It does not matter that reality insists on showing us healthy and happy women who change partners frequently, that the obvious data around us point to them as those who most often decide to divorce, those who least conform to the defects of their companions and those with less effort rebuild their love life after a breakup.
Many are still bent on the falsified prehistoric postcard in which women are passive gatherers waiting for their man in the cave all their lives while he finds time, it is not known how
That women have other reserve men besides their partner was a smart way to secure the future of the species.
In fact, as Dr. David Buss has told the ‘Sunday Times’, “monogamy forever does not characterize the basic mating patterns of human beings.”
Buss is the lead author of a new scientific study from the University of Texas that may spell the end of the hypothesis that human evolution has tended to monogamy.
Basic human pattern
This idea is largely an inherited bias, and there are no serious studies showing that we are more genetically predisposed to monogamy than to all other options.
In fact, one of the most interesting conclusions of these researchers is that “breaking up with someone and pairing again could be one of the most common characteristics of human mating, if not the most important strategy of all,” says this scientist. .
It is not modern that women are interested in changing men, but the result of our adaptation to the environment since time immemorial, and it was probably even more common in the first human settlers: “For our ancestors, who suffered from diseases, a poor diet and minimal medical care and they had a life expectancy of less than 30 years, changing sexual partners and finding a more suitable one was necessary. “
It is not that we get bored more or seek more “selfish” pleasure, it is that it was basic to survive and evolve as a species.
Pairing insurance
Infidelity would not have particularly bothered Darwin in scientific terms either. That women are unfaithful is useful, and even of mortal necessity: in the hardest times in our history, when men were not too safe as stable partners.
According to Buss, “they could die, mate with others, abandon them, or simply lose courage as partners.”
Having other reserve men was not an obstacle for the good of all but the opposite, an intelligent way to improve the future, as a “match insurance” in the words of Buss.
The idea that women need to retain only one male forever while they need to be unfaithful and replace them at the first change is behind many personal and historical errors. In view of the data we have, it may be time to stop committing them.
