Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: Larry should be king, in control, not his genes

By Ken Wightman     Apr 15, 2010 in Lifestyle
A famous man, Larry King this time, is accused in the press of cheating and the talk starts that it is simply in his nature; He's a man!
So Larry King is facing another divorce and according to a Digital Journal article he may have been caught cheating by his wife, a few years his junior.
A Louisiana man reportedly said, "That's the nature of men since ancient times." Others are saying that Larry can't help himself; It's in his genes. Actually, it is not in his jeans and that's his problem.
Whenever I hear folk blaming actions on genes, I cringe. I have an especially strong reaction when I hear someone claiming to be on solid scientific ground in excusing the actions of cheating men. "Men are natural Don Juans, " these people say. "It's in their genes." Nature intended men to be lovers, to go forth and multiply.
I cringe, but I cringe silently. I have no comeback. I think these people are way off base but they are espousing an evolutionary position taught even in some high schools. These discussions add levity to science classes struggling to hold student interest.
Then I read Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice To All Creation. The good doctor, actually Olivia Judson, an evolutionary biologist who writes for many well known publications, goes to great lengths to show how this is a law of nature that isn't. To be blunt, this notion is nonsense. Sorry, Larry. And Tiger, you're back on the hook.
Judson tell us, "The man who first lent scientific respectability to this notion was A.J. Bateman. In 1948, he published a paper . . . in which he claimed to have proved that males have evolved to make love and females to make babies."
Bateman "proclaimed with a flourish, males (including humans) are natural philanderers while females (again including humans) are naturally chaste."
Judson says Bateman's position when it came to sex was that "males produce lots of tiny, cheap sperm whereas females produce a few large, expensive eggs . . . one man could easily fertilize all the eggs of many females." Men who have many women are just following a genetic imperative.
Bateman's principal, as it is known, has been all the rage for decades. Feminists invoke it, scientists expound on it, and many a silver tongued Lothario has sought shelter in its core belief: Men are cads, women are saints. It is just the way of the world.
Unfortunately, according to Judson, "Bateman's principal has a fundamental flaw: it's wrong. In most species, girls are more strumpet than saint. Rather than mating once, they'll mate with several fellows, and often with far, far more than necessary just to fertilize their eggs."
Take a deep breath, guys, it gets worse. When my wife read the first draft she had daggers in her eyes as she glanced from the computer monitor to me: "Woman are not, are not . . . I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. Harrumph!"
Never "harrumph" me. It sends me googling, researching. And this is where this whole discussions takes a nasty turn.
I discovered the following: In Stuttgart, Germany, a man hired his neighbour to get his wife pregnant.
It seems a 29-year-old husband and his former beauty queen wife wanted a child badly, but the husband was told by a doctor that he was sterile. So, he hired his neighbour to impregnate the queen. Since the neighbour was already married and the father of two children, plus looked very much like our cuckold-husband-to-be, the plan seemed good. The neighbourhood stud was paid $2,500 for the job and for three evenings a week for the next six months, he tried desperately, a total of 72 different times, to deliver on his promise. But it turned out that the spirit was willing but the sperm was weak.
After six full months the young wife failed to get pregnant. The lass's husband was not understanding and insisted that his neighbour have a medical examination, which he did. The doctor's announcement was that the neighbour was as sterile as the husband. This news shocked everyone except the neighbour's wife, who was forced to confess that the stud was not the father of their two children.
At last report, the husband is suing for breach of contract in an effort to get his money back. (From the post 10 Most Bizarre Paternity Stories.)
Funny? Yes. Uncommon? Not as uncommon as you might think. It is a frequent enough occurrence that it even has a couple of names: The children's rights movement calls it "child identity fraud", while the father's rights movement calls it "paternity fraud".
Beginning in the 1980s, the development of sophisticated genetic techniques enabled biologists to investigate paternity and what they discovered was something astonishing, something no one had predicted - namely that, from stick insects to chimpanzees, females are hardly ever faithful.
I'm going to give the last word on paternity fraud to Heather Draper who wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics: "Paternity testing might be an effective test of genetic relatedness and infidelity, but it is an ineffective test of fatherhood." Scissors cut paper, paper wraps stone, and compassion, love and humanity trumps genes. Tiger Woods, and those like him, do not hold a winning hand. In fact, when it comes to trumps, they're chumps.
If you want to get into the lady's genes, maybe you should take your cue from the black vultures which apparently have a strong social convention supporting monogamy. These birds insist that sex be conducted in the privacy of the nest and they won't tolerate lewd behaviour in public. Who'd have thought?
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about Larry king, Genes, Cheating
 
Latest News
Top News