounters than they do about emotional ones. If you're a girl then you can be best friends with other boys. That's not going to cause too many headaches. Having sex with another boy on the other hand is going to cause headaches. Things will probably never be the same again.
I've always known this. For years I've known it intuitively and I've seen it. I've never experienced it first-hand but, like any deep thinker with too much time on his hands, I've imagined how I might feel about certain scenarios. Sexual infidelity is always the most severe.
At a younger age I also learnt that the opposite was true for women. Fellas, can you believe that women are likely to be more upset at you if your best friend is another girl, as opposed to you getting drunk and doing something stupid with her? I know, it makes no sense.
I remember once discussing the issue with an ex-girlfriend. We were walking down the street together. I've no idea how the topic came up but I remember telling her how any reasonable person must surely regard sexual indiscretion as the most severe breach of trust. She said no, no, no. Sex doesn't mean anything. Emotional connections though, those are the really important details.
I understood her in theory, but in practice? Sorry, there's no reasoning with millions of years of evolution. Or so I thought. At the time I had no idea where the difference came from. As always though, looking at the instincts as adaptations took away all the mystery.
You've got to remember, whenever a behaviour or a trait is shared by vast numbers of a population, there's probably an evolutionary reason for it. To figure out the reason you've got to go back to the data. In this case that means the circumstances under which life flourished in the EEA—the Era of Evolutionary Adaptiveness. I mentioned this in my last blog entry. It's the time and place to which evolution suited our bodies and our brains.
So jump back 200,000 years. Let's say there are two couples, the Rubbles and the Flintstones. The Rubbles have no jealous tendencies whatsoever and don't feel territorial over one another. If Barney cheats on Betty, she doesn't mind and vice-versa. The Flintstones however are very jealous. Just as in love but they're not willing to share each other.
Before I continue, let's establish one thing. Men and women cheat. There are evolutionary explanations for why these tendencies arose—different reasons for each gender—but they're not worth going in to. It happens, or else there would have been no reason for jealously to evolve. Just accept it and move on.
Imagine that one day Betty begins a sexual relationship with Fred. Betty has no intention of leaving Barney, she just wants to have sex with both men. Barney makes no effort to stop her. Nine months later, Betty gives birth. The baby is Fred's, but nobody knows this. Barney assumes the child is his and raises him as such. Barney's indifference to his wife's sexual infidelity has resulted in him expending time and energy in to raising another man's baby. Barney's indifferent genes are not being passed on to future generations because they allow his wife to have other men's babies.
Imagine that one day Barney develops a close personal relationship with Wilma. They aren't sleeping together, but he feels a closeness to her that could rival what he feels for Betty. Betty makes no effort to keep Barney and Wilma apart. Eventually Barney decides to leave Betty in an effort to be with Wilma. Betty has no way of fending for herself and her illegitimate child, resulting in them both dying. Betty's indifference has prevented her un-jealous genes from being passed on.
You don't have to assume that both examples occurred at the same time. Either one of them would result in passive males or females not passing on their genes. Barney's indifference to Betty's sexual forays kept his genes from spreading, while Betty's nonchalance regarding Barney's emotional endeavours kept her genes from spreading. Thus passivity would not spread quickly.
Now let's turn to the jealous Flintstones. Wilma begins flirting with Barney as a prelude to a sexual rendezvous. Fred stamps it out quickly and demands that Wilma cease her cuckoldry. She complies and doesn't have a relationship with Barney. Nine months later Wilma has a baby. It can only be Fred's. Fred's jealous genes kept Wilma from cheating and they have spread to the next generation.
Fred begins to get close to Betty. They talk on the... phone... for hours and become very involved. Wilma puts a stop to that shit pronto and tells Fred to keep his eyes on her. Fred complies. He continues to care for his wife and child, ensuring that Wilma's jealous genes continue in to the next generation.
Once again this shows how sexual jealously on the male part can keep his genes in contention for survival and how a female's jealously of emotional bonds between her husband and another woman can keep the husband from deserting her and her baby. Incidentally, this is also the same reason women compete with one another.
I wrote a while back that I couldn't for the life of me figure out why women compete with each other. Women put on make-up, they get fake tans, they beautify themselves endlessly. Why? Men already want you. It turns out they do it to keep their men from leaving them and their gene-filled children to die alone. It's not just about attracting a man—which any woman can do—it's about keeping him.
To complete the prehistoric metaphor, let's return to the Flintstones and see what happens when each person commits the "lesser" kind of cheating. Remember men don't care much if a girl develops a relationship with another man and women care a lot less if a man has sex with another girl (which still sounds ridiculous every time I say it.)
So Wilma and Fred have a child and they're all happy. Let's imagine Wilma gets close to Barney. They aren't having sex—Fred already put a stop to that—but they're very friendly. Well so what? Wilma is still caring for her child, meaning Fred's genes continue to the next generation whether or not he intervenes. He doesn't, because he has no reason to. Men didn't have to evolve to care who a woman spends her time with, just who else she's sleeping with.
Now for the opposite view. Fred isn't going to leave Wilma for Betty, meaning he's not going to leave Wilma's child to die, but he is going to sleep with Betty. Again, so what? Wilma's genes survive because she doesn't have to care who Fred sleeps with. It's only a problem if Fred leaves her. If Fred has kids with Betty and he makes Barney raise them then Wilma doesn't lose anything.
It might undermine my point by using the Flintstones and the Rubbles to comedic effect but it shouldn't. If you can follow the trains of thought then you should see how a man's sexual jealously kept his own genes propagating and how a woman's emotional jealousy kept her husband from deserting her.
But this isn't to say that we shouldn't feel hurt if our significant others cheat on us, even if it's the lesser form of cheating. We're complex animals. We feel, we hurt. It's very natural to feel pain when we're deceived. Knowing a little about where these instincts come from though might be the first step to controlling them.
Here's an example of how we can overcome our genetic dispositions. A man's genes tell him—at all hours of the day—go and have sex with something. Why? Because these genes lead to lots of babies. So what do men do today? They have as much sex as they can. But they wear condoms. 200,000 years ago, obeying my genes would have gotten me a bunch of kids. Today I can obey my genes and not have to worry about kids.
Our genes will always be feeding out instincts and our baser urges. That doesn't mean we have to be slaves to them. We can overpower them and control them. This is why not all people cheat, why we use birth control and why we're nice when nobody is looking. One day I hope we can learn to control our emotional response too. It would certainly make the evening news far more pleasant.
